Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

18911131423

Comments

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    The Silent Generation starts in the mid- to late-1920s, depending on who's doing the defining, and runs till 1945. Americans born in 1925 were 16 when the US entered WW2 in late 1941, so the Silent Generation in the US did not get sent to war.
    Not necessarily. Those born in 1925 may have been 16 when the US entered the war, but they turned 18 before the war ended. My father-in-law was born in 1926. He enlisted before WWII was over.
    Ruth wrote: »
    Edited to add: The generational thing is all a bit bullshit, IMO. I was born in 1962, so technically am a baby boomer, but coming at the very end of it (it goes through 1964) means I didn't have quintessential baby boom experiences. I'm supposedly too old to be part of Gen X, but when their experiences are described, they fit a lot better.
    1961 here, so I know that exactly what you mean. I might replace “a bit bullshit” with “imprecise and fluid.” I too think Gen X often fits me better, but there are some Baby Boomer traits (if that’s the right word) that also fit—perhaps because I’m the youngest child in my family, with siblings born in the first half of the 50s.

    The generational labels are generalities. They can be helpful as long as we don’t think of them as rigid truths instead of just additional information that may describe some commonalities.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Those born in 1925 may have been 16 when the US entered the war, but they turned 18 before the war ended. My father-in-law was born in 1926. He enlisted before WWII was over.

    I suspect that's why Pew defined the Silent Generation as beginning with those born in 1928, so the oldest member of that Generation wouldn't turn 18 until 1946.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    edited May 22
    [Edit to note cross-post.]

    The divisions are too large to be meaningful for this discussion, IMO. Donald Trump was born in 1946, the first year of the baby boom, and Kamala Harris was born in 1964, the last year. People born in 1964 are not the same generation as those born in 1946, they didn't have anything close to the same experiences, and they shouldn't be in the same group. The baby boom was, yes, a demographic phenomenon that lasted from 1946 to 1964, but it's not a useful way to think about a whole lot of other things. For the purposes of discussions like this one, we should divide the group between those who were old enough to go to Woodstock, or at least old enough to want to go, and those who weren't.

    Ronald Reagan was elected president when I was a college freshman. Don't tell me I'm in the same generation as people who dropped acid in the 60s or who partied in Haight-Ashbury.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I too think Gen X often fits me better, but there are some Baby Boomer traits (if that’s the right word) that also fit—perhaps because I’m the youngest child in my family, with siblings born in the first half of the 50s.

    Whereas my siblings are both younger than me and fit into the Gen X years.
    The generational labels are generalities. They can be helpful as long as we don’t think of them as rigid truths instead of just additional information that may describe some commonalities.

    Sure, but what are the commonalities between people born in 1946 and those born in 1964?
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    Sure, but what are the commonalities between people born in 1946 and those born in 1964?
    Well, one I can think of is parents who grew up during the Depression and who fought in, or waited at home during, WWII. Sure, the closer to 1964 that one is born, that becomes less likely—hence my “imprecise and fluid.”

    Another might be the phases of the Cold War that extended through mid- to late-60s. Vietnam might be another—I was 14 when it ended, but among my earliest TV memories are the death counts on the nightly news, and I had a brother draft age. (My oldest sibling was born in 1950.)

    I totally agree that the divisions are too large to be particularly meaningful for political discussions like in this thread.

    I tend to think part of the problem lies in thinking of “generations” as people born between specified years instead of something like the children of people in an age cohort. I’m just a year older than you, but I have a feeling, given that I was the youngest child and you were the oldest, that my parents were older than yours. I’m the kid of Depression-era, WWII parents, which makes me a classic Baby Boomer, even if I was born at the tail end of it. I couldn’t have gone to Woodstock, but my sister and brother could have, and we’re the same generation.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I didn't realise the silent generation was an actual thing, and was more talking about people born all over the world when I called them Decimated.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I think I saw somewhere that white people born between 1960 and 1964 were the only white age group of which a majority didn't vote for Trump.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Looks like we've got a contender for the "but her emails!" of the 2020 election cycle.
    Warren’s presidential campaign released a list of 56 cases on her website on Wednesday night, revealing a far higher number of cases than Warren (D-Mass.) had previously disclosed and lending detail to an aspect of her career that she rarely discusses in public.

