Thank You CNN

[_moksha]

It's their horse race power ranking based on how well positioned they think she is to win the nomination.

It's pulling a rabbit out of a hat through sleight of hand.

[_DoubtingThomas]

She doesn't "need" CNN, at least not in the sense that she doesn't an article by Harry Enten arguing of all the candidates, he power ranks her first in the horse race.

There is no horse race yet. News headlines can and do have an impact. The bandwagon effect is a problem.

[_DoubtingThomas]

One of the reasons to think she might be a strong candidate is that she already has connections to wealthy donors

Or maybe not! O'Rourke and Ojeda would make it an issue. Wealthy donors need to stay out of the Democratic primaries.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... influence/

[_EAllusion]

One of the reasons to think she might be a strong candidate is that she already has connections to wealthy donors

Or maybe not! O'Rourke and Ojeda would make it an issue. Wealthy donors need to stay out of the Democratic primaries.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... influence/

You literally just said that Harris lacks money as a basis to doubt her. When it is now pointed out to you what was originally mentioned by Enten that she has a lot of wealthy connections, you go in the exact opposite direction and argue that's because voters don't like wealth's influence in politics, this could hurt her.

One, pick a lane and go with it. Two, whether voters like the influence of wealth is a separate question from whether having it helps candidates with the answer unquestionably being yes, it does. Your personal opinion on what wealthy donors ought to do does not impact the truth of whether wealthy donors have outsized influence.

CNN isn't trying to make Harris the front-runner in a self-fulfilling prophecy with this article. "CNN" in this case is Harry Enten, who is a political forecaster who used to work for Nate Silver until CNN hired him away. He's just trying to make early educated predictions. 538 does the same thing, but they like to do it in the form of a staff draft rather than power ranking format. It's horse race coverage.

[_honorentheos]

DT -

I'm curious what you look for in a candidate? What specific qualifications should the person you intend to support exhibit? For example, while you've mentioned you prefer young candidates over old ones up thread, what does this really represent? Their ability to not die in office? A closer connection to the issues affecting people of a certain age? A bias against senior citizens?

Essentially I'm wondering why a CNN story affects how you feel about a candidate given I can't think of a single important qualification for President that is influenced by this.

[_EAllusion]

I prefer someone at the very least under the age of 70 as well. One, so they don't die in office. Two, mental faculties and energy are more likely to fade as a person ages and I want them in solid mental condition throughout their presidency. Trump's "watching TV, vacationing, and tweeting" approach to presidentin' is so unorthodox that it's easy to forget that it's an extremely mentally and physically demanding job. Three, a good ex-president is a useful thing to have politically.

Younger candidates are also more likely to not be out of touch with issues that older people tend to be, such as technology related matters, but I'm able to judge that based on the candidate rather than their age. But I don't want a President "series of tubes."

[_DoubtingThomas]

You literally just said that Harris lacks money as a basis to doubt her. When it is now pointed out to you what was originally mentioned by Enten that she has a lot of wealthy connections, you go in the exact opposite direction and argue that's because voters don't like wealth's influence in politics, this could hurt her.

You don't need wealthy donor to raise money for the primaries.

Two, whether voters like the influence of wealth is a separate question from whether having it helps candidates with the answer unquestionably being yes, it does.

It helps, but it can backfire too. O'Rourke and Ojeda will make it an issue in the primaries and primary voters don't want a Hillary Clinton 2.0.

[_DoubtingThomas]

For example, while you've mentioned you prefer young candidates over old ones up thread, what does this really represent? Their ability to not die in office? A closer connection to the issues affecting people of a certain age? A bias against senior citizens?

Not many 70 year olds have the ability to learn complicated things in a short period of time. Many seniors don't have excellent cognitive skills and aren't willing to change their mind. I do like Bernie Sanders, but I don't agree with him on everything and you simply can't change his mentality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncbb5B85sd0

[_honorentheos]

I miss how this answers the question asked regarding what qualifications you look for in a candidate. I brought up the example of a candidate's age to ask you to dig deeper into why that matter.

As a species we're great at pointing out things we don't like or why something is a problem in our opinions. But it's far more difficult to identify reasoned solutions or positive points we favor. Part of that is being negative puts us in the role of critic while being for something exposes us to criticism. So I'm genuinely curious about your positive considerations rather than the things that you don't favor. CNN telling you Harris is a front-runner appeared to be enough to turn you off of her as a candidate. That seems to indicate you hadn't really thought about the qualifications she might otherwise possess.

[_honorentheos]

I prefer someone at the very least under the age of 70 as well. One, so they don't die in office. Two, mental faculties and energy are more likely to fade as a person ages and I want them in solid mental condition throughout their presidency. Trump's "watching TV, vacationing, and tweeting" approach to presidentin' is so unorthodox that it's easy to forget that it's an extremely mentally and physically demanding job. Three, a good ex-president is a useful thing to have politically.

Younger candidates are also more likely to not be out of touch with issues that older people tend to be, such as technology related matters, but I'm able to judge that based on the candidate rather than their age. But I don't want a President "series of tubes."

While I agree with the thoughts above and personally see the sweet spot for chief executive as one that demands a balance of experience as well as mental/physical capacity I do think they go hand-in-hand rather than age being an explicit criteria I look to as an indication of someone's fitness for high office. While the Constitution set 35 as a minimum age, I would argue it serves more as a relic of their time where a person was much more of an adult at an earlier age then, while a 40 year old today is probably barely able to hit benchmarks I consider meaningful. I've mentioned elsewhere that in my opinion the better candidates combine both military experience with serving as either a governor or senator with a record of successful legislation writing and negotiating in that experience. Experience serving on certain committees in the Senate are major pluses, in my opinion, such as Foreign Relations or Appropriations that help augment that resume. Most people, and by that I mean pretty much everyone, won't gain the needed experience to be the nation's chief executive in a meaningful way having absorbed the relevant skills through experience by 35. And my concern with the direction of the modern Presidency is that it is being relegated to cheerleader-in-chief today who people seem to think should be a Christ-figure and lightning rod for change without any consideration most things take hard work and knowledge to achieve meaningful results.