Do Democrats have a recruiting issue at the Presidential level
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 07, 2021, 04:50:37 PM

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  2024 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, TJ in Oregon, YE, ON Progressive)
  Do Democrats have a recruiting issue at the Presidential level
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Do Democrats have a recruiting issue at the Presidential level  (Read 605 times)
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,120


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 23, 2021, 02:00:21 PM »

When we look at all the possible GOP nominees for 2024, Ron DeSantis, Hawley, and Trump can all possible. Only Cruz and Haley I have doubts he can win

But I'm pretty sure most Democrats not named Biden would lose. Harris, Booker, Buttigieg, Beto, and Cuomo would all lose. Only Julian Castro might do well.

Why do Democrats seem to have a weaker bench compared to Republicans?

Is it because Democrats tend to run more diverse candidates? Perhaps that Democrats seem to have a bigger tent and its hard to find one person who can appeal to progressives, older African Americans, and moderate suburban voters.

I think that Democrats have failed to win senate and state races in the Midwest since 2010, so that prevents future presidential candidates that could win.

Logged
Crumpets
Thinking Crumpets Crumpet
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,457
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.16, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2021, 02:03:32 PM »
« Edited: February 23, 2021, 09:07:40 PM by Crumpets »

Republicans have had the benefit of somewhat regular wave years, while Democrats had no waves between 2008 and 2018. It has lead to a pretty substantial age gap between the "old guard" of the Democrats and the "young firebrands" with few 40-50 somethings with some experience and accomplishments under their belt that are also not knocking on death's door. Fortunately for Dems, 2020 was probably the year when that effect was greatest at the Presidential level, while 2024 and forward we will start to get more people who rose to prominence during the Trump years with some meat in their resume.
Logged
I'm a John Fetterman (or Malcolm Kenyatta) Democrat
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,414
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: -7.13


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2021, 02:58:32 PM »

No, we just allow the GOP propaganda wing set the narrative around policy and that stunts the success of genuinely good candidates because they're painted into a corner of either being too "socialist" or too "elitist" (or both somehow) and so the electorate feels the need to put up the safest candidates in order to win. We ought to cut through the bullsh**t and start playing their game instead of rolling over and accepting it.
Logged
Medal506
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2021, 03:17:06 PM »

Bernie Sanders might win if he runs in 2024
Logged
beesley
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,998
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -0.65, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2021, 03:45:33 PM »

Bernie Sanders might win if he runs in 2024

The thought of an 82 year old standing down due to age/health to be replaced by an 83 year old is quite something.
Logged
TiltsAreUnderrated
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,062


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2021, 03:53:33 PM »

Bernie Sanders might win if he runs in 2024

He won't run for a variety of reasons, but if he did, the perception of age as a non-incumbent would probably make him a significantly weaker candidate than in 2020. At some point, it will become politically viable to run for president into one's 80s just as became viable in one's 60s and 70s, but the contours of the last primary season would suggest late 70s is the upper limit without seriously hurting the competitiveness of one's own campaign.

Baldwin or Brown might be able to take up the mantle, but like Sanders himself, they'll probably prefer to focus on their Senate races. They are also untested at the national level, so 'might' is doing a lot of work there.

Interesting governors like Inslee and Bullock struggle to break out of the pack because they don't have the media connections of CA/DC/FL/NY, which limits the pool of potential candidates in contemporary primaries.

The Gen X crop of Democrats does seem to be rather small and unimpressive relative to their elders and newcomers, some of whom might be ready for a run by 2024. I wonder if the seniority system in the House caucus/gerontocracy has contributed to the relative lack of talent in the middle.
Logged
AlterEgo
Rookie
**
Posts: 158


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2021, 05:09:26 PM »

When we look at all the possible GOP nominees for 2024, Ron DeSantis, Hawley, and Trump can all possible. Only Cruz and Haley I have doubts he can win

But I'm pretty sure most Democrats not named Biden would lose. Harris, Booker, Buttigieg, Beto, and Cuomo would all lose. Only Julian Castro might do well.



In fairness, everything you're mentioning is pure personal speculation. You throw Hawley up there for the Republicans, but the reality is that the average American had no idea who the guy was until 1/6 (and I'd imagine that now means the average American now has a somewhat negative view on the guy). I mean, take of it what you will, but a late Jan. YouGov/The Economist poll showed only 57% of respondents had an opinion on him (this is after the Riots now, mind you). And of that, 19% favorable, 38% unfavorable.