    <snip>

    “Elizabeth was one of the nation’s top experts on how to make sure victims hurt by bankrupt companies eventually got paid,” Warren’s website said Wednesday night. “Throughout her career, she worked to help set up trusts and other mechanisms to return $27 billion to victims and their families.”

    A nationally recognized expert in bankruptcy law, Warren consulted for more than a dozen committees representing claimants and creditors in these cases, often in partnership with the law firm Caplin & Drysdale, for an hourly rate of $675.

    <snip>

    Details about Warren’s compensation were scant in court records. Documents reviewed by The Post showed that Warren made at least $462,321.75 from her work in 13 cases, although the total for those cases might be much higher. Warren has released only her last 10 years of tax returns, and much of her legal consulting work is not reflected in those documents.

    So the big scandal seems to be that a nationally recognized expert on bankruptcy law took gigs outside of her law school job and charged wealthy people market rates for her expertise? Like others I have to wonder if this would be regarded as a big news item if the expert in question was a man. I like how they estimated her likely income down to the nearest penny so they could cram in more numerals, and how they mention that Warren has released "only her last 10 years of tax returns", which is the standard amount for every post-Watergate major party presidential nominee, with one very notable exception.

    For that extra level of mendacity, a lot of people likely to criticize Warren about this or claim that there's something unseemly about law professors taking outside jobs representing clients or serving as expert witnesses will be the same folks who last week were arguing about the absolute sanctity of law professors being able to take outside work.

    Here's a non-paywalled, less alarmist version of the same story.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Seems to me Obama was a Gen Xer. I was not ignoring the Gen X contributions, but I was making a comparison between the two major generations that are impacting 2020.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Gramps, as a member of a minor generation, I'm not sure that makes it any better :smile:

    The more I find out about Elizabeth Warren, the more I want her to emigrate to Australia and take up a job enforcing and improving our consumer protection laws while lecturing our next generation of lawyers on a part time basis. We will love her and cherish her and flock to her public lectures like the star-struck groupies that many of us are.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Hey, mitts off! Some of us are quite attached to making her president.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Seems to me Obama was a Gen Xer.

    Barack Obama was born in 1961. Demographically that makes him part of the baby boom. Some have argued that culturally those born between 1961 and 1964 have more in common with Generation X that with the Baby Boomers, at least as a broad generalization.
  • amyboamybo Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Seems to me Obama was a Gen Xer. I was not ignoring the Gen X contributions, but I was making a comparison between the two major generations that are impacting 2020.

    It's OK. We're cool with hanging back, watching the Boomers and Millenials tear at each other, and getting on with our lives. B)
  • Fawkes CatFawkes Cat Shipmate
    amybo wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Seems to me Obama was a Gen Xer. I was not ignoring the Gen X contributions, but I was making a comparison between the two major generations that are impacting 2020.

    It's OK. We're cool with hanging back, watching the Boomers and Millenials tear at each other, and getting on with our lives. B)

    <tangent>

    - As a fellow GenX person (born 1966, so have I got that right?) I do wonder if a lot of the problems are because we didn't take our turn at leadership.

    In (UK) politics, and in other pastimes, there seems to be a pattern that boomers got involved in leadership in their twenties and thirties - and are still there, unchallenged by my generation. The millennials are now the potential young leaders - and to their credit seem to be getting on with it.

    Did we fail society by being too busy with getting on with our lives?

    </tangent>
  • amyboamybo Shipmate
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    amybo wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Seems to me Obama was a Gen Xer. I was not ignoring the Gen X contributions, but I was making a comparison between the two major generations that are impacting 2020.

    It's OK. We're cool with hanging back, watching the Boomers and Millenials tear at each other, and getting on with our lives. B)

    <tangent>

    - As a fellow GenX person (born 1966, so have I got that right?) I do wonder if a lot of the problems are because we didn't take our turn at leadership.

    In (UK) politics, and in other pastimes, there seems to be a pattern that boomers got involved in leadership in their twenties and thirties - and are still there, unchallenged by my generation. The millennials are now the potential young leaders - and to their credit seem to be getting on with it.

    Did we fail society by being too busy with getting on with our lives?

