-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliERA 2019 |OT4| Folded like a DOG
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- Status
FYI: The Maddow interview with Mayor Pete is re-airing right now.
Breaking News: I love him.
Breaking News: I love him.
Last edited:
I often have cable news running in the background when I'm working. One thing I've noticed is the feeling you get just when hearing a candidate speak without seeing their face. A Presidential candidate usually needs either a strong, inspirational, or soothing voice. If a candidate can't fall into one of those categories, usually there's going to be problems. Personally, I think Kamala, Booty, and Beto have the best speaking voices in the 2020 field. Here's my ranking:
Top Tier
#1. Buttigieg - This guy has best speaking voice this side of Reagan. His speaking style is basically a combination of Obama and Reagan, embodying both inspirational and soothing. His meteoric rise is based purely off his ability to speak to people.
#2. Kamala - It's difficult for women to have a strong speaking voice without being perceived as sounding "shrill". But Kamala does just that, she has a strong authoritative voice both when speaking to large crowds or when she's interrogating a corrupt Trump official in a Senate hearing. I think she has the strongest voice in the field.
#3. Beto - He is pure inspiration, very Obama like. Beto is at his best when he's speaking to small/medium crowds. And even when's being idealistic, he sounds very authentic. He never sounds rehearsed. The jury is still out on how he does in one-on-one sitdown interviews. Similar to Obama's early days, Beto has been shying away from national interviews on cable TV and instead is just grinding in the field.
Middle Tier
#4. Cory Booker - He has also an inspirational style with a dash of soothing. The problem for Booker is that he has a tendency to sound very inauthentic at times. It could be a combination of being over-rehearsed or just being contrived like his "Spartacus" moment. I think this is why Booker hasn't broken through similar to guys like Beto and Buttigieg who sound more authentic.
#5 (tied) Bernie Sanders - His voice style falls into the "strong" category. Problem for Bernie has a bit of a "cranky old man", "get off my lawn", tinge to his voice as well. So yes his style works when he's railing against income inequality. Classic populist style like Trump. But it's a poor fit when a conciliatory tone is needed to bring people together. Kamala has a strong voice, but she knows how to modulate it much better than Bernie.
#5 (tied). Biden - Very similar to Bernie. He's speaking style falls into the "strong" category with the similar drawbacks as Sanders. Biden has a slightly more empathetic voice than Bernie but he can also go too strong at times. So basically Biden hits the extremes on the spectrum a little more than Bernie.
Bottom Tier
#6. Warren - Her voice isn't bad actually. It just doesn't really fit into the three main categories of "strong", "inspirational", or "soothing". On her best days, she can sound a bit soothing but on her bad days she can verge on being "shrill". But overall she sounds wonkish. That isn't bad and doesn't sound offensive or anything, it's just we generally don't elect wonkish Presidents over the last half century. It's a shame because Warren probably has the most substantive campaign so far.
#7. Gillibrand - Every time I have the TV on the background and Gillibrand comes on, I thought a teenager was speaking. She has a very youthful sounding voice. I think it works in her favor when she's talking one-to-one with voters, but on TV and bigger settings her voice just doesn't have the gravitas and it sounds like my pre-teen daughter is running for President.
#8. Hickenlooper / Ryan / Delaney / Swalwell - All of these people have the generic white politician voice. If you hear them on TV, you won't even look up at the TV. And when they speak in front of crowds they go for "strength" but they often sound a bit stiff and robotic.
#9. Klobuchar - She has the worst voice by far particularly at speaking level in interviews. Her voice is shaky. In an interview yesterday I thought she was on the verge of crying the whole time (she wasn't). A shaky voice gives the perception of weakness which is a killer for a Presidential candidate. She actually has a pretty good voice when addressing crowds, her voice strengthens and becomes less shaky. Her snow speech was pretty good. But her voice is really shaky in small settings.
Agree or disagree with the list above? Subscribe to the channel and post in the comments below.
Top Tier
#1. Buttigieg - This guy has best speaking voice this side of Reagan. His speaking style is basically a combination of Obama and Reagan, embodying both inspirational and soothing. His meteoric rise is based purely off his ability to speak to people.
#2. Kamala - It's difficult for women to have a strong speaking voice without being perceived as sounding "shrill". But Kamala does just that, she has a strong authoritative voice both when speaking to large crowds or when she's interrogating a corrupt Trump official in a Senate hearing. I think she has the strongest voice in the field.
#3. Beto - He is pure inspiration, very Obama like. Beto is at his best when he's speaking to small/medium crowds. And even when's being idealistic, he sounds very authentic. He never sounds rehearsed. The jury is still out on how he does in one-on-one sitdown interviews. Similar to Obama's early days, Beto has been shying away from national interviews on cable TV and instead is just grinding in the field.
