I think NY Times showed their hand as backing Harris in the last week. Nice big prominent guest op-ed piece.

(12-31-2018 10:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  January Update
Democratic Predictit Results
Announced Candidates = Bolded
Announced From Last List = Bolded Italic
New on List Bold = Italic
DNOM20 Latest
Joe Biden 18¢ (+5¢)
Beto O'Rourke 18¢ (--)
Kamala Harris 17¢ (+1¢)
Bernie Sanders 14¢ (-2¢)
Elizabeth Warren 11¢ (+2¢)
Klobuchar 11¢ (0¢)
Cory Booker 8¢ (0¢)
Gillibrand 7¢ (1¢)
Also Rans
Oprah 3¢ (0¢)
Clinton 2¢ (--)
Cuomo 1¢ (-2¢)
Kaine 1¢ (0¢)
Chris Murphy 1¢ (0¢)
Zuckerberg 1¢ (0¢)
John Delaney 1¢ (0¢)
Dwayne Johnson 1¢ (0¢)
Jerry Brown 1¢ (0¢)

Looking at that list, Hillary is by far the one I like best. Or perhaps more properly, dislike least. If that's the list in 2020, I will punt local elections again and register democrat to vote for her in the primary.

On the other side, I'm no huge fan of Trump. I'd prefer almost any other republican to Trump, primarily because I think his style is going to turn a lot of voters off to the republican brand, and I want somebody who can defend me against almost anybody on that democrat list. I really don't think Trump can get re-elected, and I don't want to see anybody on that democrat list in the white house.

I see no reason at this point to look forward to 2020. Just get as many conservative judges in place as possible before then, and hope to ride it out. We rode out Obama because he was an egomaniacal, narcissistic a-hole who couldn't work with people to implement his agenda. I'm afraid that 2020 just might be that blue wave that would sweep enough hard left democrats in to eliminate that hurdle.

At this point, I'd list my preferences as:
1) Any republican other than Trump
2) Trump
3) Hillary
4) Any democrat other than Hillary

And the gap between 2) and 3) is, by far, the narrowest of the gaps--almost a tie, just as it was for me in 2016.

Still on the Kasich bandwagon, I feel he would do the little things to make this country stronger (invest more in infrastructure, improve cybersecurity) while not being immature and petty with his critics ala Obama and Trump. That bandwagon fell off a cliff and into a spiked pit though.

I'm not enamored with Cruz due to social issues, but would vote for him over anyone on that Democratic list. Gillibrand would have been a terrific candidate 15 years ago but is now another liberal puppet.

Mid-January Candidate Update
(bet levels not updated, candidates are)

Democratic Predictit Results

Announced Candidates = Bolded
Announced From Last List = Bolded Italic
New on List Bold = Italic

DNOM20 Latest
Joe Biden 18¢ (+5¢)
Beto O'Rourke 18¢ (--)
Kamala Harris 17¢ (+1¢)
Bernie Sanders 14¢ (-2¢)
Elizabeth Warren 11¢ (+2¢)
Klobuchar 11¢ (0¢)
Cory Booker 8¢ (0¢)
Gillibrand 7¢ (1¢)

Also Rans
Oprah 3¢ (0¢)
Clinton 2¢ (--)
Cuomo 1¢ (-2¢)
Kaine 1¢ (0¢)
Chris Murphy 1¢ (0¢)
Zuckerberg 1¢ (0¢)
John Delaney 1¢ (0¢)
Dwayne Johnson 1¢ (0¢)
Jerry Brown 1¢ (0¢)

No Line but announced
Julian Castro
Tulsi Gabbard

(01-12-2019 05:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Mid-January Candidate Update
(bet levels not updated, candidates are)
Democratic Predictit Results
Announced Candidates = Bolded
Announced From Last List = Bolded Italic
New on List Bold = Italic
DNOM20 Latest
Joe Biden 18¢ (+5¢)
Beto O'Rourke 18¢ (--)
Kamala Harris 17¢ (+1¢)
Bernie Sanders 14¢ (-2¢)
Elizabeth Warren 11¢ (+2¢)
Klobuchar 11¢ (0¢)
Cory Booker 8¢ (0¢)
Gillibrand 7¢ (1¢)
Also Rans
Oprah 3¢ (0¢)
Clinton 2¢ (--)
Cuomo 1¢ (-2¢)
Kaine 1¢ (0¢)
Chris Murphy 1¢ (0¢)
Zuckerberg 1¢ (0¢)
John Delaney 1¢ (0¢)
Dwayne Johnson 1¢ (0¢)
Jerry Brown 1¢ (0¢)
No Line but announced
Julian Castro
Tulsi Gabbard

I'd still prefer Hilldawg to anybody else on that list. And prefer any republican to Hilldawg.