    </tangent>

    I honestly don't think so. I'm at the other side of GenX, almost a Milennial, and I really think we did the best we could. In my work experience, for example, Boomers actively shut us out. They didn't want to mentor, they didn't create entry-level jobs, they didn't give us the opportunity to try and fail, just the crap jobs that nobody else was willing to put up with. And in the political sphere, fellow Xers and I were practically chased out of the Democrats' primary by the Boomer old guard. So yeah, if you're not invited to the party I think it's fine to grab some popcorn as it breaks up and wait to FINALLY start cleaning up.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Speak for yourselves. Our PM (curse him) is Gen X, as is our current Opposition Leader, the Premiers of every State, and the leaders in our two self-governing territories. The bloke who is probably going to be the next leader of our Federal opposition was born in 1963.

    Isn't Nicola Sturgeon a young-un? Just for a laugh I looked up a few Brit pollies. Arlene Foster is gen x, as is Jacob Rees-Mogg, Michael Gove, Piers Morgan, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farrage, and the architect of their current predicament, David Cameron.

  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    What are people's reactions on stories like this:
    The truth was, he never really liked the [GM plant] work. He found it boring and physically demanding.

    ...

    In those early years, Mr. Marsh didn’t care about politics. He voted for Democrats without really thinking about it. It was what his family had always done, more out of union loyalty than ideology.

    ...

    “It’s literally in your face — the decline of manufacturing,” he said. “You can work where I work and watch it.”

    Nafta had given him a new political awareness: Republicans may have started it, but it was Democrats who sealed the deal.

    “That’s when I realized these parties were not so different,” he said. “They are all there to make money on our backs.”

    ...

    Still, he kept voting for Democrats, including twice for Barack Obama. He gives him credit for the bailout of G.M. ...

    He knew what it looked like. Mr. Trump was kind of crazy. But he liked the fact that he didn’t back down. Then Mr. Trump brought up Nafta, and it was like he was speaking directly to Mr. Marsh. Nothing else mattered — not Russia, not porn stars, not divorces.

    “Nobody had our backs in office, not Democrats or Republicans,” he said. “I’m tired of being sugarcoated and being robbed in the process.”

    Much more in the article. He now says:
    The presidential election is still many months away, and he hasn’t started paying attention to any of the candidates. But he plans to watch the debates carefully to see whether any political leader in America understands his family’s story.

    The answer has never felt more important.

    “People are going to get hungry, and when I mean hungry, I don’t mean just for food,” he said. “I think, once you get pushed to a point that you have nothing left,” he said, and paused. “Without the ability to feed my family and pay for my children and feed my children, what am I as a man?”

    Does it give you insights? Frustrate you in any sense? Wonder at what is going on? All and more? I find myself just upset at the increasing gaps in inequality. And the glib answers many politicians give. Do you see people like the interviewed Mr Marsh having a choice, and their choice making a difference?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    My first question is: Is manufacturing the future in America?

    My second is: Should someone tell Mr Marsh that his identity is more than the breadwinner. Should he be put in touch with support groups to help him deal with changing identities?

    My third is: Why put your faith in a confidence man who has a track record of screwing over working people?

    My final observation is Billy Bragg's Between the Wars. The standout lyric "...build me a path from cradle to grave. And I'll give my consent to any Government that does not deny a man a living wage."
  • Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    amybo wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Seems to me Obama was a Gen Xer. I was not ignoring the Gen X contributions, but I was making a comparison between the two major generations that are impacting 2020.

    It's OK. We're cool with hanging back, watching the Boomers and Millenials tear at each other, and getting on with our lives. B)

    <tangent>

    - As a fellow GenX person (born 1966, so have I got that right?) I do wonder if a lot of the problems are because we didn't take our turn at leadership.

    In (UK) politics, and in other pastimes, there seems to be a pattern that boomers got involved in leadership in their twenties and thirties - and are still there, unchallenged by my generation. The millennials are now the potential young leaders - and to their credit seem to be getting on with it.

    Did we fail society by being too busy with getting on with our lives?

    </tangent>

    No. Our elders got a stranglehold on public life and didn’t (indeed still don’t) feel the need to hand it over to us. As I mentioned earlier, Generation X is numerically quite small. And one reason we have been absorbed in getting on with our lives is that keeping afloat for us has been rather harder than it was for the Boomers. Just putting a roof over your head has been much harder for people our age than it was in the 70s when our parents were setting up.

