The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Vice President Obama
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

She, not he–I mean Michelle rather than Barack, I don’t mean that as we’re a serious outfit, not tabloid trash!–is the most broadly popular top tier contender. It’s not even close:

Obama is the only one in positive territory among both the general public and among independents. She’s wildly popular among blacks and liked by suburban women. At the same time, she isn’t as disliked by Republicans as progressive senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are. She threads the electoral needle better than anyone else.

Kamala Harris has Silicon Valley’s backing, has the putative requisite experience, and checks the right demographic boxes, but she doesn’t wear well on people. She has the lowest approval rating in the perceived candidate pool (and a net rating lower than Donald Trump’s), including big negatives among independents.

 
Hide 36 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. A123 says:

    Obama is the only one in positive territory among both the general public and among independents. … She threads the electoral needle better than anyone else.

    Has Michelle Obama taken sides on the issues that resonate with the electorate?

    As First Lady, her policy initiatives were limited to secondary issues, such as making School Lunches worse. Ambiguity in key issues allows voters to make favorable assumptions about her positions.

    As a VP candidate, MO would receive substantially more attention.
    — Committing to specific policy positions will cause ambiguity-linked popularity to fade.
    — Also, she is likely to speak more forcefully than Biden. This risks negative perception (bossy or domineering) if she overshadows the Presidential candidate.

    I will not say that it is impossible, however it does score as unlikely. I believe MO is #7 in the “markets”.

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @JR Ewing

    Has Michelle Obama taken sides on the issues that resonate with the electorate?

    As First Lady, her policy initiatives were limited to secondary issues, such as making School Lunches worse. Ambiguity in key issues allows voters to make favorable assumptions about her positions.
     
    That's a feature, not a bug.
    , @Lowe
    Yeah, you are right. A major part of Michelle Obama's popularity is due to her not actually running for office.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The primary reason for its unlikeliness stems from her being unexcited about the prospect, I think. If she went the Stacey Abrams route and publicly proclaimed that she'd be happy to be VP, she'd probably get it.
  2. Remember when USA comedienne Joan Rivers said out loud that Michelle Obama is a tranny and Barack is gay … and turned up dead shortly afterwards? Here’s Joan Rivers, 49 seconds

    Or when Barack Obama public called Michelle ‘Michael’, 24 seconds

    The Obama’s ‘daughters’ are said to have been adopted in Morocco … Michelle does have an odd genital bulge in a lot of photos and videos … the pastor who introduced Barry and Michelle, was known for finding faux spouses for gay men … FWIW, the below, long widely circulated on the web:

    Michelle Obama, [former] First Lady of the United States, was born Michael LaVaughn Robinson in Chicago, Illinois on January 17th, 1964. He was the second son born to Fraser Robinson III, a well known cocaine dealer and union thug for Crime Lord Mayor Richard J. Daley, and Marian Shields Robinson, a transient street prostitute who was diagnosed with the HIV virus in 1998. He was a popular high school athlete and in 1982, he accepted a scholarship to play middle linebacker for the Oregon State Beavers.

    After finishing a respectable rookie season with 88 tackles and 7.5 sacks, he suddenly dropped out of the school. Fellow teammates observed that Robinson could regularly be heard lamenting over how he is a “woman trapped inside a man’s body”, and on January 13th, 1983, he underwent sex reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. To hide the shame of his new identity, Michael left Oregon State to attend Princeton University under his new legal name, “Michelle Robinson”.

    Years later, (s)he met Barry Obama Jr. They subsequently married and adopted two children.

    • Replies: @Truth

    Remember when USA comedienne Joan Rivers said out loud that Michelle Obama is a tranny and Barack is gay

     

    Yes. Which leads to the question, "And sew whut?"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8hdUlZrBoc


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BhBdUoKGHI
    , @Bill Jones
    So it looks like Chicago is living up to the Second City Firsts meme. Having gifted us the first dual national president (unless one counts Washington) it's going to give us the first Tranny Wookie.
  3. Obama is the only one in positive territory among both the general public and among independents.

    I take the category All Adults refers to chronological age…not mental age?

    • Thanks: RadicalCenter
  4. Stuff like this makes me just want to shut my door and turn my back on the world.

    In every possible objective sense, Michelle Obama has zero qualifications to be President, no matter what your political orientation is. I mean, I don’t think Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush or Melania Trump (or Ivanka) are (were) qualified to be President, either. (I didn’t think Hillary Clinton was qualified to be a Senator or Secretary of State, but the world just keeps disappointing me). But Michelle is particularly bad. Her whole life she’s been a mediocre affirmative action beneficiary and/or ridden on her husband’s coattails. I cannot fathom what the average person in the poll sees in her.

    Marriage is not a qualification to hold your husband’s office. My wife can’t do my job despite years of being married to me while I was doing it!

    That gets me thinking, though. What does qualify one to be President? I’d say high level executive and negotiation skills are probably the most important. By that measure, Trump is the most qualified President in decades. Previous Presidents who have been governors are OK, but a tenure as governor doesn’t last nearly long enough to become an expert, not like Trump’s decades of experience.

    And being a Senator is a really poor qualification. It’s a job that requires no particular skills, knowledge, or expertise. All you have to be good at is self-promotion. I’m not a fan of life-long politicians in general. They’re almost anti-qualified as a group, despite the fact that they’re very successful in getting elected.

