Draft Rachel Maddow for 2020

[ronburgundy]

I'd like to recruit a scholar. Constitutional law, foreign policy, a bit of both maybe?

Tough to find one that is relateable, and an eloquent speaker, and isn't socially awkward. They exist, but the stereotype has validity.

I'd be happy with a generally educated and thoughtful person who surrounded themselves with scholars.

 

[Elixir]

I like CT's Murphy, but I think he'd start to grate on people pretty quickly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Draft Warren Buffet. He actually knows how to run a business and he knows enough to know what he doesn't know and find the right experts to ask.

Fuck him, that little scrooge. He never ran a business, he is a successful stock market monkey. And yes, government is not a business. Also, he is old and I question his ability to surround himself with competent and more importantly decent people.

It's specifically his ability to find decent people that makes me think he would be a good president.

- - - Updated - - -

Draft Warren Buffet. He actually knows how to run a business and he knows enough to know what he doesn't know and find the right experts to ask.

We all heard that about Drump last year"He is rich,he must be smart". How did that meme work out?

I'm not saying he's smart because he's rich.

There's a good reason he's called the Oracle of Omaha, though.

 

[barbos]

Fuck him, that little scrooge. He never ran a business, he is a successful stock market monkey. And yes, government is not a business. Also, he is old and I question his ability to surround himself with competent and more importantly decent people.

It's specifically his ability to find decent people that makes me think he would be a good president.

What definition of "decent" do you use?

- - - Updated - - -

Draft Warren Buffet. He actually knows how to run a business and he knows enough to know what he doesn't know and find the right experts to ask.

We all heard that about Drump last year"He is rich,he must be smart". How did that meme work out?

I'm not saying he's smart because he's rich.

There's a good reason he's called the Oracle of Omaha, though.

Not me, I call him stock market monkey.

 

[Elixir]

What definition of "decent" do you use?

At this point I'd settle for "doesn't lie cheat and steal".

 

[barbos]

What definition of "decent" do you use?

At this point I'd settle for "doesn't lie cheat and steal".

Well, if i remember correctly Buffet company had at least one scandal with all of that.

 

[braces_for_impact]

What definition of "decent" do you use?

At this point I'd settle for "doesn't lie cheat and steal".

Yeah, someone that isn't dangerously incompetent would be nice. I really fear our first national crisis under this collection of fucknuts.

 

[zorq]

Isn't it a shame that we have to pick famous people for political office? Honestly, I'd draft the guy/gal who teaches Constituitional Law 101 at Stanford/Princton/Iowa State over any of these celebrity nimrods. I don't have any clue who those people are but I bet they would do a better job.

 

[RavenSky]

Isn't it a shame that we have to pick famous people for political office? Honestly, I'd draft the guy/gal who teaches Constituitional Law 101 at Stanford/Princton/Iowa State over any of these celebrity nimrods. I don't have any clue who those people are but I bet they would do a better job.

You mean like this guy?



Yes, I totally agree

 

[J842P]

Thinking about the 2020 elections, we need fresh political blood. Bernie Sanders will be very old, and I don't see many others who might possibly run and actually win. Of course that all depends on just how disastrous the GOP is for America over the next four years.

So I am thinking, could we manage to get Rachel Maddow to run? Would you vote for Rachel? Who else could possibly beat Trumpo?

Rachel Maddow would be a terrible choice, strategically.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would pretty much scoff at any tv personality.... like our current President.

Sen. Whitehouse, Sen. Franken (who has done a pretty good job), Sen. Werner, Sen. Udall, maybe even Sen. Booker. The Democrats have a good deal of up and comers.

 

[lpetrich]

So I am thinking, could we manage to get Rachel Maddow to run? Would you vote for Rachel? Who else could possibly beat Trumpo?

Why is that supposed to be necessary? Why not someone with more experience in doing politics? We are having one dilettante already, so do we need another?

Why not other offices, like the US Congress and state and local offices?

 

[RavenSky]

I would pretty much scoff at any tv personality.... like our current President.

Sen. Whitehouse, Sen. Franken (who has done a pretty good job), Sen. Werner, Sen. Udall, maybe even Sen. Booker. The Democrats have a good deal of up and comers.

I think Al Franken has done a decent job, too - but wasn't he a "tv personality"?

 

[J842P]

So I am thinking, could we manage to get Rachel Maddow to run? Would you vote for Rachel? Who else could possibly beat Trumpo?

Why is that supposed to be necessary? Why not someone with more experience in doing politics? We are having one dilettante already, so do we need another?

Why not other offices, like the US Congress and state and local offices?

Eh, I wouldn't say she is a dilettante exactly. I don't really watch her show, but my impression is that she is a hawk. Very much in the Clinton wing of foreign policy. I may be wrong about that.

In any event, she is like the *prototypical* example of a smug, liberal elite. I don't know why anyone thinks that's the dog that will hunt given the current climate.

 

[Rhea]

Why is that supposed to be necessary? Why not someone with more experience in doing politics? We are having one dilettante already, so do we need another?