    I’ve mentioned this book before. It overstates its case, IMO, but does make some very salient points about the way the Boomer generation made policy to their own advantage and left their children to pay the bill. With the arrival of the Millennial generation, a cohort has finally arrived with enough strength in numbers to challenge the status quo of Boomer power in a way Generation X couldn’t.

    FWIW France has a late Generation X-er president (he’s forty). He started off rather well, but you may have noticed that things have rather, ahem, gone downhill for him lately.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate


    No. Our elders got a stranglehold on public life and didn’t (indeed still don’t) feel the need to hand it over to us. As I mentioned earlier, Generation X is numerically quite small. And one reason we have been absorbed in getting on with our lives is that keeping afloat for us has been rather harder than it was for the Boomers. Just putting a roof over your head has been much harder for people our age than it was in the 70s when our parents were setting up.

    We Boomers didn't have nearly as easy a time buying houses or starting businesses as our Greatest Generation parents. The percentage of income we paid for housing and to educate our children was far higher than the previous generation. We struggled to house , feed and educate your generation. We were the first generation to enact laws that, while making manufacturing and farming harder for our generation, helped protect the environment for future generations. We worked to make life better for women and minorities, making advances against the racist status quo that had existed since the civil war. The first president of our generation was Clinton in 1993, no one "handed over power," to us. I really don't know what you think we should have done to make life easier for you or what crystal ball we should have used to predict the future. If your generation has all the answers, please, let us know.

  • amyboamybo Shipmate
    You could have listened to us.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    We Boomers . . . were the first generation to enact laws that, while making manufacturing and farming harder for our generation, helped protect the environment for future generations.

    Hardly the first. The Progressive era saw things like the Pure Food and Drug Act, the establishment of America's National Park system, workplace safety laws and wage protections, and other environmental measures. For the record, the oldest Boomers were voting age in 1967 (the Twenty-Sixth Amendment wasn't ratified until 1971, before which the voting age was 21 in most of the U.S.) so any laws passed prior to that (like the Clear Air Act) can't really be attributed to them. The youngest Boomers got their suffrage in 1982. While I would agree that a lot of important U.S. environmental law was passed once the Baby Boomers achieved political power (Clean Water Act, Superfund, etc.) it's a gross exaggeration to claim that they were the first to enact such laws. Heck, the National Forest system was a Gilded Age innovation.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Very much unimpressed by Mr. Marsh's whining. I was laid off twice in ten years. I got up and kept on working. My career is doing well. Would that have guaranteeably worked for Mr. Marsh? Perhaps not, you have to redefine yourself to fit what is needed. I've done that too. Would he find the same stability he lost? Probably not but since I've never had that stability, I can't pity him for losing what almost no one in my generation--I'm 36--ever had.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    We Boomers . . . were the first generation to enact laws that, while making manufacturing and farming harder for our generation, helped protect the environment for future generations.

    Hardly the first. The Progressive era saw things like the Pure Food and Drug Act, the establishment of America's National Park system, workplace safety laws and wage protections, and other environmental measures. For the record, the oldest Boomers were voting age in 1967 (the Twenty-Sixth Amendment wasn't ratified until 1971, before which the voting age was 21 in most of the U.S.) so any laws passed prior to that (like the Clear Air Act) can't really be attributed to them. The youngest Boomers got their suffrage in 1982. While I would agree that a lot of important U.S. environmental law was passed once the Baby Boomers achieved political power (Clean Water Act, Superfund, etc.) it's a gross exaggeration to claim that they were the first to enact such laws. Heck, the National Forest system was a Gilded Age innovation.

    Right, I'm sure there were laws made with the environment in mind before us, but as I said I was talking about laws where companies specifically had to sacrifice a lot of profit in the moment for a better planet for future generations. Because we were accused of never thinking about the future. I grew up in an area where their were lots of big chemical plants, they had to make many expensive changes in the 1970's regarding their chemical waste. We tried to save animals from extinction. The first Environmental Protection Agency in my town opened in the 1970's.