    • Replies: @Brian Reilly
    Cloudbuster, Thanks for a great comment. It is spot on. I shall drink a virtual toast to you shortly after noon.
    , @Pericles
    Note that, regardless of their qualifications, the various women around popular figures have not infrequently served as public substitutes for the real thing. Benazir Bhutto, Sonia Gandhi and Evita Peron for instance.
    , @Intelligent Dasein

    That gets me thinking, though. What does qualify one to be President?
     
    Faithfulness to God, vision, and the willingness to destroy the oligarchs.
    , @Buzz Mohawk

    Stuff like this makes me just want to shut my door and turn my back on the world.
     
    Now is a good time to do it. It's the law.

    • Agree, BTW.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "And being a Senator is a really poor qualification. It’s a job that requires no particular skills, knowledge, or expertise. All you have to be good at is self-promotion. I’m not a fan of life-long politicians in general. They’re almost anti-qualified as a group, despite the fact that they’re very successful in getting elected."
     
    Agree except for Senators are "very successful in getting elected." The 2008 election was something of a historical anomaly in that both parties nominated a sitting Senator, so a Senator had to win. McCain did about as badly as one would expect, and Obama won on skin color privilege. And, unlike McCain, Obama hadn't been a Senator long, so you could say the least senatorial Senator won the race.

    Even if Biden were to win this November, he's been out of the Senate for over a decade, so technically he wouldn't be going from the Senate to the White House. In any case, Senatorial experience is not very common among Presidents. Prior to the anomalous 2008 election (and if Biden wins 2020, it's really just an extension of the weird 2008 case), the last President to have been in Senate was nine administrations ago: Nixon. And in his case, he was only in the Senate for two years, had been out of the Senate for over a decade and a half when elected President, and had been the two-term Vice President to a very popular President since then, so his minute Senate career had almost nothing to do with becoming President.

    The high-water mark of Senators in the White House may have been Kennedy-Johnson. But Kennedy didn't really win the extremely close 1960 Presidential election. He was put over the top by corrupt vote counting in Chicago and Texas. And Johnson got into office by Kennedy getting assassinated, not by election from the Senate. Kennedy's assassination also gave Johnson the sympathy vote he needed to win (against a sitting Senator: again, the least senatorial wins the Senator vs. Senator duel) his first actual Presidential election. Once the sympathy vote had worn off and he no longer faced a weak Senator opponent, Johnson's prospects were so bad he didn't even run.

    To find a sitting Senator winning the Presidency on his own electoral merits, we have to go back a century to the 1920 election of Warren G. Harding, who was famously the first sitting Senator to become President.

    Anyhow, long story short, out of hundreds of Senators who probably all thought they should be President, only about five managed it, only three directly from the Senate, and all but one with very extenuating circumstances (described above), so really Warren G. Harding is the only case of a Senator going straight from the Senate to the White House on his own electoral merits. And he is generally reviled today by anyone who remembers him at all.
    , @dfordoom

    What does qualify one to be President?
     
    A willingness to do what the donors want him to do? Which is only fair, since they own him.

    I don't think there are any other relevant qualifications.
  5. @A123

    Obama is the only one in positive territory among both the general public and among independents. ... She threads the electoral needle better than anyone else.
     
    Has Michelle Obama taken sides on the issues that resonate with the electorate?

    As First Lady, her policy initiatives were limited to secondary issues, such as making School Lunches worse. Ambiguity in key issues allows voters to make favorable assumptions about her positions.

    As a VP candidate, MO would receive substantially more attention.
    -- Committing to specific policy positions will cause ambiguity-linked popularity to fade.
    -- Also, she is likely to speak more forcefully than Biden. This risks negative perception (bossy or domineering) if she overshadows the Presidential candidate.

    I will not say that it is impossible, however it does score as unlikely. I believe MO is #7 in the "markets".

    PEACE 😷

    Has Michelle Obama taken sides on the issues that resonate with the electorate?

    As First Lady, her policy initiatives were limited to secondary issues, such as making School Lunches worse. Ambiguity in key issues allows voters to make favorable assumptions about her positions.

    That’s a feature, not a bug.

  6. @Cloudbuster
    Stuff like this makes me just want to shut my door and turn my back on the world.

    In every possible objective sense, Michelle Obama has zero qualifications to be President, no matter what your political orientation is. I mean, I don't think Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush or Melania Trump (or Ivanka) are (were) qualified to be President, either. (I didn't think Hillary Clinton was qualified to be a Senator or Secretary of State, but the world just keeps disappointing me). But Michelle is particularly bad. Her whole life she's been a mediocre affirmative action beneficiary and/or ridden on her husband's coattails. I cannot fathom what the average person in the poll sees in her.

    Marriage is not a qualification to hold your husband's office. My wife can't do my job despite years of being married to me while I was doing it!

    That gets me thinking, though. What does qualify one to be President? I'd say high level executive and negotiation skills are probably the most important. By that measure, Trump is the most qualified President in decades. Previous Presidents who have been governors are OK, but a tenure as governor doesn't last nearly long enough to become an expert, not like Trump's decades of experience.

