U.S. Politics: A Wolff In Sheep's Clothing

[ThinkerX]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, I think the idea that Oprah running or winning won't happen is just wishful thinking. Trump has already uncorked that genie. The only real important qualification for winning the POTUS is to be liked by enough people, or at least not hated by enough people. Things like policy, temperament, ideals, vision, governance or experience are not remotely needed. They are probably drawbacks, as they give people a record of what you've actually done, and that might not be bad.

Instead, you want to have a political blank slate that you can use to project whatever things you want onto that person, and that person should simply go along with it as best they can. 

And no matter what part you have you'll have partisan hacks saying how awesome you are or the other party's hacks saying how you're literally satan. 

But if it came down to Oprah verses Trump, Oprah would still get your vote, right?

And...couldn't you just imagine Miss Winfrey inviting conservative congress members into the white house for weekly heart-to-heart 'interventions.'  Some of them would probably have mental meltdowns.

 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

But if it came down to Oprah verses Trump, Oprah would still get your vote, right?

And...couldn't you just imagine Miss Winfrey inviting conservative congress members into the white house for weekly heart-to-heart 'interventions.'  Some of them would probably have mental meltdowns.

 

Of course Oprah would get my vote. 

But we're at the point where we as the most powerful military nation on the planet are discussing which two TV stars should be POTUS. This, more than anything, shows how far the US has now fallen.

[TheKitttenGuard]

I am of the hope the whole Oprah thing is a way to get Michelle interested.

[ThinkerX]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Of course Oprah would get my vote. 

But we're at the point where we as the most powerful military nation on the planet are discussing which two TV stars should be POTUS. This, more than anything, shows how far the US has now fallen.

Something pointed out by no few posters here lately.

However, the US has moved so far to the right overall, and the wealth required to attain significant political office is so great, that to all intents and purposes the US is now an Oligarchy instead of a republic or democracy.  I do not see that changing anytime soon, barring some sort of 'people power' revolution, which has a fair shot of making matters even worse. 

Hence, if we are fated to be ruled by Oligarchs, then perhaps we can maneuver the more malevolent ones onto the sidelines. 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

I am of the hope the whole Oprah thing is a way to get Michelle interested.

Michelle Obama, much as I do think she's awesome, is not noticeably more qualified to be President than Oprah is. And she isn't interested anyway. She's said so many times. 

Mind you, Oprah has also said she's not interested. The idea that she is contemplating a run is attributed to 'sources', I believe? So maybe let's not slag her off for her ambitions until she openly declares them. 

[Dr. Pepper]

9 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

 

Imagine it is election time 2020.  The presidential contenders are Donald Trump and Oprah Winfrey.  Which do you choose?  This goes especially to the likes of OGE and Dr. Pepper.

 

This is a dumb question.  There was not a single "I'd never vote for Oprah if she were the Democratic candidate" comment.  We were asked what we thought of an Oprah2020 and most said no way, bad idea but recognized that it's possible.  Obviously if she were the candidate, you vote for Oprah.  Thankfully she's not said anything about running and let's hope it stays that way.

[Martell Spy]

I think people here aren't being fair to the Democratic base. The Republican base has proven it's self to be nuts, the Democratic base has not. Every contest for the Democratic nomination since 1972 has followed the same pattern. It's basically between a moderate Dem and a liberal Dem. And the moderate always wins. 2016 turned out to be no different, even though it appeared it might be.

If anything the Democratic base might be far too careful and never allow us a left-leaning candidate, much less a non politician. I'm guilty of this as anyone, since I voted for both Kerry and HRC.

[Martell Spy]

Ivanka Trump Endorses Oprah Winfrey’s Golden Globes Speech

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ivanka-trump-endorses-oprah-winfreys-golden-globes-speech?ref=home

[LongRider]

34 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Ivanka Trump Endorses Oprah Winfrey’s Golden Globes Speech

Oprah, you've arrived!

[mormont]

58 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Ivanka Trump Endorses Oprah Winfrey’s Golden Globes Speech

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ivanka-trump-endorses-oprah-winfreys-golden-globes-speech?ref=home

In Ivanka's head, Oprah was endorsing her father, not excoriating him. 