    As I remember we talked a lot about trying to have fewer children than our parents did for the sake of the planet. It's one reason I only had one child. I was born in 1946, front end of the Baby Boomers, lots of my classmates died in Vietnam, many of them tried to "get back to nature," with farming and crafts, others got in on the ground floor of the computer industry and made decent wages, but I don't know anyone who made a fortune and then spent it all on themselves never thinking once of their children.

    amybo wrote: »
    You could have listened to us.

    If you were always that vague, maybe we tried to, but you were being too coy to talk.

    La vie en rouge has accused us of gross selfishness and implied we should have all killed ourselves years ago to get out of her way, Croesos has straightened me out in supposing we ever did anything good, and Amybo says we never did listen to her.

    I feel like you've all run to your room and slammed the door shouting, "If you don't know what you did wrong we're not going to tell you."
  • If you're going to start spouting nonsense about thinking you should have killed yourselves, I don't think there's much of a conversation to be had. My gripes are more pedestrian: things like how many Boomers have profited from a housing bubble that utterly priced their children out of the market (in the UK you can add in selling off all the social housing stock) and running up a giant deficit that their children and grandchildren are going to have to pay off.

    And I don't believe History is going to treat the Boomers kindly on the subject of climate change.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    edited May 29
    If you're going to start spouting nonsense about thinking you should have killed yourselves, I don't think there's much of a conversation to be had.
    Well then what did you mean by, "Our elders got a stranglehold on public life and didn’t (indeed still don’t) feel the need to hand it over to us?" It sure sounds like you want us gone. If not dead, what? Sitting quietly in the park? Oh no! That would mean you poor mistreated things had to work to support our social security needs. The same way we did for our seniors, but didn't bitch and moan about it.
    And I don't believe History is going to treat the Boomers kindly on the subject of climate change.

    Oh, I don't think History will treat Boomers kindly about anything, not considering who will be writing it.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited May 29
    Twilight wrote: »
    Right, I'm sure there were laws made with the environment in mind before us, but as I said I was talking about laws where companies specifically had to sacrifice a lot of profit in the moment for a better planet for future generations.

    The National Forests were established largely to protect watersheds from the cattle barons and mining companies. In other words, they had to sacrifice a lot of profit in the moment for a better planet for future generations.

    The National Parks were a later iteration that simply preserved natural beauty from the aforementioned cattle and mining interests, plus real estate developers. Those interests had to sacrifice a lot of profit in the moment for a better planet for future generations.

    Same case could be made for the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, which cost a lot of land owners and developers a significant amount of profit.

    And I'm not at all sure how the pre-Boomer Clean Air Act (1963) doesn't require companies to sacrifice profit while the (barely) Boomer-era Clean Water Act (1972) does.
    Twilight wrote: »
    Crœsos has straightened me out in supposing we ever did anything good, . . .

    I'm never sure whether comments like that are trolling. It seems to play into the stereotypical Baby Boom insecurity that unless some worthy accomplishment is unique or a first or in some other way superlative that makes it garbage and worthless. It seems too on the nose a reaction to me pointing out that the very worthwhile environmental preservation laws pushed for by the Boomers aren't the first laws of that kind. But @Twilight seems sincere.
    Twilight wrote: »
    Oh, I don't think History will treat Boomers kindly about anything, not considering who will be writing it.

    I'm not sure the sentient bees that take over after the Sixth Extinction will treat any human generations kindly.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    The Boomers certainly have a lot for which to answer, but this all seems unduly harsh. Is there anything that's not our fault?
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    Yes, this is being unfairly harsh on the boomers. The eco-problems go back to the beginning of the industrial revolution, and then some. And surely nobody owes it to anyone to jump off the employment ladder just to make room for younger people--particularly when one still needs to make a living oneself. Not all boomers are wealthy (duh). And it's nobody's blame if they happen to be born in a more favorable time as far as financial climate, etc. go.