    And being a Senator is a really poor qualification. It's a job that requires no particular skills, knowledge, or expertise. All you have to be good at is self-promotion. I'm not a fan of life-long politicians in general. They're almost anti-qualified as a group, despite the fact that they're very successful in getting elected.

    Cloudbuster, Thanks for a great comment. It is spot on. I shall drink a virtual toast to you shortly after noon.

  7. @A123

    Obama is the only one in positive territory among both the general public and among independents. ... She threads the electoral needle better than anyone else.
     
    Has Michelle Obama taken sides on the issues that resonate with the electorate?

    As First Lady, her policy initiatives were limited to secondary issues, such as making School Lunches worse. Ambiguity in key issues allows voters to make favorable assumptions about her positions.

    As a VP candidate, MO would receive substantially more attention.
    -- Committing to specific policy positions will cause ambiguity-linked popularity to fade.
    -- Also, she is likely to speak more forcefully than Biden. This risks negative perception (bossy or domineering) if she overshadows the Presidential candidate.

    I will not say that it is impossible, however it does score as unlikely. I believe MO is #7 in the "markets".

    PEACE 😷

    Yeah, you are right. A major part of Michelle Obama’s popularity is due to her not actually running for office.

  8. @Cloudbuster
    Stuff like this makes me just want to shut my door and turn my back on the world.

    In every possible objective sense, Michelle Obama has zero qualifications to be President, no matter what your political orientation is. I mean, I don't think Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush or Melania Trump (or Ivanka) are (were) qualified to be President, either. (I didn't think Hillary Clinton was qualified to be a Senator or Secretary of State, but the world just keeps disappointing me). But Michelle is particularly bad. Her whole life she's been a mediocre affirmative action beneficiary and/or ridden on her husband's coattails. I cannot fathom what the average person in the poll sees in her.

    Marriage is not a qualification to hold your husband's office. My wife can't do my job despite years of being married to me while I was doing it!

    That gets me thinking, though. What does qualify one to be President? I'd say high level executive and negotiation skills are probably the most important. By that measure, Trump is the most qualified President in decades. Previous Presidents who have been governors are OK, but a tenure as governor doesn't last nearly long enough to become an expert, not like Trump's decades of experience.

    And being a Senator is a really poor qualification. It's a job that requires no particular skills, knowledge, or expertise. All you have to be good at is self-promotion. I'm not a fan of life-long politicians in general. They're almost anti-qualified as a group, despite the fact that they're very successful in getting elected.

    Note that, regardless of their qualifications, the various women around popular figures have not infrequently served as public substitutes for the real thing. Benazir Bhutto, Sonia Gandhi and Evita Peron for instance.

    • Replies: @songbird
    It's happened a few times in the US too - at least on a lower level. Niki Tsongas being one example, and then, of course, more famously Hillary. Probably should be considered something on an extension of regular political dynasties, where male relatives get elected, like the Bushes or Kennedy family, based partly on the name being recognized.
  9. @Pericles
    Note that, regardless of their qualifications, the various women around popular figures have not infrequently served as public substitutes for the real thing. Benazir Bhutto, Sonia Gandhi and Evita Peron for instance.

    It’s happened a few times in the US too – at least on a lower level. Niki Tsongas being one example, and then, of course, more famously Hillary. Probably should be considered something on an extension of regular political dynasties, where male relatives get elected, like the Bushes or Kennedy family, based partly on the name being recognized.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Debbie Dingell is another extant example.
  10. I think the establishment only sees Biden as a one-term guy, which makes his VP pick more important. Who is the best candidate for showing the flaws in the system? I like Abrams, but I could come around to Michelle.

    BTW, I’m thinking Republicans are kind of having a knee-jerk reaction here. I don’t think that there are that many people who recognize Whitmer, Baldwin, or Klobuchar. Of course, the negative reaction is sensible in a way – no one in the pool is going to be non-establishment, whether one is familiar with them or not.

  11. @Cloudbuster
    Stuff like this makes me just want to shut my door and turn my back on the world.

    In every possible objective sense, Michelle Obama has zero qualifications to be President, no matter what your political orientation is. I mean, I don't think Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush or Melania Trump (or Ivanka) are (were) qualified to be President, either. (I didn't think Hillary Clinton was qualified to be a Senator or Secretary of State, but the world just keeps disappointing me). But Michelle is particularly bad. Her whole life she's been a mediocre affirmative action beneficiary and/or ridden on her husband's coattails. I cannot fathom what the average person in the poll sees in her.

    Marriage is not a qualification to hold your husband's office. My wife can't do my job despite years of being married to me while I was doing it!

    That gets me thinking, though. What does qualify one to be President? I'd say high level executive and negotiation skills are probably the most important. By that measure, Trump is the most qualified President in decades. Previous Presidents who have been governors are OK, but a tenure as governor doesn't last nearly long enough to become an expert, not like Trump's decades of experience.

    And being a Senator is a really poor qualification. It's a job that requires no particular skills, knowledge, or expertise. All you have to be good at is self-promotion. I'm not a fan of life-long politicians in general. They're almost anti-qualified as a group, despite the fact that they're very successful in getting elected.

    That gets me thinking, though. What does qualify one to be President?