Not sure why you'd be so down on that Democratic bench. Cuomo is the only one bringing anything that could be described as potentially disqualifying baggage to the table.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,177
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2021, 06:00:03 PM »

Republicans have had the benefit of somewhat regular wave years, while Democrats had no waves between 2008 and 2018. It has lead to a pretty substantial age gap between the "old guard" of the Democrats and the "young firebrands" with few 40-50 somethings with some experience and accomplishments under their belt that are also not knocking on death's door. Fortunately for Dems, 2020 was probably the year when that effect was greatest at the Presidential level, while 2024 and forward we will start to get more people who rose to prominent during the Trump years with some meat in their resume.

The 2020 primary situation can be understood this way:

1. Biden with a lock on ~35% of the vote with the advantages of being seen as Obama's heir and moderates believing that he would govern to the center. 
2. A dogpile of youngish candidates with low name recognition who emphasized social issues over everything else.  Their economic views were all over the map.   
3. Bernie and Warren splitting the hardcore economic left vote while unable/unwilling to firmly position themselves to the right of #2 on any major social issues.

For a brief moment, it looked like Bernie was going to pull it off, but then he ran into a brick wall in the South because he didn't put any daylight between himself and group 2.  Meanwhile, the members of group 2 who had the most potential to pull moderate votes away from Biden were scared enough of Bernie that they dropped out early.  At the end of Obama's 2nd term, after Clinton's loss and the collapse of the congressional and legislative majorities, Obama and Biden were basically a 2 man army in Dem politics- the only known way to get a PV majority and an EC win in 40 years.  It's only natural that the Dem base broke for the only one who was still eligible. 

The most viable path to beat Biden for the nomination without a Biden own goal would have been an economic leftist candidate with a socially conservative streak.  Think of the original Two-Income Trap Warren platform circa 2005.  Such a candidate would have done exceptionally well in the COVID environment, too, likely having a bigger GE victory than Biden. 

Going forward, and with younger candidates, the most viable outsider path is probably going to be a more polished/experienced version of Yang.

Logged
DaleCooper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2021, 06:19:46 PM »
« Edited: February 23, 2021, 06:23:54 PM by DaleCooper »

There were plenty of credible Democratic candidates that were younger than 70 in 2020 but they all either got slandered into oblivion or they humiliated themselves and destroyed their own credibility by sprinting to the left to compete with Sanders' vastly overstated popularity during the primary.

Yes, I do think there's a recruiting issue because anyone outside of Democratic strongholds that wants to maintain any credibility within their state will sit out.
Logged
Orser67
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,531
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2021, 06:31:18 PM »

I think OP is talking more about an issue of "candidate quality" than "recruiting". In other words, the issue isn't that good candidates don't want to run, but that there aren't any good candidates.

Anyway, to the actual question, I'm skeptical. While I think that candidate quality is very much a real thing, discussion of it almost always involve a lot of circular reasoning and subjective opinions (often revolving around name recognition or only taking into account the most recent election). I think the Dems do have some pretty decent potential candidates, starting with Kamala Harris, but I'd also throw in Cory Booker and, while he might have to do some courting of the party's left wing, Buttigieg. Republicans also have some candidates who look pretty good on paper (e.g. Haley) but the 2024 Republican candidate will likely have a tough time appealing to both the Trumpian base and the broader electorate.
Logged
Lent Marslink
Patrick97
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2021, 07:24:19 PM »

Democrats do have a very old caucus. Sometimes as Democrats we do put invisible barriers on potential candidates by focusing so much on experience, statewide officials, location, and national profile that we limit the field to about 4 or 5 people. 
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,120


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2021, 10:54:03 AM »

No, we just allow the GOP propaganda wing set the narrative around policy and that stunts the success of genuinely good candidates because they're painted into a corner of either being too "socialist" or too "elitist" (or both somehow) and so the electorate feels the need to put up the safest candidates in order to win. We ought to cut through the bullsh**t and start playing their game instead of rolling over and accepting it.
While I agree the GOP sets the narrative most of time, the 2020 field of Democrats were praised for being diverse, but most would have been weak in the general
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,120


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2021, 10:56:13 AM »

Bernie Sanders might win if he runs in 2024



The Gen X crop of Democrats does seem to be rather small and unimpressive relative to their elders and newcomers, some of whom might be ready for a run by 2024. I wonder if the seniority system in the House caucus/gerontocracy has contributed to the relative lack of talent in the middle.
The Gen X crop is weak because they started their careers in the Obama era. The opposition,  GOP, were getting all the media attention from 2010-2018

Also, the lack of media attention has hurt canidates running in MI and OH
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,120


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2021, 11:02:34 AM »