    The one thing I wish for is that people (boomers and otherwise) would stop being shits to one another on the basis of broad generalizations (read: stereotypes) and jealousy. Of which I'm just as guilty, I admit. It sucks to be a) overlookable due to being part of a small generation, and b) no longer young, so you realize that the adverse conditions you've been laboring under are likely to continue lifelong. Though I must say that after 50 years in the pits I think I've finally come out into the sun, career-wise.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    they are all just freaking labels. One more way for us to divide ourselves and jump in the trenches.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Time to move the goal posts. Originally the Democratic Party had said candidates would have to have 65,000 people pledging to their campaign to qualify for the first Democratic Debate. Well, too many candidates achieved that. So now the posts have been changed to 165,000 pledges averaging $25 per pledge. Fair? Hell no. :(
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Time to move the goal posts. Originally the Democratic Party had said candidates would have to have 65,000 people pledging to their campaign to qualify for the first Democratic Debate. Well, too many candidates achieved that. So now the posts have been changed to 165,000 pledges averaging $25 per pledge. Fair? Hell no. :(

    I believe that the qualifications for the first Democratic debate remain unchanged. The qualifications for later debates have recently been set higher than for the first debate, but there was never any guarantee that the same standard would be universally applicable as time went on. Or at least that's my understanding. Link?

    I guess from a certain perspective it could be argued that the new DNC standards discriminate against candidates no one likes or supports, but then so do primary elections themselves. If you haven't boosted your support to what is required by the time the third Democratic primary debate rolls around, it's just not your year.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I believe that the qualifications for the first Democratic debate remain unchanged. The qualifications for later debates have recently been set higher than for the first debate, but there was never any guarantee that the same standard would be universally applicable as time went on. Or at least that's my understanding.
    That’s my understanding as well. In fact, my understanding is that the DNC made clear early on that the qualification requirements for later debates likely would be higher than those for the first debates.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Plus, there is only one spot up for grabs at the end of the day. You've got to winnow them down some way. Also, you have got to have space on the stage for the fair dinkum contenders to shine. Who gives a stuff about Tulsi Gabbard, the only less than one percenter who's name I remember because I really don't like her.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I know Joe Biden is running largely on nostalgia, but this is ridiculous!
    Former Vice President Joe Biden released his $1.7 trillion climate plan online Tuesday — and it had to be updated after reports parts of the proposal appeared to be taken from other sources.

    Several sentences in Biden's lengthy "Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice" were taken directly from two environmental groups without attribution — an embarrassment for a candidate who's faced plagiarism allegations in the past.

    Given his past history you'd think the Biden campaign would have a Director of Footnotes who would review all documents before publications, but apparently not.

    For those who are too young to remember here's Wikipedia's summary of Biden's previous battles with citations. Who knows? Maybe in an era where it's okay to meet with representatives of foreign governments who promise to aid your campaign the public will be willing to forgive a little plagiary.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I so wish Biden weren't running, and this is one of the reasons: his incredible penchant for embarrassing himself and the party.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Director of Footnotes! lol.

    I'm with you Ohher. I just don't like the guy. Hair-sniffing freak.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Vox reminds us that Donald Trump is particularly unpopular for an incumbent president with a decent economy. His overall, aggregate approval rating has been notoriously invariable, hovering in the low 40-ish% range seemingly regardless of anything that happens. Being a curious sort I decided to run Morning Consult's state-by-state data through my analyzer and see what the current state of play is at the moment. I broke this into four different categories.

    Trumplandia: These are states where Trump's approval rating is at or above 50%. He and/or his agenda is popular there. Fourteen states (AL, AR, ID, KY, LA, MO, MS, MT, OK, SC, SD, TN, WV, and WY) controlling 92 electoral votes fall into this classification as of May 2019 according to Morning Consult. These are states Trump is very likely to carry in 2020, barring some unforeseen circumstance.

    Rightistan: Trump's approval rating is less than 50% here but still greater than or equal to his disapproval rating. Nine states (AK, FL, GA, IN, KS, ND, NE, TX, and UT) controlling 117 electoral votes make up this geographically scattered "region".

    Battlegroundia: States where Trump is underwater (disapproval is greater than approval) but his approval rating is no lower than 40%. Twelve states (AZ, CO, IA, MI, MN, NM, NC, NV, OH, PA, VA, and WI) controlling 139 electoral votes fall into this category. I'd expect most of the general election campaign of 2020 to be fought in these states.

    La Resistance: States where Trump's approval rating is 39% or lower. Fifteen states (CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA) plus the District of Columbia make up this grouping. Together they control 190 electoral votes. It is unlikely Trump can win any of these states in 2020, though you never know about New Hampshire.