I'd prefer Joe Manchin to Hilldawg, but he's not on the list.

Castro would be at the very bottom of the list for me.

Two months since the election loss that put him out of a job and was supposed to begin his rapid descent down the memory hole, and instead Beto has, as of today, risen to become the sole front-runner at 20¢.

I cannot imagine an unemployed former congressman -- never a senator, never a governor -- years removed from active political office and whose main political credential is *losing* a race could actually be a serious candidate for POTUS. Of course, that description would also have applied to Abraham Lincoln in 1860, but to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, Beto is no Abe Lincoln. Then again, if Trump runs (and I'll go on record as predicting he doesn't), it's hardly going to take an Abe Lincoln or even close to beat him.

Beto was active in Congress up until earlier this month (or at least last November). I'm not sure where you get he was years removed from active political service.

(01-13-2019 11:29 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Beto was active in Congress up until earlier this month (or at least last November). I'm not sure where you get he was years removed from active political service.

Checked his wikipedia page, and this is correct.

A couple of other interesting facts about him:

His father in law is a real estate developer who manages a $20B real estate portfolio (that's about twice Trumps net worth)

He is a Catholic (I wonder where he stands on abortion).

It is weird to me that somebody who has never won a statewide election should be considered a leading candidate for national office. I still think it will be Kamala Harris - black, female, liberal. O'Rourke is too white and male.

(01-13-2019 11:29 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Beto was active in Congress up until earlier this month (or at least last November). I'm not sure where you get he was years removed from active political service.

Well, a decent case could be made he is years removed from active political service based upon the bills promulgated and passed.

(01-13-2019 02:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 11:29 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Beto was active in Congress up until earlier this month (or at least last November). I'm not sure where you get he was years removed from active political service.

Well, a decent case could be made he is years removed from active political service based upon the bills promulgated and passed.

What were his significant legislative initiatives?

(01-13-2019 05:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 02:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 11:29 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Beto was active in Congress up until earlier this month (or at least last November). I'm not sure where you get he was years removed from active political service.

Well, a decent case could be made he is years removed from active political service based upon the bills promulgated and passed.

What were his significant legislative initiatives?

He got the El Paso Federal Courthouse renamed. That was his weightiest undertaking in Congress.

At least as El Paso city alderman he sponsored and got more done. Especially in the downtown revitalization program. Talk to his father in law about that.

No wonder the left wants this guy as president...born rich, married rich, done nothing. Reminds me of Kerry and Kennedy.

Castro and O'Rourke definitely have atypical resumes for a Presidential candidate. But then Trump is president. I think his victory has destroyed the conventional wisdom that you need to be a Senator and/or Governor to run. Whether it should have or not, I don't know. There's also a lot of talk of Garcetti running - and while he's a mayor, he's mayor of a city with more people than around 20 states, and that's just the City of Los Angeles. The metro area would be the 5th largest state. So why wouldn't that be as good a qualification as Governor or Senator of Wyoming?

Not endorsing Garcetti specifically, just pointing out that I think the "conventional wisdom" has been blown up by Trump's election.

(01-14-2019 08:19 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Castro and O'Rourke definitely have atypical resumes for a Presidential candidate. But then Trump is president. I think his victory has destroyed the conventional wisdom that you need to be a Senator and/or Governor to run. Whether it should have or not, I don't know. There's also a lot of talk of Garcetti running - and while he's a mayor, he's mayor of a city with more people than around 20 states, and that's just the City of Los Angeles. The metro area would be the 5th largest state. So why wouldn't that be as good a qualification as Governor or Senator of Wyoming?

Not endorsing Garcetti specifically, just pointing out that I think the "conventional wisdom" has been blown up by Trump's election.

