Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Hey, I thought we made up when I advocated for a couple of free Bob Marley joints for any Berners who voted for Hillary in November.

I was paying you a compliment. I'd definitely rather be debating with you than against you. I'm getting too old for this sh-t.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

You haven't debated Rover much if you think he's going to ever concede a point unless it's to launch an attack on some other ground.

Hey, I thought we made up when I advocated for a couple of free Bob Marley joints for any Berners who voted for Hillary in November.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Even Rover has to admit that her Senate career and stint as Sec of State were simply resume builders or a place to park her stuff until it came time to run for Pres.

You haven't debated Rover much if you think he's going to ever concede a point unless it's to launch an attack on some other ground.

All I have heard from people I tend to trust was she was a very effective Senator and a good Sec State as well. Like I said, I'm not sure there's anything that counts as a useful pre-requisite to being President. Maybe being married -- you learn to pick your battles and how to lose gracefully and win without immediately wishing you hadn't.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Even Rover has to admit that her Senate career and stint as Sec of State were simply resume builders or a place to park her stuff until it came time to run for Pres.

Yes for the Senate seat although I understand she did a lot for 9/11 victims and the city's rebuild as did Schumer which is no surprise given that was her constituency.

Secretary of State is bit more complicated job than just as a resume builder. I suspect how well or ill you feel about her tenure there depends entirely on how you feel about Obama. So, if you agree with bagging Bin Laden, getting out of Iraq (for the most part), the nuclear negotiations with Iran, the harder line with Israel over settlements, climate change protocols, etc - you're a fan. If you blame her for Libya and Syria, you're not.

At the start of her campaign it seemed she was unsure if she was running for her husband's 3rd term or Obama's 3rd term. Now its clear she's running on Obama's record. Not a bad call since Bill left office 15 years ago and Obama's approval ratings are creeping back over 50%.

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I think it would be the rare candidate indeed who had all of the qualities I outlined.

My point in responding to Maize is that just because Hillary has a high dollar education, worked in a Little Rock law firm, was first lady, then Senator, then Secretary of State, I'm not conceding that her "qualifications" to be President blow me away. Furthermore, its hard to look at any of those things and see accomplishments rather than just positions. I mean seriously. I assume she worked hard and accomplished something at that lawfirm in Little Rock. But as Senator? I don't know, did she author any major pieces of legislation, or even work behind the scenes to get it put together? I certainly don't remember any great speeches on topics of the day from the floor of the Senate.

Is she going to go down as a great or important Secretary of State? It might be more a product of our times, but its not like she negotiated peace between the Israelis and Palestinians or something.

Even Rover has to admit that her Senate career and stint as Sec of State were simply resume builders or a place to park her stuff until it came time to run for Pres.

As Secretary of State, during the Arab Spring she wisely threw the administration's support behind the Mubarak regime in Egypt, only to pivot away when she realized (or was told) that supporting the man who's having his own people killed in the streets during a protest was not something to which President Obama should be associated.

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I will be devil's advocate:


Reagan was dumb as a stump but was effective getting his agenda through because of his acting training and general likability. In his case, not knowing very much saved him from agonizing over shades of grey: stupid people are often extremely confident and certain because they're stupid. "This world was not made for those cursed with self-awareness."



Despite being a great campaigner Obama has been plagued by his inability to communicate a coherent strategy for either domestic or foreign challenges, leading to the paradox that despite one of the most successful presidencies in American history his administration is unappreciated and underestimated even by allies.



LBJ lied, cheated and stole his way to pushing one of the greatest moral advancements in American history, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, through Congress. Sometimes it takes a thief to catch a thief.



"A hero is someone who gets other people killed." Courage is usually a label we apply after the fact to the ineptitude to avoid conflicts by forethought and compromise.



Ike was the polar opposite of charismatic and was the second-best president in the 20th Century after FDR. Indeed, FDR himself began as far from charismatic -- he was elitist, distant, and a mamma's boy with very little "common touch." The charisma that kicked-started his presidential aspiration was all Eleanor.


To be a good president you just kinda have to be good at being president. Hoover, who was in virtually every way a model thinker and doer, was a train wreck as president, and not just due to circumstance.

It may be a job that is so bizarre that personal attributes just don't really apply. Like a spouse, the day after inauguration you wake up next to a totally different person, and what happens from there is discontinuous from what came before.

I think it would be the rare candidate indeed who had all of the qualities I outlined.

My point in responding to Maize is that just because Hillary has a high dollar education, worked in a Little Rock law firm, was first lady, then Senator, then Secretary of State, I'm not conceding that her "qualifications" to be President blow me away. Furthermore, its hard to look at any of those things and see accomplishments rather than just positions. I mean seriously. I assume she worked hard and accomplished something at that lawfirm in Little Rock. But as Senator? I don't know, did she author any major pieces of legislation, or even work behind the scenes to get it put together? I certainly don't remember any great speeches on topics of the day from the floor of the Senate.

Is she going to go down as a great or important Secretary of State? It might be more a product of our times, but its not like she negotiated peace between the Israelis and Palestinians or something.