[Paladin of Ice]

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

I think people here aren't being fair to the Democratic base. The Republican base has proven it's self to be nuts, the Democratic base has not. Every contest for the Democratic nomination since 1972 has followed the same pattern. It's basically between a moderate Dem and a liberal Dem. And the moderate always wins. 2016 turned out to be no different, even though it appeared it might be.

If anything the Democratic base might be far too careful and never allow us a left-leaning candidate, much less a non politician. I'm guilty of this as anyone, since I voted for both Kerry and HRC.

Here's at least one exception: Obama was the more liberal candidate of 2008, or at least perceived as such. (I'm not well versed enough on the primaries of the 70s and 80s to comment on them.)

[Maithanet]

22 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Here's at least one exception: Obama was the more liberal candidate of 2008, or at least perceived as such. (I'm not well versed enough on the primaries of the 70s and 80s to comment on them.)

Dukakis was more liberal than Gore in 1988, so I feel like this paradigm is really just relevant for 1992 onward.  And then we're only talking about five contests:  1992, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2016.  Of those, yes, the party went with the more moderate choice four of the five times, with Obama being slightly more liberal than Clinton in 2008.  That is more of a "general preference" than a rule.  In addition, the Democratic party of 1992 has very little in common with the party of today, so I don't know how much to draw from that. 

[Fez]

3 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

I think people here aren't being fair to the Democratic base. The Republican base has proven it's self to be nuts, the Democratic base has not. Every contest for the Democratic nomination since 1972 has followed the same pattern. It's basically between a moderate Dem and a liberal Dem. And the moderate always wins. 2016 turned out to be no different, even though it appeared it might be.

If anything the Democratic base might be far too careful and never allow us a left-leaning candidate, much less a non politician. I'm guilty of this as anyone, since I voted for both Kerry and HRC.

I disagree. The Democratic base hasn't as completely broken from the party establishment as the Republican base has from its, but it's getting there. There are more primary challenges of Democratic incumbents than there used to be; and even though unlike with Republicans there's no notable successes, it's still a sign that a growing portion of the party base is going its own way. Also, Sanders did far better than previous leftist challengers, such Dean 2004, Bradley 2000, or Jackson 1988.

This isn't necessarily to say Oprah would win the 2020 primary if she ran. However, if the process is fractured the way Republicans in 2016 were, I could easily see Oprah winning with a plurality a la Trump. If Biden, Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand, Kerry, Klobacher, Brown, Booker, Hickenlooper, Garcetti, Cuomo, O'Malley, Harris, Bullock, McAullife, and Bob Iger and Tom Steyer all run, along with who knows who else, who has the celebrity to compete with Oprah for media attention? Maybe Sanders, but he'll be busy competing with Warren, and maybe Biden, but only if Obama stumps for him (and I assume Obama will stay out of it unless Michelle runs). 

If things settle very quickly to 3 or 4 candidates, that's a different matter; but there's no guarantee that'll happen, especially with the new schedule being used (e.g. California has moved all the way to be the fifth primary state, which will lead to a very different dynamic).

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Dukakis was more liberal than Gore in 1988, so I feel like this paradigm is really just relevant for 1992 onward.  And then we're only talking about five contests:  1992, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2016.  Of those, yes, the party went with the more moderate choice four of the five times, with Obama being slightly more liberal than Clinton in 2008.  That is more of a "general preference" than a rule.  In addition, the Democratic party of 1992 has very little in common with the party of today, so I don't know how much to draw from that. 

Yeah I don't see any hard pattern there.  1992 and 2004 were also relatively open, and in the 80s you had Jackson peeling off a large chunk of the primary electorate.  Hell in 2004 one could argue Kerry was more liberal than Edwards.  I think what's fair to say is since McGovern the Dems have been much more cautious, and likely err toward the candidate that's perceived to have the best chance in the general (even if that perception is mistaken).

What I think is much more striking is the amount of times the GOP nominated the runner up from the previous (non reelection) contest since 1980.  This happened in 1980, 1988, 1996, 2008, and 2012.  The only times it hasn't are 2000 and 2016 and, well, that says it all.