Middle Tier
#4. Cory Booker - He has also an inspirational style with a dash of soothing. The problem for Booker is that he has a tendency to sound very inauthentic at times. It could be a combination of being over-rehearsed or just being contrived like his "Spartacus" moment. I think this is why Booker hasn't broken through similar to guys like Beto and Buttigieg who sound more authentic.
#5 (tied) Bernie Sanders - His voice style falls into the "strong" category. Problem for Bernie has a bit of a "cranky old man", "get off my lawn", tinge to his voice as well. So yes his style works when he's railing against income inequality. Classic populist style like Trump. But it's a poor fit when a conciliatory tone is needed to bring people together. Kamala has a strong voice, but she knows how to modulate it much better than Bernie.
#5 (tied). Biden - Very similar to Bernie. He's speaking style falls into the "strong" category with the similar drawbacks as Sanders. Biden has a slightly more empathetic voice than Bernie but he can also go too strong at times. So basically Biden hits the extremes on the spectrum a little more than Bernie.
Bottom Tier
#6. Warren - Her voice isn't bad actually. It just doesn't really fit into the three main categories of "strong", "inspirational", or "soothing". On her best days, she can sound a bit soothing but on her bad days she can verge on being "shrill". But overall she sounds wonkish. That isn't bad and doesn't sound offensive or anything, it's just we generally don't elect wonkish Presidents over the last half century. It's a shame because Warren probably has the most substantive campaign so far.
#7. Gillibrand - Every time I have the TV on the background and Gillibrand comes on, I thought a teenager was speaking. She has a very youthful sounding voice. I think it works in her favor when she's talking one-to-one with voters, but on TV and bigger settings her voice just doesn't have the gravitas and it sounds like my pre-teen daughter is running for President.
#8. Hickenlooper / Ryan / Delaney / Swalwell - All of these people have the generic white politician voice. If you hear them on TV, you won't even look up at the TV. And when they speak in front of crowds they go for "strength" but they often sound a bit stiff and robotic.
#9. Klobuchar - She has the worst voice by far particularly at speaking level in interviews. Her voice is shaky. In an interview yesterday I thought she was on the verge of crying the whole time (she wasn't). A shaky voice gives the perception of weakness which is a killer for a Presidential candidate. She actually has a pretty good voice when addressing crowds, her voice strengthens and becomes less shaky. Her snow speech was pretty good. But her voice is really shaky in small settings.
Agree or disagree with the list above? Subscribe to the channel and post in the comments below.
Last edited:
Biden's main problem with his voice is that it communicates things in his head to an audience.
Our provinces do too, and tax rates can hit over 50% pretty quick (50% federal, up to 10% provincial I think), plus 20% VAT!
But we do get that sweet-ass welfare state, and our taxation rates are exceptionally high.
I just worry many Americans underestimate the tax and sales tax rates required to finance all this stuff.
Bizarrely our capital gains tax upon selling is 0%, so if you're big on stocks you can make an absolute killing here.
But what about Tootsie /s
Very interesting post that from what I have heard so far seems on the money.
Bill Mitchell has a string of about 30 tweets this morning talking about the Mueller report release and how it will be devastating for Democrats. I'm genuinely concerned how keyboard warriors will handle some of the deep dives on a 400 page document exposing Russian wrongdoing and executive abuse.
I've honestly never heard of Tootsie speak beyond a random Youtube video. I don't think she's done one nationally televised interview or gone on the cable news circuit. Even guys like Yang have done a segment on Morning Joe. Didn't Tootsie's campaign implode before even the new year started?
Imagine having the President of another country as a gullible idiot that you can use as an asset and you don't even need to worry about the fact that he's completely unambiguous about his loyalty and favoritism because the citizens of said country are just too fucking stupid or apathetic to care.
If Pete ends up the nominee, I have a hard time seeing Midwest voting for a gay president. Even Florida and NC will be hard fought. Places like Cali, Illinois, NY etc will vote overwhelmingly for Pete but the electoral victory is gonna be tough.
I still have a weird inkling that a gay white man might be more palatable to voters than a woman.
Voters only really see a gay man when his husband is there or when he talks about it. A woman is outwardly a woman every second of a voter's interaction with them. Harder to forget.
Uh-oh, Omar wasn't explicit enough in praising Notre Dame. Better pass a resolution on the House about how much she sucks.
A handful of female, freshmen House Reps has the GOP in fucking SHAMBLES. Every single move they make causes another meltdown.