Democrats do have a very old caucus. Sometimes as Democrats we do put invisible barriers on potential candidates by focusing so much on experience, statewide officials, location, and national profile that we limit the field to about 4 or 5 people. 
Eh, I kinda disagree

Look at the 2020 field. Only 4/5 people were really viable but the party insisted on having 20 people debates for fairness. To allow anyone to ''catch fire" when we were just wasting time.
Logged
Pollster
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,572


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2021, 11:04:12 AM »

I definitely agree that the Gen X crop of Democrats is weak (Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and Gretchen Whitmer are really the only ones I can think of as compelling national candidates down the line, unless some figures in the House manage to build themselves up like Katie Porter) but the millennial crop does have some compelling and appealing figures (Jason Kander, Mandela Barnes, Lauren Underwood) who still have plenty of time to build profiles and experience.
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,120


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2021, 11:07:34 AM »

I think OP is talking more about an issue of "candidate quality" than "recruiting". In other words, the issue isn't that good candidates don't want to run, but that there aren't any good candidates.

Anyway, to the actual question, I'm skeptical. While I think that candidate quality is very much a real thing, discussion of it almost always involve a lot of circular reasoning and subjective opinions (often revolving around name recognition or only taking into account the most recent election). I think the Dems do have some pretty decent potential candidates, starting with Kamala Harris, but I'd also throw in Cory Booker and, while he might have to do some courting of the party's left wing, Buttigieg. Republicans also have some candidates who look pretty good on paper (e.g. Haley) but the 2024 Republican candidate will likely have a tough time appealing to both the Trumpian base and the broader electorate.
Thank you, you worded my question better than I did!

The reason I think the Democratic bench is fairly weak is because just about every "star" of the party and their grandmother ran in the 2020 primary and just about all of them landed on their face

Harris, Booker, Beto, Bullock, Ryan, etc all went no where. Sure, their respected lanes were taken by Biden and Sanders. Sure, these are clearly big names but both were weak. Hence Oct 2019 when Warren overtook Sanders. And Warren was a top tier candiate since 2012 so she didn't need to " catch fire"

The only candidates that didn't humiliate himself was Buttigieg. But his base didn't really exist outside Iowa, New Hampshire, and MSNBC. Andrew Yang won the internet war, but didn't crack 1% of votes in real life.
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,120


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2021, 11:09:21 AM »

I definitely agree that the Gen X crop of Democrats is weak (Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and Gretchen Whitmer are really the only ones I can think of as compelling national candidates down the line, unless some figures in the House manage to build themselves up like Katie Porter) but the millennial crop does have some compelling and appealing figures (Jason Kander, Mandela Barnes, Lauren Underwood) who still have plenty of time to build profiles and experience.
I like how you mentioned Abrams and Whitmer. They only appeared in 2018. Before that, Democrats spent the last decade losing races and focused on Obama/Hillary instead of building up the next generation of leaders.

Logged
Pollster
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,572


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2021, 11:23:11 AM »

I definitely agree that the Gen X crop of Democrats is weak (Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and Gretchen Whitmer are really the only ones I can think of as compelling national candidates down the line, unless some figures in the House manage to build themselves up like Katie Porter) but the millennial crop does have some compelling and appealing figures (Jason Kander, Mandela Barnes, Lauren Underwood) who still have plenty of time to build profiles and experience.
I like how you mentioned Abrams and Whitmer. They only appeared in 2018. Before that, Democrats spent the last decade losing races and focused on Obama/Hillary instead of building up the next generation of leaders.



I agree that the party prioritized the Presidential races far too much during the Obama years, but I also think there's a more nuanced side to this. Whitmer and Abrams were both important political figures in Michigan and Georgia, respectively, long before 2018 and spent a long time building up trust and goodwill with both voters and the political institutions in their states, and I'd say it's more a mix of coincidence, good timing, and effective planning that they made their marks in what happened to be a great year for the party electorally.
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,120


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2021, 11:51:31 AM »

I definitely agree that the Gen X crop of Democrats is weak (Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and Gretchen Whitmer are really the only ones I can think of as compelling national candidates down the line, unless some figures in the House manage to build themselves up like Katie Porter) but the millennial crop does have some compelling and appealing figures (Jason Kander, Mandela Barnes, Lauren Underwood) who still have plenty of time to build profiles and experience.
I like how you mentioned Abrams and Whitmer. They only appeared in 2018. Before that, Democrats spent the last decade losing races and focused on Obama/Hillary instead of building up the next generation of leaders.