    Faithfulness to God, vision, and the willingness to destroy the oligarchs.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    Good list.
    , @anon
    Faithfulness to which one?
    You do recall that whole "no religious test" thing in the Constitution, don't you?
    , @MBlanc46
    No, no, he means president of the actual United States.
  12. @brabantian
    Remember when USA comedienne Joan Rivers said out loud that Michelle Obama is a tranny and Barack is gay ... and turned up dead shortly afterwards? Here's Joan Rivers, 49 seconds
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al_Wa-haozo

    Or when Barack Obama public called Michelle 'Michael', 24 seconds
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JynPIhKcVX4

    The Obama's 'daughters' are said to have been adopted in Morocco ... Michelle does have an odd genital bulge in a lot of photos and videos ... the pastor who introduced Barry and Michelle, was known for finding faux spouses for gay men ... FWIW, the below, long widely circulated on the web:

    Michelle Obama, [former] First Lady of the United States, was born Michael LaVaughn Robinson in Chicago, Illinois on January 17th, 1964. He was the second son born to Fraser Robinson III, a well known cocaine dealer and union thug for Crime Lord Mayor Richard J. Daley, and Marian Shields Robinson, a transient street prostitute who was diagnosed with the HIV virus in 1998. He was a popular high school athlete and in 1982, he accepted a scholarship to play middle linebacker for the Oregon State Beavers.

    After finishing a respectable rookie season with 88 tackles and 7.5 sacks, he suddenly dropped out of the school. Fellow teammates observed that Robinson could regularly be heard lamenting over how he is a “woman trapped inside a man’s body”, and on January 13th, 1983, he underwent sex reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. To hide the shame of his new identity, Michael left Oregon State to attend Princeton University under his new legal name, “Michelle Robinson”.

    Years later, (s)he met Barry Obama Jr. They subsequently married and adopted two children.
     

    Remember when USA comedienne Joan Rivers said out loud that Michelle Obama is a tranny and Barack is gay

    Yes. Which leads to the question, “And sew whut?”

  13. Dumbo says:

    I think I was the one who suggested this first – and at the comments here. Not that I agree with it, she’s awful. But if the strategy is to do an “Obama presidency without Obama”, then it makes sense to get Biden and Michelle.

    In any case, it is clear that being “president of the U.S.” these days (or always) is just an actor’s job. No wonder many (Reagan, Trump) come from the entertainment industry. The real power lies elsewhere.

    I am reminded of a novel by Kurt Vonnegut (I think “Jailbird”, but I’m not sure) in which the president’s limousine would have a fake steering wheel at the back seat where the president sat. “That was to remind him that all he could ever do was to pretend to steer”.

    • Replies: @res

    I am reminded of a novel by Kurt Vonnegut (I think “Jailbird”, but I’m not sure) in which the president’s limousine would have a fake steering wheel at the back seat where the president sat. “That was to remind him that all he could ever do was to pretend to steer”.
     
    Thanks for that. Good memory.

    https://www.hjkeen.net/halqn/jailbird.htm

    The full excerpt can be seen on Google Books.
  14. @A123

    Obama is the only one in positive territory among both the general public and among independents. ... She threads the electoral needle better than anyone else.
     
    Has Michelle Obama taken sides on the issues that resonate with the electorate?

    As First Lady, her policy initiatives were limited to secondary issues, such as making School Lunches worse. Ambiguity in key issues allows voters to make favorable assumptions about her positions.

    As a VP candidate, MO would receive substantially more attention.
    -- Committing to specific policy positions will cause ambiguity-linked popularity to fade.
    -- Also, she is likely to speak more forcefully than Biden. This risks negative perception (bossy or domineering) if she overshadows the Presidential candidate.

    I will not say that it is impossible, however it does score as unlikely. I believe MO is #7 in the "markets".

    PEACE 😷

    The primary reason for its unlikeliness stems from her being unexcited about the prospect, I think. If she went the Stacey Abrams route and publicly proclaimed that she’d be happy to be VP, she’d probably get it.

    • Agree: MBlanc46
  15. @songbird
    It's happened a few times in the US too - at least on a lower level. Niki Tsongas being one example, and then, of course, more famously Hillary. Probably should be considered something on an extension of regular political dynasties, where male relatives get elected, like the Bushes or Kennedy family, based partly on the name being recognized.

    Debbie Dingell is another extant example.

  16. res says:
    @Dumbo
    I think I was the one who suggested this first - and at the comments here. Not that I agree with it, she's awful. But if the strategy is to do an "Obama presidency without Obama", then it makes sense to get Biden and Michelle.

    In any case, it is clear that being "president of the U.S." these days (or always) is just an actor's job. No wonder many (Reagan, Trump) come from the entertainment industry. The real power lies elsewhere.

    I am reminded of a novel by Kurt Vonnegut (I think "Jailbird", but I'm not sure) in which the president's limousine would have a fake steering wheel at the back seat where the president sat. "That was to remind him that all he could ever do was to pretend to steer".

    I am reminded of a novel by Kurt Vonnegut (I think “Jailbird”, but I’m not sure) in which the president’s limousine would have a fake steering wheel at the back seat where the president sat. “That was to remind him that all he could ever do was to pretend to steer”.

    Thanks for that. Good memory.

    https://www.hjkeen.net/halqn/jailbird.htm

    The full excerpt can be seen on Google Books.