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah I don't see any hard pattern there.  1992 and 2004 were also relatively open, and in the 80s you had Jackson peeling off a large chunk of the primary electorate.  Hell in 2004 one could argue Kerry was more liberal than Edwards.  I think what's fair to say is since McGovern the Dems have been much more cautious, and likely err toward the candidate that's perceived to have the best chance in the general (even if that perception is mistaken).

I agree, Democrats are always more worried about electability.  The only time that I think that wasn't the case was also 2008, when many felt that Clinton was more electable than Obama (I remember worrying about this at the time).  Although I think that has obviously been demonstrated to be false, since Obama is a two term President, and Clinton lost to Donald Trump. 

Quote

What I think is much more striking is the amount of times the GOP nominated the runner up from the previous (non reelection) contest since 1980.  This happened in 1980, 1988, 1996, 2008, and 2012.  The only times it hasn't are 2000 and 2016 and, well, that says it all.

And in both of those cases the runner up was someone who was a really bad candidate (not charismatic, limited appeal within party) in Rick Santorum and Pat Buchanan.  Neither showed any acumen in the "invisible primary" prior to voting. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Isn’t the inevitability of the dumbing down of American and celebrity culture a Trump-Oprah 2020 presidential campaign?

Get ready for the Kardashian political dynasty….

1 hour ago, mormont said:

In Ivanka's head, Oprah was endorsing her father, not excoriating him. 

Hence why a few pages back I said that the Trump kids are every bit as dumb as their dad. But we shouldn’t speak so ill of the future leader of the free world, should we?

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The only time that I think that wasn't the case was also 2008, when many felt that Clinton was more electable than Obama (I remember worrying about this at the time).  Although I think that has obviously been demonstrated to be false, since Obama is a two term President, and Clinton lost to Donald Trump. 

I recall endlessly pointing out that Obama polled better than Clinton against every prospective GOP nominee throughout 2008 (and 2007).  So yeah, there was certainly a perception that Clinton was the safer choice, and it was wrong and annoying.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I recall endlessly pointing out that Obama polled better than Clinton against every prospective GOP nominee throughout 2008 (and 2007).  So yeah, there was certainly a perception that Clinton was the safer choice, and it was wrong and annoying.

A lot of people (myself included) worried that America was just too racist to elect a black man in 2008.  I was wrong - we were willing to elect him, there was just a huge portion of the country that would do everything to ensure he didn't succeed, and will never admit he was the best president we've had in decades. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I agree, Democrats are always more worried about electability.  The only time that I think that wasn't the case was also 2008, when many felt that Clinton was more electable than Obama (I remember worrying about this at the time).  Although I think that has obviously been demonstrated to be false, since Obama is a two term President, and Clinton lost to Donald Trump. 

I think the caveat here is that while Clinton was seen as the more electable candidate, Obama was also seen as an electable candidate and it didn’t matter as much that cycle because the Republican was almost destined to lose.Democrats could have run on a @Jaime L/Maith ticket with the campaign slogan being Make The Washington Redskins Not Racist Again and they still would have won.

[DMC]

58 minutes ago, Fez said:

However, if the process is fractured the way Republicans in 2016 were, I could easily see Oprah winning with a plurality a la Trump. If Biden, Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand, Kerry, Klobacher, Brown, Booker, Hickenlooper, Garcetti, Cuomo, O'Malley, Harris, Bullock, McAullife, and Bob Iger and Tom Steyer all run, along with who knows who else, who has the celebrity to compete with Oprah for media attention?

Yep, it is very easy to imagine a scenario strikingly similar to the 2016 GOP contest.  My hope is a lot of those I'd consider spoilers (e.g. Brown, Hickenlooper, Garcetti, O'Malley, Bullock, McAullife, Seth Moulton, Chris Murphy) either don't run or get out very early; as well as the billionaire moguls realizing entering the public sphere isn't as easy as it looks.  I think there's a happy medium there in which a field of, say, Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand, Booker, Harris, Cuomo, and Deval Patrick both keeps enthusiasm up throughout all factions and helps the party talk out its issues.

Of course, the obvious solution to all this is for one of the above to be given the Cecil B. Demille award next year.  I'm always hearing how the HFP are for sale.