    This looks like a difficult but not impossible lift for re-election, which is the state of play as I see it right now. The obvious provisos: it is a long time from now until November 2020, during which anything can happen. Any major party nominee has a non-trivial chance of winning the presidential election.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    If Biden manages to stuff things up like he has often done and if Sanders isn't the phenomenon he was last time, then who?

    Warren might manage to unite the progressive wing of the party (although some progressives really would rather vote for someone nonwhite or someone younger), but could she get enough of the broader party behind her to get the nomination, especially in such a divided field? And if not her, who?

    Harris? Why isn't she polling better? I can see her picking up some Warren voters and some Biden voters if those candidates falter, given her strident attacks on Trump, unabashed (albeit vague at times) progressivism (despite some complications in her history as a prosecutor), and Obama-esque sunny "for the people" rhetoric. And the early California primary is sure to give her a boost. But her campaign hasn't been doing as well as I expected it to, even with the predictable two front-runners banking on their name recognition.

    Buttigieg? He seems to me a lot like the buffet of Republican candidates in both 2012 and 2016 that had their moment in the sun with the polls before being discarded for someone else before the eventual nominee arose. He speaks very well on a number of issues and as everyone says, he represents the "future" (although chiefly in age rather than in demographics). I just don't see him going very far. But that could be my own self-directed homophobia.

    I just don't like O'Rourke. I don't know why. So I'm not going to talk about him!

    The only others I can see as having any real chance are Booker and Klobuchar. As unknown as they are to many (you'd think Booker would get more name recognition, but maybe I'm too much of a political junkie to know much about what names ordinary people are familiar with), they seem to me to have more of a chance than any of the governors or others. I'm not sure why Gillibrand has performed so poorly but maybe it's because she straddles too many of the factions of the Democratic base and doesn't make a big splash among any of them.

    Feel free to tear me apart on all this!

    I'm just wondering if it turns out to be a circular firing squad like the Republicans had in 2016 who would rise out of the dust like Trump did (which is a scary thought). 2012 was somewhat similar for the GOP but Republicans settled on an establishment figure like Romney which I guess would be like Biden in this case. But I think this is more like the Republicans in 2016 because the Democrats are much more fractured, angry, and ideological than before and much more desperate to destroy the other party's candidate than in previous years. So it really could be someone that no one thought could possibly win who gets the nomination. Who could that Dark Horse be?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited June 14
    O'Rourke smells wrong to me too. I don't get 'shyster' from him, but maybe 'out of his depth?' He does nothing for me.

    Elizabeth Warren's dog looks absolutely brilliant - a Goldie I think but a bit long in the tooth. I think the Warrens would make a great first family if she decides not to accept my invitation for her to migrate to Australia and teach our next generation of lawyers.

    I like Amy Klobuchar.

    I hate Biden in the way you hate people who have hate slide off them. Hair-sniffing freak. Don't tell me that's not sexual. We had a pollie in WA get caught sniffing a woman's chair after she left a room. He resigned.

    Sanders... too old too slow and drops the s-bomb too often. Warren does it better - she's a capitalist who wants protections and a fair go for families.

    I had a fantasy that Warren was the nominee and Trump called her Pocahontas during a debate, and she just numbered off all the instances of corruption and false dealing he'd committed. In the other fantasy she turned into a wolf and tore his throat out.

    The rest I have no real view on, other than Buttigeg should run for the Senate if his state has a red senator up, and governor if not. Do things the Roman Republican way son. Work your way through the system.

    I think things will get clearer only after the voting has started. Surely people are just dancing for us now.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    The rest I have no real view on, other than Buttigeg should run for the Senate if his state has a red senator up, and governor if not.

    Indiana has no Senate elections in 2020. The governorship of Indiana is up for election in 2020 but it should be noted that the position doesn't have a lot of power by the standards of a typical governorship.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Is it still a good platform for a run later on?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is it still a good platform for a run later on?

