Let’s get down to brass tacks ...

[keepthefaith]

5 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Obama was the perfect storm: young, charismatic, good campaigning, relatively new in national politics, and went up against quite possibly the worst Republican candidate the RNC could have come up with.  McCain was basically a sacrificial lamb and Republicans just didn't have the self-awareness to know it.

 

Could Booker replicate that?  Possibly.  I'm not laying money on it though, and I don't think he's far left enough (single payer health care and such) to rile up the youngest, most liberal voters.  See: Clinton, Hillary.

 

Yes and Obama ran at the end of Bush who was pretty unpopular along with his party in his 2nd term.  Frankly almost any Dem could have won in 2008 IMO.  Obama was fresh and charismatic and built a good brand during the primary and election to a country of voters that mostly didn't know him.  For those of us in Illinois, however, we knew who he really was and what baggage he brought.  He did well to hide a lot of that. 

 

Trump running as an incumbent might scare away some candidates who would rather wait until 2024 as it's always tough to beat the incumbent.  Even Trump. The dems right now don't have anyone you could call a frontrunner or any nationally well known and respected candidates.  Their better known party leadership is ancient.  Their aren't any in the senate, house or as governors who are widely known and respected IMO, so 2020 will be someone who steps us as Obama did baggage checked. 

[Koko78]

7 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

 

So for 2020, do you feel that the only hurdle between Democrats and the presidency is a (nationally) politically untainted candidate, outside the machine, who avoids controversial statements about middle-America?

 

So “yes” to a Terry McAullife, a John Delaney (who will run), an Andrew Cuomo, or a Corey Booker?

 

And basically “no” to Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden or a Bernie Sanders?

 

This question is admittedly tough because the “hold your nose and vote for Trump” crowd will now (for better or for worse) be able to stand on his four-year record the next time the ballot box opens. 

 

Just so you know, Asswipe Cuomo says stupid things on a semi-regular basis, including telling people who disagree with him that they're not welcome to live in NY.

 

Quote

“Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

 

He added that moderate Republicans, such as those in the state Senate, “have a place in their state.”

 

https://nypost.com/2014/01/18/gov-cuomo-to-conservatives-leave-ny/

 

It should be noted that the Republican Majority in the NY Senate are spineless Busey's who cowtow to whatever Cuomo wants.

[LeviF]

Resurrecting this thread because I found this take on identity politics:

 

Quote

 

 

My view on identity politics is that it can be justified only if everyone of any ethnicity is entitled to participate, in which case it is necessary for all (because failing to assert it, as when White people of European ancestry fail to assert it lest they be branded as “racists”, means leaving oneself and one’s group defenseless against competition for resources and opportunity). Alternatively, lest any group be denied its identity while others assert their own, group identity must be equitably denied to everyone.

Human identity is stratified, and thus has both individual and group levels. Accordingly, we can (and sometimes must) reason in terms of group identity. But when group self-identification is officially granted to some groups yet denied to others against which they compete, this can only result in imbalance and injustice.

[snip]

In short, identity politics should either be shut down immediately, or the majority populations of Europe and North America should be encouraged to assert their own ethnic and cultural identities and group interests with full force. Any governmental, academic, religious, or media authority which tries to prevent it is clearly unworthy of respect and obedience.
 

 

 

While Juror presented his questions without commentary or thesis, there are many who would present those questions with the thesis "it's bad for straight white men to participate in identity politics" outright stated and the idea that it's ok for black folk, LGBT folk, etc. to participate in identity politics implied.

 

My only commentary is this: if straight white men are beginning to act more "tribal," in the sense of voting as a group rather than as individuals and embracing identity politics, look for the Left and the "moderate" Republicans to start decrying identity politics loudly and with great fervor within the next few years.

Edited May 24, 2018 by LeviF91