(January 8, 2018 at 11:18 am)Industrial Lad Wrote: While it's true she would be better than Trump, I want a serious candidate. It's not enough for me to win I want to win and have it be somebody competent in the role. To my knowledge, she has no experience in politics.

I would pick Bernie Sanders. or Elizabeth Warren, my states Senator Sherrod Brown (even though he doesn't have name recognition-he's still good), or anybody that's even a semi corporate democrat that's to the left of most corporate Democrats first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherrod_Brown
IDK if he could win but he would make a good president.

Maybe he's earned a shot at it, maybe he hasn't. Nothing personal against Oprah, but she hasn't.


I don't think it's even a winning strategy to try to imitate the Republicans by running someone with no prior experience.

Trump didn't win just because he wasn't a politician-He won because of the fake populism.

It's not likely Democrats could recreate that.

Political experience is over rated.  Consider Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Boxer.   They've been in Washington since dirt was created but would you want one of them to be President?  

In the last election everyone had more experience than Trump, who had none.  But what Trump did have was a message that appealed to the Rust Belt voters and those were the voters who elected him.  And Trump's message has been consistent for years, as shown in his interview with Oprah.  

Sanders had experience and a message.  It appealed to some but Lying Crooked Hillary and her gang rigged the system against him.  Even if he had gotten the nomination he wouldn't have won because the Red State voters woudn't have voted for him and the Rust Belt voters didn't like his message.  He would have carried the Blue States.

Lying Crooked Hillary had experience but no message.  She won the Blue States but didn't stand a chance in the Red States because she is a Dem.  She didn't campaign in the Rust Belt States.  And her lack of an economic message doomed her there.  

Oprah is popular and she would win the Blue States.  But without a very good economic message she would lose the Rust Belt States.  She would lose all of the Red States, including Alabama.  Consequently she would lose the election.  

The bottom line is that any Dem candidate will win in the Blue States.  Any Repub candidate will win the Red States.  The winner depends on who can sway the Rust Belt voters.  That's the only poll that matters.

(January 8, 2018 at 9:23 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(January 8, 2018 at 11:18 am)Industrial Lad Wrote: While it's true she would be better than Trump, I want a serious candidate. It's not enough for me to win I want to win and have it be somebody competent in the role. To my knowledge, she has no experience in politics.

I would pick Bernie Sanders. or Elizabeth Warren, my states Senator Sherrod Brown (even though he doesn't have name recognition-he's still good), or anybody that's even a semi corporate democrat that's to the left of most corporate Democrats first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherrod_Brown
IDK if he could win but he would make a good president.

Maybe he's earned a shot at it, maybe he hasn't. Nothing personal against Oprah, but she hasn't.


I don't think it's even a winning strategy to try to imitate the Republicans by running someone with no prior experience.

Trump didn't win just because he wasn't a politician-He won because of the fake populism.

It's not likely Democrats could recreate that.

In the last election everyone had more experience than Trump, who had none.  But what Trump did have was a message that appealed to the Rust Belt voters and those were the voters who elected him.  And Trump's message has been consistent for years, as shown in his interview with Oprah.  

Sanders had experience.... Even if he had gotten the nomination he wouldn't have won because the Red State voters woudn't have voted for him and the Rust Belt voters didn't like his message.  He would have carried the Blue States.

Lying Crooked Hillary had experience but no message.  She won the Blue States but didn't stand a chance in the Red States because she is a Dem.  She didn't campaign in the Rust Belt States.  And her lack of an economic message doomed her there.  

Oprah is popular and she would win the Blue States.  But without a very good economic message she would lose the Rust Belt States.  She would lose all of the Red States, including Alabama.  Consequently she would lose the election.  

The bottom line is that any Dem candidate will win in the Blue States.  Any Repub candidate will win the Red States.  The winner depends on who can sway the Rust Belt voters.  That's the only poll that matters.

In a nutshell, Mr. Wyrd. A lot of those same voters in the Rust Belt and Coal States hadn't voted for a Republican president in better than thirty years, but were until, 2016, a large and loyal voting base of the Democrat Party. If the Dems are to have any chance at all of taking the mid terms and winning back the White House in 2020 they're not going to do it without winning back their once largest and loyal voting base, the blue collar workers in the Rust Belt and Coal States. The Dems need a message first and a candidate later.