I would hesitate to say they're in shambles because it's a clear deliberate strategy to paint democrats as Ilhan, AOC, and Pelosi. And it's working for the most part.
Sadly, I agree. I think all the solid blue states would gladly vote for him but those swing states I'm really not sure about. Especially after Fox News and the rest of conservative media start really highlighting his sexual identity. You'll see them plastering pictures of him kissing his husband or something to "gross" people out. Hell, Trump himself may directly attack him for being gay knowing that tens of millions of deplorables will cheer and agree with him.
That obviously depends on the person. Pete's military service and the fact that he's seen as "masculine" help him there.
I don't think we have any metrics that suggest it's "working" (i.e. hurting Democrats) at the moment.
Right. Not to play oppression olympics or anything but this particular context it's just easier for Pete to literally look the part. Compared to Warren or Harris. You see them as women 100% of the time and then when you go to check that box there's another reminder right there that they don't fit with past presidents.
The people who wouldn't vote for Pete because of his sexuality aren't voting Dem anyway. There's no loss there.
It's almost as if when you blame all Muslims for terrorist attacks this is the result. Weird how Omar predicted these responses, it's almost like she's lived through them and has some expertise on the matter.
Yep, his being masculine and not effeminate matters far more than it should.
I guarantee you there exists a subset of otherwise progressive people who would balk at an effeminate gay candidate.
We also are not sure how a Gay presidential nominee would fare in minority communities. I can tell that there is still a bit of homophobia in Islamic community. The last poll done by Gallup said 51% to 30 something are ok with a Gay president and it was frankly disappointingly low if you ask me. But that was also done a few years ago against a generic nominee and Pete is anything but generic, so there.
A priest on tv last night, who is old enough to know better, also likened the fire to a " 9/11 for France", which the anchor thankfully quickly corrected. I guess people are no longer exposed to the media of people jumping out of buildings and being disoriented and covered in debris, they only see a burning, collapsing building.
"- and Clintonworld folks like @davidbrockdc believe they can't wait a la Republicans with Trump. "
I mean, that sounds like it'd bode well for 2020 then?
I mean, that sounds like it'd bode well for 2020 then?
In all honesty, I don't think they are going to find too many impeachable bombshells in Trump's taxes.
What they will find is that he is not as rich as he claims to be and he doesn't want people to know this because his poor ego would be bruised.
Edit:
What's silly about comparing Notre Dame to a terrorist attack in America, is that if people wanted to pull that false equivelency from their asses, they could easily pull Paris' own terrorist attack as a tragedy comparison instead of trying to link it to the US's suffering.
What they will find is that he is not as rich as he claims to be and he doesn't want people to know this because his poor ego would be bruised.
Edit:
What's silly about comparing Notre Dame to a terrorist attack in America, is that if people wanted to pull that false equivelency from their asses, they could easily pull Paris' own terrorist attack as a tragedy comparison instead of trying to link it to the US's suffering.
He inflates his worth to get loans. His taxes would show that.
That's illegal, but that doesn't seem to matter. If you or I did it though...
I agree. I can never get a good feel for what Era members think of him. Can't tell if some genuinely don't like Bernie or if it is a faction of his supporters that they dislike.
I dislike both intensely.
I will not vote for him in the primary.
But I will gladly vote for him in the general if he gets the nomination because he'd be leagues better than any Republican. Obviously our objective has to be to oust Trump, and if he's the one we pick to do it, then he's the one. I support this party and its objectives - its commitment to civil rights and equity - and I know he largely shares my beliefs.
As someone who many in this thread would include in his "faction of supporters" (even though I've been very critical of Bernie, just as I am with anyone in government), I'm gonna say its a bit of both, but since they can't have a discussion with Bernie directly, their dislike for members here seems intensified.
Make no mistake the NYT wants a fractured Dem party and dumpster fire convention like in 2016. Best to not give trash articles like these the time of day. David Brock lol
Also very true. The NYT - you know, "FBI Sees No Clear Link," neo-Nazi puff pieces - has a vested interest in fomenting conflict among Democrats and boosting Strong White Daddy Republicans.
Holy shit I posted that dumb take on Ilhan's Notre Dame tweet thinking it was a small bit of dumb talking heads maybe... but the actual replies to her tweet are all ridiculously against what she said. Complaining she didn't name it, didn't call it a church, all she thinks about it is art and architecture, etc.
It's nuts.
It's nuts.
I think all news organizations have a vested interest in this.
Horse race mentalities are what draws in eye balls and ad money. A clear front runner without amy controversy or struggle is not interesting to cover.
Which is why you are going to have razor thin margin hottakes in 2020 with Trump and whoever because that is what the media -wants- their viewers to believe.
- Status