No, no, why bring that up? I like that Trump apologists are unironically using someone’s political experience and personal background as a knock against them.

(01-13-2019 11:29 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Beto was active in Congress up until earlier this month (or at least last November). I'm not sure where you get he was years removed from active political service.

He will be years removed as of the 2020 election.

(01-14-2019 08:19 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Castro and O'Rourke definitely have atypical resumes for a Presidential candidate. But then Trump is president. I think his victory has destroyed the conventional wisdom that you need to be a Senator and/or Governor to run. Whether it should have or not, I don't know. There's also a lot of talk of Garcetti running - and while he's a mayor, he's mayor of a city with more people than around 20 states, and that's just the City of Los Angeles. The metro area would be the 5th largest state. So why wouldn't that be as good a qualification as Governor or Senator of Wyoming?

Not endorsing Garcetti specifically, just pointing out that I think the "conventional wisdom" has been blown up by Trump's election.

I actually think Castro has a better 'bare bones resume' (i.e. background shorn of ideological issues) than O'Rourke, or for that matter, Trump. And yes, Cabinet Secretary is also a form of executive experience, actually only one step less than the Chief Executive

Same for Garcetti. Mayor of LA is definitely a threshold that I could live with, much as I have in the past thought that Mayor of NYC passed that same threshold.

In fact both have better 'bare bones resumes' than any of the last two Presidents at the stage of their entering office.

Wow, something you and I agree completely on. Very good.

Beto still remains an empty suit in that regard for me. Even more of an empty suit than head of a privately held corporation or set of corporations.

(01-14-2019 09:21 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 11:29 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Beto was active in Congress up until earlier this month (or at least last November). I'm not sure where you get he was years removed from active political service.

He will be years removed as of the 2020 election.

He can volunteer to head his PTA. Nothing *more* political than those viper dens. He'll have the time.

Beto's resume makes Trump's prior to the election look uber qualified. But the Dems ushered in the community organizer not so long ago, so on the 'unqualified' score I would say the party's score is 1-1 and the nation's score is 0-2 for the last two.

But, as for qualifications, the Dems ushered in someone who actually had a Presidential level resume, no doubt. And, as lad states above, character has a component to play as well.

Now, I got to quit. Off to yoga. Better wipe that calendar record of it prior to heading out.

Castro is so smarmy. Second only to Schiff. I do not oppose Castro because of his experience. He just gives me the shivers. If I had to shake his hand I would wipe it on my trouser leg afterwards.

I remember in 2008 when the qualifications of the Alaskan Governor were called into question, while the qualifications of their candidate relied heavily on "community organizer". I think they have little room to talk. Experience in executive positions was considered then to be unimportant by the left.

But Trump has turned the world upside down in many ways, and this question of the resume is one of them.

I always put emphasis on executive experience, and certainly Governors, Generals, and high level businessmen all bring that. Senators don't. Mayors do, to a lesser extent. But a mayor is very different than a governor, just as the CEO of Bob's Craft Shop is very different from the CEO of Coca-Cola. I don't think the way to measure a mayor's ability is by counting the number of citizens he makes miserable.

The resume has some importance, but the most important thing is the platform. What are the issues they want to address, and how do they want to address them? Ocasio-Cortez, your 2028 candidate, at least has been up front on her agenda.

(01-14-2019 11:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Castro is so smarmy. Second only to Schiff. I do not oppose Castro because of his experience. He just gives me the shivers. If I had to shake his hand I would wipe it on my trouser leg afterwards.

I think, from first hand experience, that the Castro(s) are not 'smarmy' --- but rise to the level of a RICO-level political operation.

Quote:I always put emphasis on executive experience, and certainly Governors, Generals, and high level businessmen all bring that. Senators don't. Mayors do, to a lesser extent.

But Senators do make up for the lack of 'executive-gravitas' with an unsurpassed 'hands on' experience with the issues and political facets to those issues. *If* they have served a term and a half.

Quote:The resume has some importance, but the most important thing is the platform. What are the issues they want to address, and how do they want to address them? Ocasio-Cortez, your 2028 candidate, at least has been up front on her agenda.

Well, we also know Robert is all on board with the stark importance of naming US Post Offices, Federal-type buildings, and highways.