It is important to focus on the issues.
On that Sanders and Warren cover all the bases.
I need to hear more from Beto.
On that Sanders and Warren cover all the bases.
I need to hear more from Beto.
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Charisma is pretty vaguely defined but Sanders most certainly fits. He’s enticing as hell to watch during a speech – Passion is just a part of it.
They're not worth posting but anyone who thinks billionaires are smart and earn and deserve the money they have should look up the stuff that Howard Schultz has been coming out with this past week. Some of the absolute stupidest shit imaginable.
They lie well.
I think the best way to put it is how @Red Defence did yesterday. The key trait is neither charisma nor passion but genuineness.
Bernie is genuine. No one can deny that. That genuineness translates into charisma for some, passion for others and perhaps most importantly trustworthiness.
Its also the trait that modern establishment politicians like the Clintons hate more than anything else because they lack it completely. Obama seemed genuine at first but turned out to be just another elitist.
The Democrats need to nominate someone genuine more than anything else.
Schultz is a Rockefeller Republican and never should have been anywhere near a liberal political party. Any registered Democrat that votes for Schultz never should have been a Democrat to begin with. Those market fundamentalists need to go take back their Republican party.
In that case so is Warren. Both can give fiery, passionate speeches and in her case she is a bit better a delivering specifics.
Our brain is more used to grumpy grandpa than lecturing female professor.
I never said she wasn't. She is enticing in her own way too but I just don't see the US electorate taking to her, which says much more about them than her.
Warren is awkward. But when she speaks you can believe what she says.
The country is crying out for honest leaders.
We have some in the Democratic party.
If the DNC allows their voices to be heard, they will win easily.
2018 was a huge sign of things to come.
By 2020 the country's needs would have increased.
Fertile ground for True change.
And freedom for ordinary people.
There's a flawed tendency I think where people equate financial success with absolute intelligence, as if the two can't be separated at all. I think it's perfectly conceivable for someone to be quite adept in the business world when it comes to maximising profit, while being completely clueless at the same time as to how politics works and the needs of the ordinary people. Sadly plenty of people fall for such nonsense though, as has been evidenced by Trump supporters who view his business acumen (which is in itself mostly bollocks) as somehow qualifying him for the Presidency.
That’s just capitalism. It rewards and values some of the worst traits in people. Nowhere is that more evident than the US, who’ve driven home that message for decades.
Greed is ambition. Dishonesty is shrewdness. Arrogance and narcissism seen as strength and self-confidence. Those “qualities” will get you a long way. Trump epitomizes all.
Empathy is for communists.
indeed.
And with politicians and judges in their pocket, they legalize such evil traits.
No one ever said all billionaires are smart. 
Trump is the prime example.
Trump is the prime example.
thanks for your input calvin
But they create jobs!
By that token You’re confusing Charisma with Gregariousness.
Last time around, Jill Stein invited Bernie to lead the ticket.
This time Bernie should accept the invitation, before he gets fecked by the DNC again.
Third party is a joke. Historically, it only weakens the democrats and helps elect a republican president. The intention doesn't matter, it is the final result that counts.
Warren is what America needs. Not voting for someone because they lack charisma is dumb. She's a terrible politician but her policies will help everyday Americans plus it seems she can't be bought. If Dems want to win the states that matter, I think it has to be her or Sanders.
One of the rare occasions, I agree with you. Really a despicable person. Grade A elitist. Hope he gets drummed out in a insulting fashion.
Gillibrand is pretty establishment imo
This is factually untrue.
The only two relevant third party elections were 1992 and 1912 and a Democrat won both elections.
Its a common myth sold to the gullible
George Wallace also helped Dems in 1968, even though they didn’t win.
I think a Sanders run would definitely take some Trump votes as well as Democrat votes
Whoa now... first off, a 1912 Democrat isn't a 2020 Democrat by any stretch of the imagination.
Also, there have been many more than 2 relevant 3rd party performances in presidential elections...
Election of 1860
Election of 1892
Election of 1924
Election of 1948
Election of 1968
If he started winning states...oh boy, that would be great tv
Totally. Its a two party game in the US.
