Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

Which 2020 Dem has a killer instinct?

Recommended Posts

Trump certainly has it. Do any of the 2020 Dems have a killer instinct? (A ruthless determination to succeed and win)

Is this instinct necessary to win an election?

Did Bill or Hillary Clinton have it? Did Romney or McCain? Did Obama or Kerry? Did Reagan or Carter? Nixon, LBJ, JFK? Etc. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Trump certainly has it. Do any of the 2020 Dems have a killer instinct? (A ruthless determination to succeed and win)

Is this instinct necessary to win an election?

Did Bill or Hillary Clinton have it? Did Romney or McCain? Did Obama or Kerry? Did Reagan or Carter? Nixon, LBJ, JFK? Etc. 

 

People who definitely did not have it: Romney, McCain, Obama, Kerry, Carter.  I'm familiar enough with their campaigns to know specific examples where they held their fire or otherwise would not compromise what they believed to get the win.

People who definitely do/did have it: Trump, Nixon, LBJ, Hillary.

Personally, I don't think it's necessary to be that way -- it's off-putting.  You just have to be strong in the face of it, if you're taking on Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

People who definitely did not have it: Romney, McCain, Obama, Kerry, Carter.  I'm familiar enough with their campaigns to know specific examples where they held their fire or otherwise would not compromise what they believed to get the win.

People who definitely do/did have it: Trump, Nixon, LBJ, Hillary.

Personally, I don't think it's necessary to be that way -- it's off-putting.  You just have to be strong in the face of it, if you're taking on Trump.

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is anyone really running apart from Trump this cycle with that 'killer instinct', if I had to pick the person that comes the closet, right now I think I'd say Kamala Harris. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Democratic field I think this could probably apply to O'Rourke, Yang and Booker. Messam, as a former football player, could have this certain aspect (which I can't really define) as well. He surely know what it takes to win. 

Trump, like you said already, has it for me as well.

Concerning former presidents and nominees I think, despite all differences, Obama definitely had it. Reagan, JFK and Eisenhower also come to my mind.

Main factors for my assumptions are popularity, charisma and the possibility to energize a lot of the electorate. Bush and Clinton for example also won two terms, but based on what I have read, I don't think the whole country was energized. They satisfied their base but that's it I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, vcczar said:

I agree.

You know who really did, Chris Christie, he destroyed Rand Paul and (more importantly) Marco Rubio. His killer instinct manifests in debates where he can truly destroy his opponent in a talented way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

You know who really did, Chris Christie, he destroyed Rand Paul and (more importantly) Marco Rubio. His killer instinct manifests in debates where he can truly destroy his opponent in a talented way.

I agree. I think he could have gathered steam if he had stayed in the race, even with the scandal. I was surprised he dropped out at that point. He seemed to have some sort of agreement to hit Rubio and then endorse Trump. Christie would have been the strongest candidate in 2012, but he didn't want to run against an incumbent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

You know who really did, Chris Christie, he destroyed Rand Paul and (more importantly) Marco Rubio. His killer instinct manifests in debates where he can truly destroy his opponent in a talented way.

 

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I agree. I think he could have gathered steam if he had stayed in the race, even with the scandal. I was surprised he dropped out at that point. He seemed to have some sort of agreement to hit Rubio and then endorse Trump. Christie would have been the strongest candidate in 2012, but he didn't want to run against an incumbent. 

I think he was my favourite Republican Primary candidate in 2016, in retrospect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

You know who really did, Chris Christie, he destroyed Rand Paul and (more importantly) Marco Rubio. His killer instinct manifests in debates where he can truly destroy his opponent in a talented way.

Ooh, if that's how we're judging I agree on Christie but raise you a Ted Cruz.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know about it, and we all see it. It's obvious. Nobody ever wants to admit it, but it's there.

People on this forum hate Kobe Bryant.

The first question to ask: why? Why do you all hate him? The obvious answer: you didn't watch him in his prime.

Likely explanation: I know that most of you are around 14 or 15 years old. That means you only got into basketball in the last couple years. So you never watched Mamba in his prime.

And because you didn't watch him in his prime, you try to compensate for that by diving into stat sheets and analyzing box scores. But here's the thing: basketball isn't played on Excel spreadsheets. The moment somebody brings up "true shooting percentage" or "win shares" I know they know nothing about basketball.

Kobe's game cannot be encapsulated by one stat. He's the second greatest SG ever, and one of the 5 best players to ever play the game.

So when I hear somebody say that LeBron James is better than Kobe Bryant, I laugh, because I know that anybody who watched Kobe in his prime wouldn't think that. Unlike you guys, I have watched basketball for a significant amount of time, so I know that Kobe is better.

You might be jealous of Kobe's five rings, or jealous of his status as the greatest scorer in NBA history, or whatever. Unless you're a Bulls fan who watched basketball in the 90s, or a Lakers fan who watched basketball in the 2000s, you don't know what real, cold-blooded, killer instinct, will-to-win basketball looks like. And there's nothing wrong with that.

This forum would make you think that Kobe isn't even a top 100 player ever.

So don't go spouting bullshit about players you didn't watch. Talk about your "greats" like LeBron James The Best Player in the World™, but leave the Kobe talk to the adults. Fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

We all know about it, and we all see it. It's obvious. Nobody ever wants to admit it, but it's there.

People on this forum hate Kobe Bryant.

The first question to ask: why? Why do you all hate him? The obvious answer: you didn't watch him in his prime.

Likely explanation: I know that most of you are around 14 or 15 years old. That means you only got into basketball in the last couple years. So you never watched Mamba in his prime.