Even Rover has to admit that her Senate career and stint as Sec of State were simply resume builders or a place to park her stuff until it came time to run for Pres.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I appreciate Maize's view on qualities for Prez, but if you have that extensive a list you're bound to be disappointed. Politicians are humans, from Trump to Sanders. Nobody is going to reach that pedestal of qualities.

In other news, Trump is FOR tax hikes for the rich??? A lot of heads just exploded at right wing think tanks in the DC area.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/firs...atters-n570431

[MaizeRage]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

According to maize barabra bush is also highly qualified (Mookie would offer MORE qualified).

You mean Senator/Secretary of State Bush?

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

According to maize barabra bush is also highly qualified (Mookie would offer MORE qualified).

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I will be devil's advocate:

1. You have to be intelligent.

Reagan was dumb as a stump but was effective getting his agenda through because of his acting training and general likability. In his case, not knowing very much saved him from agonizing over shades of grey: stupid people are often extremely confident and certain because they're stupid. "This world was not made for those cursed with self-awareness."

2. You have to be a terrific communicator.

Despite being a great campaigner Obama has been plagued by his inability to communicate a coherent strategy for either domestic or foreign challenges, leading to the paradox that despite one of the most successful presidencies in American history his administration is unappreciated and underestimated even by allies.

3. Your moral compass has to work.

LBJ lied, cheated and stole his way to pushing one of the greatest moral advancements in American history, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, through Congress. Sometimes it takes a thief to catch a thief.

4. In a similar vein, you have to have courage.

"A hero is someone who gets other people killed." Courage is usually a label we apply after the fact to the ineptitude to avoid conflicts by forethought and compromise.

5. I think you need to have charisma.

Ike was the polar opposite of charismatic and was the second-best president in the 20th Century after FDR. Indeed, FDR himself began as far from charismatic -- he was elitist, distant, and a mamma's boy with very little "common touch." The charisma that kicked-started his presidential aspiration was all Eleanor.


To be a good president you just kinda have to be good at being president. Hoover, who was in virtually every way a model thinker and doer, was a train wreck as president, and not just due to circumstance.

It may be a job that is so bizarre that personal attributes just don't really apply. Like a spouse, the day after inauguration you wake up next to a totally different person, and what happens from there is discontinuous from what came before.

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

1. Yes, Hillary has showed excellent qualifications through a long political career, but God forbid someone running for President actually wants the job. Hillary must be the first person running to ever be like that. Oh wait, no, all of them have, she's the first woman to dare doing so. That's going to be the big difference between Obama and Hillary. Racism might be uglier, but latent sexism is far more pervasive.

She's shown excellent qualifications if she's applying for the General Counsel's position with Exxon or GE. I think reasonable people can disagree on the level of her "qualifications" to be a good president.

Personally, I look for these qualities:

1. You have to be intelligent. You have to demonstrate the ability to analyze a problem and think through a solution, with the talent to look at problems from different angles.
2. You have to be a terrific communicator. A skilled orator, with the ability to excite, inspire, calm, move or whatever may be called for, not only here but abroad. People with this skill know not only the right words, but the right time and the right delivery.
3. Your moral compass has to work. You need to know right from wrong, and don't compromise on it, even when it might be financially beneficial for you to do so, or politically unpopular to not deviate. Say what you want about Obama, but I think this is one of his stronger attributes.
4. In a similar vein, you have to have courage. Not only the courage of your convictions, but the courage to make hard decisions in times of great difficulty.
5. I think you need to have charisma. Your primary job as POTUS is "leader." The problem with charisma is that it's not something you can learn in school or train yourself to have. It's primarily something that you either have or you don't have. People need to like you, to feel some connection to you or a desire to support you. To "go with you" wherever it is you need to take them.

I don't know that the general public sits down and lists out the qualities they desire in a candidate, but I guarantee you that if you have these skills people will vote for you and follow you. When neither candidate has them, the response from the general public is often, "these are our choices?"

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

GOP is about to make NV caucus walk the plank.

If they really replace it with a CO primary that seems like a very big deal to me. CO probably has more delegates than IA, NH and SC combined. It would also make a fairly moderate, very important, solidly purple state early enough that candidates would probably pay a ton of attention to it.

[rufus]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

A generation ago most people did not have a negative opinion of Trump.

Really? Cause I've never liked the guy. He just oozed smarm and entitlement. He's not even a great businessman. If he'd simply invested the money he inherited from his father in an Index 500 fund, he'd be worth more today.

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

A generation ago most people did not have a negative opinion of Trump. He was seen as simply a figure in the world of business or finance, if you paid any attention to him at all.

It's all in the exposure. As a New Yorker I've been over-exposed to him since high school, and I can tell you thirty years ago everybody from the Hudson to Montauk thought he was a boorish, classless, orangutan-resembling moron. At best people thought he was Al Czervik, but anybody who knew anybody in NYC real estate or business knew he was just an empty-headed silver spoon jackoff.

[mookie1995]

A generation ago most people did not have a negative opinion of Trump..

You appear to have missed out on the short but heavenly run of "Spy" magazine