It seems like Joe Biden's run for President is in trouble.
He hasn't provided the necessary charisma or enthusiasm so far and its doubtful that he will.
Except for his age, I believe he would have been the candidate we needed, He was progressive but not extreme and had appeal to working men and minorities.
If you are looking for radical change after the next election, he wouldn't be your guy.
The fact is that he is perceived as and in fact is what I would call a regular guy, not some elitist.
I don't want to exclude women from that category, Amy Klobuchar certainly would qualify. Maybe a better term would be regular people.
They have a quality that makes you feel like you could run into them at a fast food restaurant one day.
Harvard College professors, socialists and others give a different impression.
Realistically, progressives and others on the left should have learned their lesson from the last election. Whatever they thought about Hillary, she would have listened to their concerns and helped as opposed to what they get now. If they fail to support the nominee again they might as well go back in time to the 50s.
What we really need in a candidate is someone who can win over those regular people who would like a good job, drug free children, and what some would consider a boring life.
The whole political correct thing is of little interest to them. They don't really care if some people feel unsupported about their gender choices, as we used to say in the Army, it sounds like a personnel issue.
They aren't trying to offend anyone, they just don't want to be nagged.
Showing posts with label candidates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label candidates. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
Saturday, December 7, 2019
Candidate Will Emerge
Before a single primary has been held we have lots of prognosticators talking about the potential Democratic candidate.
Based on his efforts to date, the current President seems to think that Joe Biden is the likely candidate, or at least the one he is most nervous about.
He may become the candidate, but then again he may not.
If we knew who we were going to support before the process plays out, we wouldn't need the process.
Some of the candidates are starting to become better known, and others are fading.
If you were to look back to 2008, at this time the front runner wasn't the eventual nominee.
We have to do the process and hopefully select the best man or woman for the job.
We have hardly started yet.
Based on his efforts to date, the current President seems to think that Joe Biden is the likely candidate, or at least the one he is most nervous about.
He may become the candidate, but then again he may not.
If we knew who we were going to support before the process plays out, we wouldn't need the process.
Some of the candidates are starting to become better known, and others are fading.
If you were to look back to 2008, at this time the front runner wasn't the eventual nominee.
We have to do the process and hopefully select the best man or woman for the job.
We have hardly started yet.
Friday, September 13, 2019
Shebate, Hebate they all Debate
And the winner is.....
Probably Joe Biden since he basically wins by not losing at this point. Otherwise everyone seemed to do OK with the possible exception of Julian Castro who took a cheap shot or two at Biden.
Pretty sure he did it because it seemed to work, at least for a time for Kamala Harris in the first debate.
They did articulate some differences but in general they agree on the main platform points that are emerging.
Universal Health Care.
Strong Action to Combat Climate Change
Improved Immigration Policy
Better International Trade Agreements
End to "Endless" Wars
Reduce Racism and Social Injustice
What I didn't hear addressed was how to reduce the deficit and pay down the National Debt.
There were some discussions about how to pay for new proposals, like Medicare for All, but assuming that is covered we still have a tremendous debt to pay down.
The other thing is that we now hear presidential candidates talk like they can do anything they want.
Joe Biden did point out that it has to be constitutional. No one really addressed how they could do these things if they had a hostile congress in one or both houses.
Even if swept into office with control of both houses, they will have to deal with a Supreme Court that is becoming more conservative.
They have to make promises, but keeping them might be difficult indeed. Still, you have t try.
Probably Joe Biden since he basically wins by not losing at this point. Otherwise everyone seemed to do OK with the possible exception of Julian Castro who took a cheap shot or two at Biden.
Pretty sure he did it because it seemed to work, at least for a time for Kamala Harris in the first debate.
They did articulate some differences but in general they agree on the main platform points that are emerging.
Universal Health Care.
Strong Action to Combat Climate Change
Improved Immigration Policy
Better International Trade Agreements
End to "Endless" Wars
Reduce Racism and Social Injustice
What I didn't hear addressed was how to reduce the deficit and pay down the National Debt.
There were some discussions about how to pay for new proposals, like Medicare for All, but assuming that is covered we still have a tremendous debt to pay down.
The other thing is that we now hear presidential candidates talk like they can do anything they want.
Joe Biden did point out that it has to be constitutional. No one really addressed how they could do these things if they had a hostile congress in one or both houses.
Even if swept into office with control of both houses, they will have to deal with a Supreme Court that is becoming more conservative.
They have to make promises, but keeping them might be difficult indeed. Still, you have t try.
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Who Are These People?
I've been in four different states since the current primary season has heated up and I've seen a lot of political ads.
Few of them actually addressed issues, mostly they took the time available to say why their opponent was (fill in the blank).
Part of the reason for this is that on most issues there isn't as much difference as they would like you to believe.
Nobody is campaigning to raise taxes, increase crime, lower education, or cut benefits.
Getting into the strategies to improve these things is probably more than can be expected in a TV slot so we get ads that want to plant negative opponent images and positive images of the candidate.
Unfortunately, these ads have a lot of influence on elections and for many voters it is all they will see.
Issues of course vary based on the level of the election and maybe that's part of the problem.
Someone running for school board has a real problem getting any attention during general elections.
Similarly when you show up to vote and see a list of names for offices ranging from town clerk to governor of the state, you end up going with the party you align with or the names you recognize.
It why you see so many ads aimed at name recognition, including those signs on public by-ways and lawns that simply show a candidates name.
It may become recognizable when you go to vote in a sea of unknowns.
Of course a few of us take time to know the candidates and the issues, but I'm confident in saying its a definite minority, especially when it comes to some of the myriad elected positions where we might not even know what they do.
I think its one of the reasons voter turnout is so low, much of the time we aren't sure what we are voting for.
It certainly could be simplified but it won't be. Simple voting about actual issues wouldn't be good for many of the current candidates, just good for the people.
Few of them actually addressed issues, mostly they took the time available to say why their opponent was (fill in the blank).
Part of the reason for this is that on most issues there isn't as much difference as they would like you to believe.
Nobody is campaigning to raise taxes, increase crime, lower education, or cut benefits.
Getting into the strategies to improve these things is probably more than can be expected in a TV slot so we get ads that want to plant negative opponent images and positive images of the candidate.
Unfortunately, these ads have a lot of influence on elections and for many voters it is all they will see.
Issues of course vary based on the level of the election and maybe that's part of the problem.
Someone running for school board has a real problem getting any attention during general elections.
Similarly when you show up to vote and see a list of names for offices ranging from town clerk to governor of the state, you end up going with the party you align with or the names you recognize.
It why you see so many ads aimed at name recognition, including those signs on public by-ways and lawns that simply show a candidates name.
It may become recognizable when you go to vote in a sea of unknowns.
Of course a few of us take time to know the candidates and the issues, but I'm confident in saying its a definite minority, especially when it comes to some of the myriad elected positions where we might not even know what they do.
I think its one of the reasons voter turnout is so low, much of the time we aren't sure what we are voting for.
It certainly could be simplified but it won't be. Simple voting about actual issues wouldn't be good for many of the current candidates, just good for the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)