I agree that the party prioritized the Presidential races far too much during the Obama years, but I also think there's a more nuanced side to this. Whitmer and Abrams were both important political figures in Michigan and Georgia, respectively, long before 2018 and spent a long time building up trust and goodwill with both voters and the political institutions in their states, and I'd say it's more a mix of coincidence, good timing, and effective planning that they made their marks in what happened to be a great year for the party electorally.
Why don't more Democrats do that than?
Logged
AlterEgo
Rookie
**
Posts: 158


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2021, 12:11:06 PM »

I definitely agree that the Gen X crop of Democrats is weak (Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and Gretchen Whitmer are really the only ones I can think of as compelling national candidates down the line, unless some figures in the House manage to build themselves up like Katie Porter) but the millennial crop does have some compelling and appealing figures (Jason Kander, Mandela Barnes, Lauren Underwood) who still have plenty of time to build profiles and experience.
I like how you mentioned Abrams and Whitmer. They only appeared in 2018. Before that, Democrats spent the last decade losing races and focused on Obama/Hillary instead of building up the next generation of leaders.



Well, in fairness, in your original post for the Republicans you mentioned:

Trump--the former president
Hawley--a guy many don't know
DeSantis--who only really appeared in 2018

I'm just failing to see the argument.
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,120


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 24, 2021, 12:24:42 PM »

I definitely agree that the Gen X crop of Democrats is weak (Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and Gretchen Whitmer are really the only ones I can think of as compelling national candidates down the line, unless some figures in the House manage to build themselves up like Katie Porter) but the millennial crop does have some compelling and appealing figures (Jason Kander, Mandela Barnes, Lauren Underwood) who still have plenty of time to build profiles and experience.
I like how you mentioned Abrams and Whitmer. They only appeared in 2018. Before that, Democrats spent the last decade losing races and focused on Obama/Hillary instead of building up the next generation of leaders.



Well, in fairness, in your original post for the Republicans you mentioned:

Trump--the former president
Hawley--a guy many don't know
DeSantis--who only really appeared in 2018

I'm just failing to see the argument.
It seems to the consensus on this forum that most big republican names can win in 2024 (Trump, Cruz, Hawley, DeSantis) but most Democrats are more likely to lose than win

My question is, why do GOP seem to have a stronger bench compared to Democrats? Unless your name is Obama/Biden, they all seem to have serious electanlity issues. While a lot has to do with Republican propaganda, it doesn't mean they dont have serious flaws
Logged
AlterEgo
Rookie
**
Posts: 158


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 24, 2021, 12:40:43 PM »

I definitely agree that the Gen X crop of Democrats is weak (Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and Gretchen Whitmer are really the only ones I can think of as compelling national candidates down the line, unless some figures in the House manage to build themselves up like Katie Porter) but the millennial crop does have some compelling and appealing figures (Jason Kander, Mandela Barnes, Lauren Underwood) who still have plenty of time to build profiles and experience.
I like how you mentioned Abrams and Whitmer. They only appeared in 2018. Before that, Democrats spent the last decade losing races and focused on Obama/Hillary instead of building up the next generation of leaders.



Well, in fairness, in your original post for the Republicans you mentioned:

Trump--the former president
Hawley--a guy many don't know
DeSantis--who only really appeared in 2018

I'm just failing to see the argument.
It seems to the consensus on this forum that most big republican names can win in 2024 (Trump, Cruz, Hawley, DeSantis) but most Democrats are more likely to lose than win

My question is, why do GOP seem to have a stronger bench compared to Democrats? Unless your name is Obama/Biden, they all seem to have serious electanlity issues. While a lot has to do with Republican propaganda, it doesn't mean they dont have serious flaws

I would disagree with that supposed consensus, but I won't belabor that point.

Even if true, though, the consensus of a forum filled with (often wrong) amateur pundits/political geeks is hardly representative of the average American voter.

I'm just not sure how you can keep bringing up "electability issues" for certain Democratic candidates while ignoring those of the Republican candidates. Additionally, how is it an issue that Whitmer and Abrams only "came on the scene" in 2018, but it's not an issue that DeSantis only came on in 2018 as well.

The reality is that if we objectively extend your argument all the way out the only electable candidate for the GOP is Trump and Biden for the Dems.
Logged
Motorcity
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,120


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 24, 2021, 01:04:09 PM »

I definitely agree that the Gen X crop of Democrats is weak (Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and Gretchen Whitmer are really the only ones I can think of as compelling national candidates down the line, unless some figures in the House manage to build themselves up like Katie Porter) but the millennial crop does have some compelling and appealing figures (Jason Kander, Mandela Barnes, Lauren Underwood) who still have plenty of time to build profiles and experience.
I like how you mentioned Abrams and Whitmer. They only appeared in 2018. Before that, Democrats spent the last decade losing races and focused on Obama/Hillary instead of building up the next generation of leaders.