The candidate needs his/her own message and the party needs to support the nominee with the party platform. Of course the candidates should all be in agreement with the party's historical values. The nominee must be able to sell his/her vision to the critical voting block.

(January 8, 2018 at 6:37 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 8, 2018 at 3:39 pm)Mr.Obvious Wrote: Brian, I don't have anything against Oprah. But being smart, not having money handed to you and being backed by the Obama's are not reasons to vote for someone, to me.
It's not about any of that. If Neil deGrasse Tyson were to run for president, I would have my reservations as well.
He's really smart. He's not a spoiled brat. He might get support from the Obama's.
But would he be a good president for your country? I don't see why he would be.

Quick addition (edit): Don't get me wrong, being smart is important. But there are a shitload of smart people out there. And a shitload who are smart in different ways. And while I hope the US president will be smart, it is not enough to be smart to vote for someone.

Ugggg.....

It seems that even liberals want it the same way as conservatives.

We all want somebody new, and with experience at the same time.

If we don't want career politicians that would require new blood. And Obama ONLY had 3 years before he ran. McConnell sucked the dick of Andrew Jackson.

It amounts to picking your battles.

Face facts Brian, Oprahs policies wouldn't stray far from typical hard right policies, apart from increased support for woo cures to health problems.

As a woman totally dependant on the current system, Oprah's not going to bite the corporate hand that feeds her.

(January 9, 2018 at 3:31 am)Wololo Wrote:

(January 8, 2018 at 6:37 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Ugggg.....

It seems that even liberals want it the same way as conservatives.

We all want somebody new, and with experience at the same time.

If we don't want career politicians that would require new blood. And Obama ONLY had 3 years before he ran. McConnell sucked the dick of Andrew Jackson.

It amounts to picking your battles.

Face facts Brian, Oprahs policies wouldn't stray far from typical hard right policies, apart from increased support for woo cures to health problems.

As a woman totally dependant on the current system, Oprah's not going to bite the corporate hand that feeds her.

I'm sure Oprah is socially liberal, willing to combat climate change, and support health care for all. Aside from political experience, how was Hillary any better?

(January 9, 2018 at 4:58 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(January 9, 2018 at 3:31 am)Wololo Wrote: Face facts Brian, Oprahs policies wouldn't stray far from typical hard right policies, apart from increased support for woo cures to health problems.

As a woman totally dependant on the current system, Oprah's not going to bite the corporate hand that feeds her.

I'm sure Oprah is socially liberal, willing to combat climate change, and support health care for all. Aside from political experience, how was Hillary any better?

Your question is stupid, equivalent to asking how Valkyrie is a better doctor than Oprah once you leave aside the fact that Oprah has no medical qualifications.

Your asking me to pick the difference between two potential cadidates leaving aside everythinv we know about one which shows that they know what they're doing and are effective at it.

Oh, and from her own show I'm guessing that Oprah is far less liberal or in favour of a public health system than you think. Her favourite snake oil salesmen wouldn't last a day in a public health system and her personal profits would dry up in a liberal society.

(January 9, 2018 at 5:45 am)Wololo Wrote:

(January 9, 2018 at 4:58 am)Grandizer Wrote: I'm sure Oprah is socially liberal, willing to combat climate change, and support health care for all. Aside from political experience, how was Hillary any better?

Your question is stupid, equivalent to asking how Valkyrie is a better doctor than Oprah once you leave aside the fact that Oprah has no medical qualifications.

Your asking me to pick the difference between two potential cadidates leaving aside everythinv we know about one which shows that they know what they're doing and are effective at it.

Oh, and from her own show I'm guessing that Oprah is far less liberal or in favour of a public health system than you think. Her favourite snake oil salesmen wouldn't last a day in a public health system and her personal profits would dry up in a liberal society.

Jesus fucking Christ, I was addressing the context of your previous response. How was Hillary different from Oprah in terms of policies or being in the hands of corprorations? You're just guessing then that Oprah doesn't stray far from hard right policies.