  17. @brabantian
    Remember when USA comedienne Joan Rivers said out loud that Michelle Obama is a tranny and Barack is gay ... and turned up dead shortly afterwards? Here's Joan Rivers, 49 seconds
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al_Wa-haozo

    Or when Barack Obama public called Michelle 'Michael', 24 seconds
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JynPIhKcVX4

    The Obama's 'daughters' are said to have been adopted in Morocco ... Michelle does have an odd genital bulge in a lot of photos and videos ... the pastor who introduced Barry and Michelle, was known for finding faux spouses for gay men ... FWIW, the below, long widely circulated on the web:

    Michelle Obama, [former] First Lady of the United States, was born Michael LaVaughn Robinson in Chicago, Illinois on January 17th, 1964. He was the second son born to Fraser Robinson III, a well known cocaine dealer and union thug for Crime Lord Mayor Richard J. Daley, and Marian Shields Robinson, a transient street prostitute who was diagnosed with the HIV virus in 1998. He was a popular high school athlete and in 1982, he accepted a scholarship to play middle linebacker for the Oregon State Beavers.

    After finishing a respectable rookie season with 88 tackles and 7.5 sacks, he suddenly dropped out of the school. Fellow teammates observed that Robinson could regularly be heard lamenting over how he is a “woman trapped inside a man’s body”, and on January 13th, 1983, he underwent sex reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. To hide the shame of his new identity, Michael left Oregon State to attend Princeton University under his new legal name, “Michelle Robinson”.

    Years later, (s)he met Barry Obama Jr. They subsequently married and adopted two children.
     

    So it looks like Chicago is living up to the Second City Firsts meme. Having gifted us the first dual national president (unless one counts Washington) it’s going to give us the first Tranny Wookie.

  18. @Intelligent Dasein

    That gets me thinking, though. What does qualify one to be President?
     
    Faithfulness to God, vision, and the willingness to destroy the oligarchs.

    Good list.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  19. @Cloudbuster
    Stuff like this makes me just want to shut my door and turn my back on the world.

    In every possible objective sense, Michelle Obama has zero qualifications to be President, no matter what your political orientation is. I mean, I don't think Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush or Melania Trump (or Ivanka) are (were) qualified to be President, either. (I didn't think Hillary Clinton was qualified to be a Senator or Secretary of State, but the world just keeps disappointing me). But Michelle is particularly bad. Her whole life she's been a mediocre affirmative action beneficiary and/or ridden on her husband's coattails. I cannot fathom what the average person in the poll sees in her.

    Marriage is not a qualification to hold your husband's office. My wife can't do my job despite years of being married to me while I was doing it!

    That gets me thinking, though. What does qualify one to be President? I'd say high level executive and negotiation skills are probably the most important. By that measure, Trump is the most qualified President in decades. Previous Presidents who have been governors are OK, but a tenure as governor doesn't last nearly long enough to become an expert, not like Trump's decades of experience.

    And being a Senator is a really poor qualification. It's a job that requires no particular skills, knowledge, or expertise. All you have to be good at is self-promotion. I'm not a fan of life-long politicians in general. They're almost anti-qualified as a group, despite the fact that they're very successful in getting elected.

    Stuff like this makes me just want to shut my door and turn my back on the world.

    Now is a good time to do it. It’s the law.

    • Agree, BTW.

  20. Can an American explain to me why people (women) like her?

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    I am guessing pity as black women are bottom of the heap, I suppose she isn't fat and isn't overtly hostile like most.
  21. @Kent Nationalist
    Can an American explain to me why people (women) like her?

    I am guessing pity as black women are bottom of the heap, I suppose she isn’t fat and isn’t overtly hostile like most.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    She's plenty hostile, but she's had the Big Media covering that up for her since she suddenly became a public figure with her husband's rise. But yes, the perception of not being ugly and hostile, carefully cultivated for her by the media, and not spoiled by her actually running for anything is responsible for her "popularity", such as it is.

    Except for her popularity among blacks, which is just down to her being black. The only way she could spoil that part of her popularity would be by divorcing Barack and marrying a white man (or worse, a white woman). Blacks will forgive a black pol almost anything except race treachery. As LondonBob and Kent Nationalist are presumably British, y'all may not be intuitively familiar with the significance of the black voting bloc, which is about an eighth of the electorate and above a third of the Democrat primary voters, and votes as a uniform bloc more than any other large group. No Democrat can win nationally without it. RIP Bernie. So what the black bloc likes and dislikes assumes outsize proportions. And what the black bloc likes is blacks.

    Ah, the joys of multiculturalism. Spare your country if you can.
  22. @LondonBob
    I am guessing pity as black women are bottom of the heap, I suppose she isn't fat and isn't overtly hostile like most.

    She’s plenty hostile, but she’s had the Big Media covering that up for her since she suddenly became a public figure with her husband’s rise. But yes, the perception of not being ugly and hostile, carefully cultivated for her by the media, and not spoiled by her actually running for anything is responsible for her “popularity”, such as it is.

    Except for her popularity among blacks, which is just down to her being black. The only way she could spoil that part of her popularity would be by divorcing Barack and marrying a white man (or worse, a white woman). Blacks will forgive a black pol almost anything except race treachery. As LondonBob and Kent Nationalist are presumably British, y’all may not be intuitively familiar with the significance of the black voting bloc, which is about an eighth of the electorate and above a third of the Democrat primary voters, and votes as a uniform bloc more than any other large group. No Democrat can win nationally without it. RIP Bernie. So what the black bloc likes and dislikes assumes outsize proportions. And what the black bloc likes is blacks.