Well, in fairness, in your original post for the Republicans you mentioned:

Trump--the former president
Hawley--a guy many don't know
DeSantis--who only really appeared in 2018

I'm just failing to see the argument.
It seems to the consensus on this forum that most big republican names can win in 2024 (Trump, Cruz, Hawley, DeSantis) but most Democrats are more likely to lose than win

My question is, why do GOP seem to have a stronger bench compared to Democrats? Unless your name is Obama/Biden, they all seem to have serious electanlity issues. While a lot has to do with Republican propaganda, it doesn't mean they dont have serious flaws

I would disagree with that supposed consensus, but I won't belabor that point.

Even if true, though, the consensus of a forum filled with (often wrong) amateur pundits/political geeks is hardly representative of the average American voter.

I'm just not sure how you can keep bringing up "electability issues" for certain Democratic candidates while ignoring those of the Republican candidates. Additionally, how is it an issue that Whitmer and Abrams only "came on the scene" in 2018, but it's not an issue that DeSantis only came on in 2018 as well.

The reality is that if we objectively extend your argument all the way out the only electable candidate for the GOP is Trump and Biden for the Dems.
I don't think most Democrats are electable. I supported Sanders and Warren in the primaries and in hindsight, they were not electable

Right now, I think the only Democrats who are electable are Obama, Biden, Julian Castro, and Sherrod Brown. Maybe Beto if he becomes Gov of Texas in 2022 and isn't so naive anymore

For Republicans, I think Trump, Don Jr, Rubio, Cruz, Scott, Hawley, Pence, and DeSantitis are electable. (Pence only if Trump endorses him)

That's more Republicans than Democrats
Logged
AlterEgo
Rookie
**
Posts: 158


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2021, 01:19:22 PM »

I definitely agree that the Gen X crop of Democrats is weak (Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, and Gretchen Whitmer are really the only ones I can think of as compelling national candidates down the line, unless some figures in the House manage to build themselves up like Katie Porter) but the millennial crop does have some compelling and appealing figures (Jason Kander, Mandela Barnes, Lauren Underwood) who still have plenty of time to build profiles and experience.
I like how you mentioned Abrams and Whitmer. They only appeared in 2018. Before that, Democrats spent the last decade losing races and focused on Obama/Hillary instead of building up the next generation of leaders.



Well, in fairness, in your original post for the Republicans you mentioned:

Trump--the former president
Hawley--a guy many don't know
DeSantis--who only really appeared in 2018

I'm just failing to see the argument.
It seems to the consensus on this forum that most big republican names can win in 2024 (Trump, Cruz, Hawley, DeSantis) but most Democrats are more likely to lose than win

My question is, why do GOP seem to have a stronger bench compared to Democrats? Unless your name is Obama/Biden, they all seem to have serious electanlity issues. While a lot has to do with Republican propaganda, it doesn't mean they dont have serious flaws

I would disagree with that supposed consensus, but I won't belabor that point.

Even if true, though, the consensus of a forum filled with (often wrong) amateur pundits/political geeks is hardly representative of the average American voter.

I'm just not sure how you can keep bringing up "electability issues" for certain Democratic candidates while ignoring those of the Republican candidates. Additionally, how is it an issue that Whitmer and Abrams only "came on the scene" in 2018, but it's not an issue that DeSantis only came on in 2018 as well.

The reality is that if we objectively extend your argument all the way out the only electable candidate for the GOP is Trump and Biden for the Dems.
I don't think most Democrats are electable. I supported Sanders and Warren in the primaries and in hindsight, they were not electable

Right now, I think the only Democrats who are electable are Obama, Biden, Julian Castro, and Sherrod Brown. Maybe Beto if he becomes Gov of Texas in 2022 and isn't so naive anymore

For Republicans, I think Trump, Don Jr, Rubio, Cruz, Scott, Hawley, Pence, and DeSantitis are electable. (Pence only if Trump endorses him)

That's more Republicans than Democrats

That's fine, but none of that is backing any of that up with anything other than your unsubstantiated personal opinion. I guess I was figuring as I made further arguments that you'd elaborate with something more in-depth.
Logged
Illiniwek
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,115



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2021, 05:05:24 PM »

I think the problem is a weak and/or really young farm system. Its not that there are all these great options that are turning down the opportunity to run.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 12 queries.