And because you didn't watch him in his prime, you try to compensate for that by diving into stat sheets and analyzing box scores. But here's the thing: basketball isn't played on Excel spreadsheets. The moment somebody brings up "true shooting percentage" or "win shares" I know they know nothing about basketball.

Kobe's game cannot be encapsulated by one stat. He's the second greatest SG ever, and one of the 5 best players to ever play the game.

So when I hear somebody say that LeBron James is better than Kobe Bryant, I laugh, because I know that anybody who watched Kobe in his prime wouldn't think that. Unlike you guys, I have watched basketball for a significant amount of time, so I know that Kobe is better.

You might be jealous of Kobe's five rings, or jealous of his status as the greatest scorer in NBA history, or whatever. Unless you're a Bulls fan who watched basketball in the 90s, or a Lakers fan who watched basketball in the 2000s, you don't know what real, cold-blooded, killer instinct, will-to-win basketball looks like. And there's nothing wrong with that.

This forum would make you think that Kobe isn't even a top 100 player ever.

So don't go spouting bullshit about players you didn't watch. Talk about your "greats" like LeBron James The Best Player in the World™, but leave the Kobe talk to the adults. Fair?

You assume too much. I have no opinion, positive or negative, on Kobe Bryant. I'm only aware of a very few basic facts about him at all. But I guess I'm just assumed by default to hate him, or to give a damn about NBA stats, players, or anything involved of any sort. Because nowadays, sheep mentality is not just embraced by so many, it's assumed to be followed by others... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Ooh, if that's how we're judging I agree on Christie but raise you a Ted Cruz.  

Certainly, remember when Marco told Ted "you don't even speak Spanish" and Ted opened up a can of Espanol whoopass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Patine said:

You assume too much. I have no opinion, positive or negative, on Kobe Bryant. I'm only aware of a very few basic facts about him at all. But I guess I'm just assumed by default to hate him, or to give a damn about NBA stats, players, or anything involved of any sort. Because nowadays, sheep mentality is not just embraced by so many, it's assumed to be followed by others... :(

Pretty sure he's messing with you, man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree that Kamela Harris may have it. The first debate will really tell. Booker may. 

Those who do NOT have it: Biden, Sanders, Gillibrand, Beto, Inslee, Williamson, Castro, Hickenlooper, Moulton, Swalwell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Herbert Hoover said:

I'd agree that Kamela Harris may have it. The first debate will really tell. Booker may. 

Those who do NOT have it: Biden, Sanders, Gillibrand, Beto, Inslee, Williamson, Castro, Hickenlooper, Moulton, Swalwell. 

"Demographic" value aside, which is being highly overrated in some circles now, Kamela Harris is an immensely pro-establishment candidate. In fact, many of her points-of-view are harmful to a large number of African-Americans, especially her known support of the "law-and-order" policies (which have become quite draconian lately in the U.S., and led to a lot of unjest, extra-judicial deaths, of which a large majority have been African-Americans) due to her professional background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Patine said:

"Demographic" value aside, which is being highly overrated in some circles now, Kamela Harris is an immensely pro-establishment candidate. In fact, many of her points-of-view are harmful to a large number of African-Americans, especially her known support of the "law-and-order" policies (which have become quite draconian lately in the U.S., and led to a lot of unjest, extra-judicial deaths, of which a large majority have been African-Americans) due to her professional background.

I agree 100%. Kamela Harris was an awful politician in California who embraced policies that Democrats now vehemently oppose, and she has been relatively uncalled out on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harris tries to make too many people happy, I can't consider her a "killer instinct" type.  I don't think she posses the power to look a Dem voter in the face and say "I disagree with you" on a certain stance. She's,too afraid of alienating voters.  Voters will see through that lack of political courage the way they did with Hillary.  Harris' strategy would've played well in the 90's, but times have changed.  She's the most Bill Clinton, since Bill Clinton.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

Voters will see through that lack of political courage the way they did with Hillary.

It's just highly unfortunate - tragic even - that by the GE in 2016, American voters didn't have any other viable alternative to Clinton than the at-least-equally repugnant, horrid, vile, and monstrous that was Donald Trump. The Duopoly and it's corrupt, rigged, tyrannical, broken, and Mafia-style grip on power in the U.S. has well overstayed it's welcome and stolen too many elections and cheated, lied to, and screwed over the American voters too many times, and been rewarded with reelection, because they've marginalized and crushed all opposition in ways typical of "emerging democracies" scolded for such by the U.S. Department of State.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Patine said:

It's just highly unfortunate - tragic even - that by the GE in 2016, American voters didn't have any other viable alternative to Clinton than the at-least-equally repugnant, horrid, vile, and monstrous that was Donald Trump. The Duopoly and it's corrupt, rigged, tyrannical, broken, and Mafia-style grip on power in the U.S. has well overstayed it's welcome and stolen too many elections and cheated, lied to, and screwed over the American voters too many times, and been rewarded with reelection, because they've marginalized and crushed all opposition in ways typical of "emerging democracies" scolded for such by the U.S. Department of State.

I wish you'd have mentioned this before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

I wish you'd have mentioned this before. 

And I think you were in a state of denial, or even defense of the institution, before, as well. I can't quite remember EXACTLY what you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

I wish you'd have mentioned this before. 

 

2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

🤣🤣

 

1 minute ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Lmao

I misread a post. I apologize to @HonestAbe. Though I still think the @ThePotatoWalrus owes us all an apology for his immature posts, ridiculous, off-topic polls, and idiotic avatars - but I offer mine to @HonestAbe. It was an honest mistake. I had thought he said "I THOUGHT you'd mentioned this before."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...