    Ah, the joys of multiculturalism. Spare your country if you can.

  23. @Cloudbuster
    Stuff like this makes me just want to shut my door and turn my back on the world.

    In every possible objective sense, Michelle Obama has zero qualifications to be President, no matter what your political orientation is. I mean, I don't think Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush or Melania Trump (or Ivanka) are (were) qualified to be President, either. (I didn't think Hillary Clinton was qualified to be a Senator or Secretary of State, but the world just keeps disappointing me). But Michelle is particularly bad. Her whole life she's been a mediocre affirmative action beneficiary and/or ridden on her husband's coattails. I cannot fathom what the average person in the poll sees in her.

    Marriage is not a qualification to hold your husband's office. My wife can't do my job despite years of being married to me while I was doing it!

    That gets me thinking, though. What does qualify one to be President? I'd say high level executive and negotiation skills are probably the most important. By that measure, Trump is the most qualified President in decades. Previous Presidents who have been governors are OK, but a tenure as governor doesn't last nearly long enough to become an expert, not like Trump's decades of experience.

    And being a Senator is a really poor qualification. It's a job that requires no particular skills, knowledge, or expertise. All you have to be good at is self-promotion. I'm not a fan of life-long politicians in general. They're almost anti-qualified as a group, despite the fact that they're very successful in getting elected.

    “And being a Senator is a really poor qualification. It’s a job that requires no particular skills, knowledge, or expertise. All you have to be good at is self-promotion. I’m not a fan of life-long politicians in general. They’re almost anti-qualified as a group, despite the fact that they’re very successful in getting elected.”

    Agree except for Senators are “very successful in getting elected.” The 2008 election was something of a historical anomaly in that both parties nominated a sitting Senator, so a Senator had to win. McCain did about as badly as one would expect, and Obama won on skin color privilege. And, unlike McCain, Obama hadn’t been a Senator long, so you could say the least senatorial Senator won the race.

    Even if Biden were to win this November, he’s been out of the Senate for over a decade, so technically he wouldn’t be going from the Senate to the White House. In any case, Senatorial experience is not very common among Presidents. Prior to the anomalous 2008 election (and if Biden wins 2020, it’s really just an extension of the weird 2008 case), the last President to have been in Senate was nine administrations ago: Nixon. And in his case, he was only in the Senate for two years, had been out of the Senate for over a decade and a half when elected President, and had been the two-term Vice President to a very popular President since then, so his minute Senate career had almost nothing to do with becoming President.

    The high-water mark of Senators in the White House may have been Kennedy-Johnson. But Kennedy didn’t really win the extremely close 1960 Presidential election. He was put over the top by corrupt vote counting in Chicago and Texas. And Johnson got into office by Kennedy getting assassinated, not by election from the Senate. Kennedy’s assassination also gave Johnson the sympathy vote he needed to win (against a sitting Senator: again, the least senatorial wins the Senator vs. Senator duel) his first actual Presidential election. Once the sympathy vote had worn off and he no longer faced a weak Senator opponent, Johnson’s prospects were so bad he didn’t even run.

    To find a sitting Senator winning the Presidency on his own electoral merits, we have to go back a century to the 1920 election of Warren G. Harding, who was famously the first sitting Senator to become President.

    Anyhow, long story short, out of hundreds of Senators who probably all thought they should be President, only about five managed it, only three directly from the Senate, and all but one with very extenuating circumstances (described above), so really Warren G. Harding is the only case of a Senator going straight from the Senate to the White House on his own electoral merits. And he is generally reviled today by anyone who remembers him at all.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    Agree except for Senators are “very successful in getting elected.”

    I meant very successful in getting elected to lower office, not President.

    Also Harding is as unfairly maligned by historians as Wilson is protected by them. Thank God we had Harding and Coolidge to somewhat mitigate the damage of Wilson's presidency. Teapot Dome, meanwhile, looks positively quaint compared to any given day inside the beltway today, and wasn't Harding's fault.

    , @Cloudbuster
    Also, the "very successful at getting elected" group I was referring to was"lifelong politicians" not Senators.
  24. @Cloudbuster
    Stuff like this makes me just want to shut my door and turn my back on the world.

    In every possible objective sense, Michelle Obama has zero qualifications to be President, no matter what your political orientation is. I mean, I don't think Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush or Melania Trump (or Ivanka) are (were) qualified to be President, either. (I didn't think Hillary Clinton was qualified to be a Senator or Secretary of State, but the world just keeps disappointing me). But Michelle is particularly bad. Her whole life she's been a mediocre affirmative action beneficiary and/or ridden on her husband's coattails. I cannot fathom what the average person in the poll sees in her.

    Marriage is not a qualification to hold your husband's office. My wife can't do my job despite years of being married to me while I was doing it!

    That gets me thinking, though. What does qualify one to be President? I'd say high level executive and negotiation skills are probably the most important. By that measure, Trump is the most qualified President in decades. Previous Presidents who have been governors are OK, but a tenure as governor doesn't last nearly long enough to become an expert, not like Trump's decades of experience.