    Probably. It didn’t do Mike Pence any harm.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Harris? Why isn't she polling better? I can see her picking up some Warren voters and some Biden voters if those candidates falter, given her strident attacks on Trump, unabashed (albeit vague at times) progressivism (despite some complications in her history as a prosecutor), and Obama-esque sunny "for the people" rhetoric. And the early California primary is sure to give her a boost. But her campaign hasn't been doing as well as I expected it to, even with the predictable two front-runners banking on their name recognition.

    I wouldn't count on Harris doing all that well in California, as she's still not all that well known outside of NorCal. She's a senator in part because Bay Area politics produce better candidates for state-wide office than LA politics do, but that doesn't help her in a national race where SoCal folks have non-California options. I'll be surprised if she gets a big boost from some kind of favorite daughter status, because I don't think she's well loved enough.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    The list of participants in the first Democratic Primary Debates (to be held June 26 and 27 in Miami) has been finalized. There are twenty candidates who met the DNC's criteria for participation, which conveniently is exactly the maximum number of participants the DNC says can be accommodated by a two-night debate format, sparing the DNC the difficulty of trying to figure out a fair way of further winnowing the field.

    Michael Bennet
    Joe Biden
    Cory Booker
    Pete Buttigieg
    Julián Castro

    Bill de Blasio
    John Delaney
    Tulsi Gabbard
    Kirsten Gillibrand
    Kamala Harris

    John Hickenlooper
    Jay Inslee
    Amy Klobuchar
    Beto O’Rourke

    Tim Ryan
    Bernie Sanders
    Eric Swalwell
    Elizabeth Warren
    Marianne Williamson
    Andrew Yang


    The names in bold qualified on both criteria (polling at least 1% support in at least 3 recognized national or early state polls or at least 65,000 unique donors). Those whose names are not in bold qualified on the basis of polling support alone.

    Not qualifying are:

    Steve Bullock
    Mike Gravel
    Seth Moulton

    Bullock is another one of those Democrats who could probably do his party more good by running for Senate than for President. He was governor of Montana, a small population state where personal connections matter. It would be a tough lift for Bullock to beat Steve Daines, but it would be even harder for some unknown Democrat to do so (and it would also be more likely than America swearing in President Bullock in 2021).
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    By a remarkable coincidence, Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, and Harris are all on the second night (it’s a random mix of 5 candidates polling above 2% and 5 polling below 2% each night for a total of 10 each night). This means that of the 5 candidates polling above 5% nationally or in key early primary states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, 4 will be on one night.

    See this link - there may be a paywall:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/democratic-polls.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

    The list of names for each night is here - also maybe behind a paywall, but this information is easily googleable:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/us/politics/democratic-debates-2020.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

    Warren is the only one of those who will be on the first night - she will have O’Rourke with her, who polls around 4%, as well as Klobuchar and Booker, who poll around 2%. This may give her a chance to shine, although I don’t know how many people will tune in for both nights and if they choose only one to watch it may very well be the second because it has Biden and Sanders. Also, Warren, whom I really like, would miss out on the chance to go toe to toe with the other front runners, which is a another way she might be able to shine.

    I know this is the result of random drawing of names, but it does feel a little imbalanced. I guess this just happens when there are too many candidates.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    edited June 15
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    O'Rourke smells wrong to me too. I don't get 'shyster' from him, but maybe 'out of his depth?' He does nothing for me.
    I get "shallow" from him. I think "out of his depth" is accurate as well.
    I like Amy Klobuchar.
    Yes.
    I hate Biden in the way you hate people who have hate slide off them. ... Sanders... too old too slow and drops the s-bomb too often.
    Biden's creepy and an admitted plagiarist. Both of them are too old.

    code fix - Firenze
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Climacus wrote: »
    Does it give you insights?
    Not really.
    Climacus wrote: »
    Frustrate you in any sense?
    Yes. Just because the usual suspects have not been the best, it doesn't mean the loony on the corner is at all a good choice.
    Climacus wrote: »
    Wonder at what is going on? All and more? I find myself just upset at the increasing gaps in inequality. And the glib answers many politicians give. Do you see people like the interviewed Mr Marsh having a choice, and their choice making a difference?
    Of course he has a choice. He could be informed and involved instead of voting in a reactionary manner that is more likely to hurt him than benefit him.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    good to see you're back posting LB. You have been missed.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    good to see you're back posting LB. You have been missed.
    Indeed!

Sign In or Register to comment.