Why not other offices, like the US Congress and state and local offices?

Eh, I wouldn't say she is a dilettante exactly. I don't really watch her show, but my impression is that she is a hawk. Very much in the Clinton wing of foreign policy. I may be wrong about that.

In any event, she is like the *prototypical* example of a smug, liberal elite. I don't know why anyone thinks that's the dog that will hunt given the current climate.

I agree. I like part of her show. The part where she doesn't repeat herself. So about 1/4 of it. I actually _really_ like 1/4 of her show. The other 3/4 though, does seem smug and elitist.

It's weird, I like her style, I like her manner, I love her intelligence. But I can't sit through her whole show. (I hear it on podcast).

 

[Jayjay]

Here is a novel idea: how about ditching the conventional wisdom that the VP has to be a bland candidate. Pick an experienced presidential candidate, and then pair him/her up with a "tv personality" that can rally the troops, instead of vice versa. The VP doesn't really do shit anyway except function as backup in case the president happens to die or leave the office, but realistically, how often does that happen?

<TBD> / Maddow 2020!

 

[J842P]

Eh, I wouldn't say she is a dilettante exactly. I don't really watch her show, but my impression is that she is a hawk. Very much in the Clinton wing of foreign policy. I may be wrong about that.

In any event, she is like the *prototypical* example of a smug, liberal elite. I don't know why anyone thinks that's the dog that will hunt given the current climate.

I agree. I like part of her show. The part where she doesn't repeat herself. So about 1/4 of it. I actually _really_ like 1/4 of her show. The other 3/4 though, does seem smug and elitist.

It's weird, I like her style, I like her manner, I love her intelligence. But I can't sit through her whole show. (I hear it on podcast).

Yeah, I enjoy watching clips of her show. I like her rants. But she is preaching to my choir. After Trump trounced Clinton, I cannot believe that people think that the right strategy is to pick a lesbian policy wonk. Getting urban liberals to vote against Trump *isn't the freaking problem*. The the Rust Belt was the deciding factor, **that is the place the Democrats needs to concentrate**. Someone with charisma and good track record with labor. Someone who can be sold as authentic and and "anti-establishment" as much as possible. Someone who you can put up against Trump and get a white, urban, factor workers to rally around. Clinton was never a good choice for this crowd, her political and family background (rich WASP) put her at a disadvantage, and Republicans capitalized on this with selective quotes that made her look particularly out of touch (all on top of a concerted effort against her re: Bengazhi, the e-mails, etc).

 

[J842P]

Here is a novel idea: how about ditching the conventional wisdom that the VP has to be a bland candidate. Pick an experienced presidential candidate, and then pair him/her up with a "tv personality" that can rally the troops, instead of vice versa. The VP doesn't really do shit anyway except function as backup in case the president happens to die or leave the office, but realistically, how often does that happen?

<TBD> / Maddow 2020!

Really?! While Maddow is technically a "TV personality", she isn't exactly a lightweight. She got her undergraduate degree in public policy from Stanford, and then became a Rhodes scholar, and finally got her PhD from Oxford.

The problem with Maddow is that she would do nothing to break the Trump coalition. You could not design a candidate less politically positioned to run against Trump. Fundamentally, it is a cultural issue which I wouldn't expect someone outside the American cultural context to necessarily understand.

The fact that people think this would be effective bodes horribly for the Dems chances against Trump.

 

[Jayjay]

Here is a novel idea: how about ditching the conventional wisdom that the VP has to be a bland candidate. Pick an experienced presidential candidate, and then pair him/her up with a "tv personality" that can rally the troops, instead of vice versa. The VP doesn't really do shit anyway except function as backup in case the president happens to die or leave the office, but realistically, how often does that happen?

<TBD> / Maddow 2020!

Really?! While Maddow is technically a "TV personality", she isn't exactly a lightweight. She got her undergraduate degree in public policy from Stanford, and then became a Rhodes scholar, and finally got her PhD from Oxford.

The problem with Maddow is that she would do nothing to break the Trump coalition. You could not design a candidate less politically positioned to run against Trump. Fundamentally, it is a cultural issue which I wouldn't expect someone outside the American cultural context to necessarily understand.

The fact that people think this would be effective bodes horribly for the Dems chances against Trump.

What I'm thinking is that a flashier VP candidate, be it Maddow or someone like her, would be for the purpose of rallying the liberals, not to break up the Trump or Republican vote. That's what the presidential candidate is for. A bit like how Pence is there just to please the old-guard conservatives to whom Trump is too liberal.

(Not that I'm a particular fan of Maddow, just using her as a placeholder as the OP brought her up. Could be any other suitable celebrity personality, really.)

 

[braces_for_impact]

It's interesting how people are perceived by others. I take Maddow's show for what it is: preaching to the choir, mostly (like most of MSNBC) but I enjoy her show quite a bit, and I really don't think she's smug. Now I occasionally watch Lawrence O'Donnel too, and he's smug to me.