    And being a Senator is a really poor qualification. It's a job that requires no particular skills, knowledge, or expertise. All you have to be good at is self-promotion. I'm not a fan of life-long politicians in general. They're almost anti-qualified as a group, despite the fact that they're very successful in getting elected.

    What does qualify one to be President?

    A willingness to do what the donors want him to do? Which is only fair, since they own him.

    I don’t think there are any other relevant qualifications.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    I am speaking ideally, not practically.
  25. @Intelligent Dasein

    That gets me thinking, though. What does qualify one to be President?
     
    Faithfulness to God, vision, and the willingness to destroy the oligarchs.

    Faithfulness to which one?
    You do recall that whole “no religious test” thing in the Constitution, don’t you?

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    The government is prohibited from using religious tests for office. The voters are fully entitled to do so.
  26. The logic is simple:. Biden dies or resigns, Michelle is the puppet, Barack is the Wizard of Oz. That is why Democrats want her, to get Barack back, because he fully supports the Oligarch’s rape of the 99 percent. The other choices they are not sure about, Hillary is incompetent, and Bloomberg is too obvious. You may thank me later for clearing things up.

    • Replies: @Truth

    That is why Democrats want her, to get Barack back, because he fully supports the Oligarch’s rape of the 99 percent
     
    As opposed the the guy who has closed 90% of the businesses in America, and forced their customers to Wal Mart, Target and Amazon?
  27. @Almost Missouri

    "And being a Senator is a really poor qualification. It’s a job that requires no particular skills, knowledge, or expertise. All you have to be good at is self-promotion. I’m not a fan of life-long politicians in general. They’re almost anti-qualified as a group, despite the fact that they’re very successful in getting elected."
     
    Agree except for Senators are "very successful in getting elected." The 2008 election was something of a historical anomaly in that both parties nominated a sitting Senator, so a Senator had to win. McCain did about as badly as one would expect, and Obama won on skin color privilege. And, unlike McCain, Obama hadn't been a Senator long, so you could say the least senatorial Senator won the race.

    Even if Biden were to win this November, he's been out of the Senate for over a decade, so technically he wouldn't be going from the Senate to the White House. In any case, Senatorial experience is not very common among Presidents. Prior to the anomalous 2008 election (and if Biden wins 2020, it's really just an extension of the weird 2008 case), the last President to have been in Senate was nine administrations ago: Nixon. And in his case, he was only in the Senate for two years, had been out of the Senate for over a decade and a half when elected President, and had been the two-term Vice President to a very popular President since then, so his minute Senate career had almost nothing to do with becoming President.

    The high-water mark of Senators in the White House may have been Kennedy-Johnson. But Kennedy didn't really win the extremely close 1960 Presidential election. He was put over the top by corrupt vote counting in Chicago and Texas. And Johnson got into office by Kennedy getting assassinated, not by election from the Senate. Kennedy's assassination also gave Johnson the sympathy vote he needed to win (against a sitting Senator: again, the least senatorial wins the Senator vs. Senator duel) his first actual Presidential election. Once the sympathy vote had worn off and he no longer faced a weak Senator opponent, Johnson's prospects were so bad he didn't even run.

    To find a sitting Senator winning the Presidency on his own electoral merits, we have to go back a century to the 1920 election of Warren G. Harding, who was famously the first sitting Senator to become President.

    Anyhow, long story short, out of hundreds of Senators who probably all thought they should be President, only about five managed it, only three directly from the Senate, and all but one with very extenuating circumstances (described above), so really Warren G. Harding is the only case of a Senator going straight from the Senate to the White House on his own electoral merits. And he is generally reviled today by anyone who remembers him at all.

    Agree except for Senators are “very successful in getting elected.”

    I meant very successful in getting elected to lower office, not President.

    Also Harding is as unfairly maligned by historians as Wilson is protected by them. Thank God we had Harding and Coolidge to somewhat mitigate the damage of Wilson’s presidency. Teapot Dome, meanwhile, looks positively quaint compared to any given day inside the beltway today, and wasn’t Harding’s fault.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  28. @Almost Missouri

    "And being a Senator is a really poor qualification. It’s a job that requires no particular skills, knowledge, or expertise. All you have to be good at is self-promotion. I’m not a fan of life-long politicians in general. They’re almost anti-qualified as a group, despite the fact that they’re very successful in getting elected."
     
    Agree except for Senators are "very successful in getting elected." The 2008 election was something of a historical anomaly in that both parties nominated a sitting Senator, so a Senator had to win. McCain did about as badly as one would expect, and Obama won on skin color privilege. And, unlike McCain, Obama hadn't been a Senator long, so you could say the least senatorial Senator won the race.

    Even if Biden were to win this November, he's been out of the Senate for over a decade, so technically he wouldn't be going from the Senate to the White House. In any case, Senatorial experience is not very common among Presidents. Prior to the anomalous 2008 election (and if Biden wins 2020, it's really just an extension of the weird 2008 case), the last President to have been in Senate was nine administrations ago: Nixon. And in his case, he was only in the Senate for two years, had been out of the Senate for over a decade and a half when elected President, and had been the two-term Vice President to a very popular President since then, so his minute Senate career had almost nothing to do with becoming President.