MSNBC sacks Steve Schmidt after he begins advising ‘spoiler’ Howard Schultz on presidential run
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/ms...oiler-howard-schultz-presidential-run-report/
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/ms...oiler-howard-schultz-presidential-run-report/
Yeah my bad. Very sloppy phrasing. I was in a rush and should have waited to post. What I was thinking was more those two were the most relevant 3rd party elections of the 20th century and 3rd parties don't always "spoil" the election.
And you're right that 1912 was totally different because back then there were conservative and progressive Republicans and also conservative and progressive Democrats. For that election I'd say Teddy was the most progressive, Taft the most conservative whereas Wilson was probably the most centrist. Heck you also had Eugene Debs in that one as a Socialist who even took 6-7% of the popular vote.
(on a tangent I personally think that configuration of parties back in early 1900s was healthier for society than now because now there are less cross-cutting cleavages in society than in 1912 politically and I personally strongly belief that cross cutting cleavages are one of the most important pillars of stable and just society that we have lost)
I was trying to say third party candidates don't necessarily hurt one party or one ideology and as some of the other examples you and Infinite mentioned sometimes the third party is even straight from the far right like Strom the Dixiecnut
Self-fulfilling tautology. The statement is only true insofar as the two parties can convince people to believe that it is true.
Sanders is smart enough to know that 3rd party runs only benefit one of the two main parties. He's spoken out extensively about the need to get rid of Trump at all costs, which is why he wouldn't go 3rd party imo.
A 3rd party could emerge and gain power, it has happened in the past. That said, if one were to do so, and this has happened in the past, it would do so at the demise of another party. When this happens, that 3rd party simply takes its place in the 2 party system.
That's been debunked over and over.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ross-perot-myth/
Also it doesn't even logically make sense because obviously a candidate can pull from both sides relatively evenly to not affect the result even if they affect the outcome.
(or the third party can pull from some of the 42% that chose not to vote. Did Not Vote won more votes than either political party)
US voter turnout is around 55-60% while take Germany for example where its 70-75%
If any US candidate motivate enough non-voters to make up the difference in voter turnout between the US and other modern Western democracies that would be far more game changing than whining about 3rd parties or fighting over the mythical 2-3 million "moderate centrist half Dem/half Rep" that the establishment loves to chase while ignoring real people
Last edited:
Correct. And especially as we are now mired in the age of network homophily, third party candidates are little more than window dressing in terms of their chance of winning. Unfortunately, they do more damage than good by tipping the race in one direction. Just look at how Trump is salivating at the prospect of Shultz entering the race. He knows its his only chance of winning. Likewise look at the Dem reaction to Shultz. All participants in this country know how the game is played in a two party world.
That's partially the result of the structure though. There are some structural changes that could be made that would both de-power the dominance of the two party system or at the least do what you suggest and allow a more dynamic system where even if there are two parties, those parties can more easily be replaced by new ones if the established party grows stale and fails to respond to its base instead of micro special interests.
For instance, one change is California's open primary system. All that took was a charismatic modern version of a progressive Republican in Arnold who drew enough support outside the party system to push that change.
So there is no party primary anymore for California state offices. There is one primary and the top two vote getters advance. Its why the Republicans have been getting their asses kicked out of many state offices and even Congressional districts. While on top level this is benefits the Democrats the most it has crippled the Republican party and in a lot of local elections its allowed more Greens to get on City Council and such.
I personally strongly believe in movements like the open primary to begin the process of de-tangling the stranglehold the two establishment parties have.
Then of course we can get rid of the hated Electoral College (at least I hate it). Have you read this book btw?
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Electoral-College-Bad-America/dp/0300109687
I've not read that book, but would be interested in doing so.
To the point about structural changes... of course there are structural reasons for the 2 party system. But good luck convincing the 2 parties to get rid of those structures and put their own positions of power into jeopardy.
For myself, there are things worth striving for even if they are never fulfilled in my lifetime.
I have seen two direct examples in Perot that almost worked at the time if he didn't pull out due to threats to his family. And Arnold was able to push the open primary despite both parties going crazy in opposition. He still won that fight over both parties. I also know enough people that think close enough to my position to know I am not some sole dissident alone in the wasteland. I maintain hope and intention for the future even if I carry no great expectations for things to actually improve.
Things will never improve if people just believe the status quo is the best of all possible worlds and not worth trying to improve.
fishfingers was right and i was wrong
- Status