And of course experience matters, but I put that aside to respond to what you were saying earlier.

(January 8, 2018 at 10:59 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The candidate needs his/her own message and the party needs to support the nominee with the party platform. Of course the candidates should all be in agreement with the party's historical values. The nominee must be able to sell his/her vision to the critical voting block.

I dunno, Wyrd. As far as democratic hopefuls for 2020 that have been tossed about none of them seem to have a message aside from resisting Trump and the GOP....and as far as the dem party platform, what the hell do they stand for these days? Even Schumer recognized all of that and stated several months ago that the Dems need a message other than resistance. The way the economy and jobs have been picking up the Dems are facing an uphill battle with their resistance message. They need to.make clear what their platform is, keeping jobs and the economy high on the list. They need a moderate candidate who has a message concerning jobs, the economy, trade, foreign policy,...the resistance shit is only going to sink the Democrats.

(January 9, 2018 at 3:31 am)Wololo Wrote:

(January 8, 2018 at 6:37 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Ugggg.....

It seems that even liberals want it the same way as conservatives.

We all want somebody new, and with experience at the same time.

If we don't want career politicians that would require new blood. And Obama ONLY had 3 years before he ran. McConnell sucked the dick of Andrew Jackson.

It amounts to picking your battles.

Face facts Brian, Oprahs policies wouldn't stray far from typical hard right policies, apart from increased support for woo cures to health problems.

As a woman totally dependant on the current system, Oprah's not going to bite the corporate hand that feeds her.

Bull which is why she backed Obama in both his runs. 

You think every single billionaire is a republican?

(January 8, 2018 at 9:23 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(January 8, 2018 at 11:18 am)Industrial Lad Wrote: While it's true she would be better than Trump, I want a serious candidate. It's not enough for me to win I want to win and have it be somebody competent in the role. To my knowledge, she has no experience in politics.

I would pick Bernie Sanders. or Elizabeth Warren, my states Senator Sherrod Brown (even though he doesn't have name recognition-he's still good), or anybody that's even a semi corporate democrat that's to the left of most corporate Democrats first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherrod_Brown
IDK if he could win but he would make a good president.

Maybe he's earned a shot at it, maybe he hasn't. Nothing personal against Oprah, but she hasn't.


I don't think it's even a winning strategy to try to imitate the Republicans by running someone with no prior experience.

Trump didn't win just because he wasn't a politician-He won because of the fake populism.

It's not likely Democrats could recreate that.

Political experience is over rated.  Consider Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barbara Boxer.   They've been in Washington since dirt was created but would you want one of them to be President?  

In the last election everyone had more experience than Trump, who had none.  But what Trump did have was a message that appealed to the Rust Belt voters and those were the voters who elected him.  And Trump's message has been consistent for years, as shown in his interview with Oprah.  

Sanders had experience and a message.  It appealed to some but Lying Crooked Hillary and her gang rigged the system against him.  Even if he had gotten the nomination he wouldn't have won because the Red State voters woudn't have voted for him and the Rust Belt voters didn't like his message.  He would have carried the Blue States.

Lying Crooked Hillary had experience but no message.  She won the Blue States but didn't stand a chance in the Red States because she is a Dem.  She didn't campaign in the Rust Belt States.  And her lack of an economic message doomed her there.  

Oprah is popular and she would win the Blue States.  But without a very good economic message she would lose the Rust Belt States.  She would lose all of the Red States, including Alabama.  Consequently she would lose the election.  

The bottom line is that any Dem candidate will win in the Blue States.  Any Repub candidate will win the Red States.  The winner depends on who can sway the Rust Belt voters.  That's the only poll that matters.

I never said it has to be someone that's been around since disco was popular, I just said I want a serious candidate.  Some degree of charisma as well as adequate competence aren't mutually exclusive.

I would be fine with someone that has served in the senate for a term or two provided they really are a progressive and they are a serious person.

It's not good enough for me to have someone with a D next to their name if they can't do the job properly. Furthermore it just isn't necessary. President of the United States is not an entry level job.