    The high-water mark of Senators in the White House may have been Kennedy-Johnson. But Kennedy didn't really win the extremely close 1960 Presidential election. He was put over the top by corrupt vote counting in Chicago and Texas. And Johnson got into office by Kennedy getting assassinated, not by election from the Senate. Kennedy's assassination also gave Johnson the sympathy vote he needed to win (against a sitting Senator: again, the least senatorial wins the Senator vs. Senator duel) his first actual Presidential election. Once the sympathy vote had worn off and he no longer faced a weak Senator opponent, Johnson's prospects were so bad he didn't even run.

    To find a sitting Senator winning the Presidency on his own electoral merits, we have to go back a century to the 1920 election of Warren G. Harding, who was famously the first sitting Senator to become President.

    Anyhow, long story short, out of hundreds of Senators who probably all thought they should be President, only about five managed it, only three directly from the Senate, and all but one with very extenuating circumstances (described above), so really Warren G. Harding is the only case of a Senator going straight from the Senate to the White House on his own electoral merits. And he is generally reviled today by anyone who remembers him at all.

    Also, the “very successful at getting elected” group I was referring to was”lifelong politicians” not Senators.

  29. @dfordoom

    What does qualify one to be President?
     
    A willingness to do what the donors want him to do? Which is only fair, since they own him.

    I don't think there are any other relevant qualifications.

    I am speaking ideally, not practically.

  30. @J. R. Chloupek
    The logic is simple:. Biden dies or resigns, Michelle is the puppet, Barack is the Wizard of Oz. That is why Democrats want her, to get Barack back, because he fully supports the Oligarch's rape of the 99 percent. The other choices they are not sure about, Hillary is incompetent, and Bloomberg is too obvious. You may thank me later for clearing things up.

    That is why Democrats want her, to get Barack back, because he fully supports the Oligarch’s rape of the 99 percent

    As opposed the the guy who has closed 90% of the businesses in America, and forced their customers to Wal Mart, Target and Amazon?

    • Replies: @A123

    As opposed the the guy who has closed 90% of the businesses in America, and forced their customers to Wal Mart, Target and Amazon?
     
    You mean Governors Newsom and Cuomo? Closures are mandated by the States. Often incompetently & illegally. Look at the disaster in Michigan.

    PEACE 😷
    _______

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xdsrKX3xQ1I/XrGSGVisPuI/AAAAAAACRXc/v8Y4YwhOA4MgSerxzhdIyidjKqpR3V3LACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1%2B1%2B1%2Bfgdfhdfhfghfgggg.png
  31. @anon
    Faithfulness to which one?
    You do recall that whole "no religious test" thing in the Constitution, don't you?

    The government is prohibited from using religious tests for office. The voters are fully entitled to do so.

    • Replies: @anon
    Actual qualifications for the office of President as stated in the Constitution:

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
     
    Citizens are free to make up any personal wish list they want, but the Constitutional qualifications are clear.
  32. @Truth

    That is why Democrats want her, to get Barack back, because he fully supports the Oligarch’s rape of the 99 percent
     
    As opposed the the guy who has closed 90% of the businesses in America, and forced their customers to Wal Mart, Target and Amazon?

    As opposed the the guy who has closed 90% of the businesses in America, and forced their customers to Wal Mart, Target and Amazon?

    You mean Governors Newsom and Cuomo? Closures are mandated by the States. Often incompetently & illegally. Look at the disaster in Michigan.

    PEACE 😷
    _______

    • Replies: @Truth
    Oh, the ph0ny left right paradigm again. How original.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-approves-michigans-disaster-declaration/
  33. @A123

    As opposed the the guy who has closed 90% of the businesses in America, and forced their customers to Wal Mart, Target and Amazon?
     
    You mean Governors Newsom and Cuomo? Closures are mandated by the States. Often incompetently & illegally. Look at the disaster in Michigan.

    PEACE 😷
    _______

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xdsrKX3xQ1I/XrGSGVisPuI/AAAAAAACRXc/v8Y4YwhOA4MgSerxzhdIyidjKqpR3V3LACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1%2B1%2B1%2Bfgdfhdfhfghfgggg.png
  34. @Intelligent Dasein

    That gets me thinking, though. What does qualify one to be President?
     
    Faithfulness to God, vision, and the willingness to destroy the oligarchs.

    No, no, he means president of the actual United States.

  35. anon[261] • Disclaimer says:
    @Cloudbuster
    The government is prohibited from using religious tests for office. The voters are fully entitled to do so.

    Actual qualifications for the office of President as stated in the Constitution:

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Citizens are free to make up any personal wish list they want, but the Constitutional qualifications are clear.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    I fail to see what bearing that quote has on the statement to which you are replying.

    It is simplistically reductive to assert that the minimum constitutional requirements to hold office are the endpoint of a discussion about what actually qualifies someone to do a good job in office.

  36. @anon
    Actual qualifications for the office of President as stated in the Constitution:

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
     
    Citizens are free to make up any personal wish list they want, but the Constitutional qualifications are clear.

    I fail to see what bearing that quote has on the statement to which you are replying.

    It is simplistically reductive to assert that the minimum constitutional requirements to hold office are the endpoint of a discussion about what actually qualifies someone to do a good job in office.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS