YellowKing wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:43 pm
The one thing I do like about Warren over Buttigieg is A) She's female - we are way overdue for a woman in the White House, and B) She's a DC veteran who knows how to play the game.
Everybody screams for the outsider, but then like Trump they get into the office and don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. There's a reason companies hire people with experience and not random nutjobs off the street. It's going to take someone with political know-how to clean up the wreckage Trump has left behind. I love Mayor Pete, but is he going to be able to get anything done?
I used to be inclined that Warren had too much baggage, but let's face it - the right is going to make ANY candidate into Public Enemy #1 by any means necessary. Especially if it's a woman.
However, I'm up for just about ANY candidate at this point. I'd prefer it not be Biden or Sanders though. I've had enough with angry old white guys running this country.
A) plays to the misogyny that was behind the hatred directed towards HRC.
B) they will point out that Trump is more of a DC outsider than Warren.
Whoever it is, I just hope the Democratic establishment coalesces quickly behind the winner and doesn't get drawn into the Sanders/Stein shit-show that handed Trump the election last time.
As I watch her CNN town hall I find that she has a lot of substance and passion. I think we would do well having her as President. She exudes for me anyway competence and a command of the issues.
Black lives matter!
Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
HRC was a great politician and was there to govern.
Warren is a great politician and she is there to govern.
Americans, by and large, I feel after watching multiple elections during my adult life, don't want great politicians who know how to govern. They want "a guy I could drink a beer with" or "outsider to drain the swamp" or "I like his smile and handshake and hair".
This isn't unique to the US, as getting elected is a popularity contest in a democracy (all of them, by their very nature) but the job has only a few, small facets related to personal charisma. It's like hiring a software engineer based on their audition for My Fair Lady and then getting upset about the software produced, so next time we're *really* going to make sure the new President is the best Eliza Doolittle ever, as in hindsight the last one just wasn't a very good actor and the voters screwed up.
My point being, Warren would make a great president. I don't have high hopes for that coming into being. HRC would have made a great president (she literally would have raised the bar on American greatness imo, MAGA indeed) and when the American people were presented with an opportunity to chose a potentially excellent president, they picked a mediocre shyster with a wafer thin facade of success wrapped around him instead.
It was like watching the American public choose rancid feces instead of a boring but hard worker.
Again, America isn't alone in that (the UK is a dog's breakfast right now and Canada has looked on and thought that's a good idea) but we're talking about American elections here.
I don't know what's going to happen in 2020. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Kodos or Kang won the ticket.
One thing that's becoming really obvious in this race is that female candidates face a much higher bar for consideration.
Media goes all-in for a male candidate with apparent promise while ignoring women who've been working hard for years. Notice how coverage has coalesced around Biden-vs-Sanders (the ideological contest) or BidenSanders-vs-ButtigiegBookerBeto (the generational contest). Meanwhile, Warren/Harris/Klobucher/Gillibrand have done more to actually advance progressive policies than any of the men in question.
It's been said before, but this: women are judged on their achievements, men are judged on their potential.
Now it's crazy Uncle Bernie's turn on CNN who couldn't even be bothered to comb his hair. Of course if a woman is not meticulously groomed I'm sure the media will point that out.
He also completely punted the first question about how he would phase out private insurance for "Medicare for all"
Black lives matter!
Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
I thought Klobuchar did well. I thought Warren did well, except for the question on Amazon, which confused me.
When she was talking about the "second thing" Amazon does, it wasn't clear what she was referring to. I thought at first she was referring to Amazon Marketplace or Amazon Web Services, but it sounded like a mix of Amazon collecting data on users (which Amazon does do, as does the other services she mentioned), and manipulating web searches (which is Google or Microsoft or such, not Amazon). And I'm not sure how that plays into the Umpire/Player analogy she used. In addition, given the tremendous amount of data shared or sold between services, I'm not sure splitting up Amazon would prevent it from acquiring that same data.
Kraken wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:39 pm
Nice. Weld has about as much chance of displacing Trump as I do, but maybe he can at least make him defend, and maybe he'll encourage other contenders to jump in. Republicans do need a Plan B in case Trump's age, diet, and inactivity catch up with him in the next year and a half. (Hey, a man can dream.)
If the House holds public hearings on all the corruption, lies and crimes, he'll have a much better chance in the Primaries.
Romney is positioning himself to be their white knight. Weld is a RINO, and only just barely. Let's put it this way: *I* like Weld.
So it was mentioned during Buttigieg's town hall that they had just added a policy portal that shows his views on the issues. Turns out, it was actually up for weeks, but it's nowhere to be found on his website (that I could find, at any rate )
Kraken wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:36 pm
Romney is positioning himself to be their white knight. Weld is a RINO, and only just barely. Let's put it this way: *I* like Weld.
Romney has gained a lot of respect from me over his willingness to comment on the Emperor's lack of clothing on occasion.
You know it must eat Romney up every day that he lost the Presidency due to "47 percent" and "binders full of women" and Trump sails into office with "grab 'em by the pussy."
For people who are into politics, is having a veritable clown car of choices for a candidate a good thing? Does it dilute the selection too much, or cause other problems? Is there a risk of all these different fragments being alienated and not voting for the "selected" Blue Candidate if their particular person doesn't make the cut? Didn't that happen to Clinton when she rose up over Sanders?
I'm super-excited about a lot of the choices - without being too attached to any of them. My personal pick would be Harris, but mostly because of how she's conducted herself in examining people she's grilling. I enjoyed watching that, and think she's at least got the right temperament for the job.
Whatever happens, I really hope the fence-sitters feel some motivation and the US has a massive record-shattering turnout. I spent my whole life feeling jaded by the voting system, claiming that every election was like having to choose between a dogshit taco and bloody piss cola. When Trump came along, suddenly the dogshit taco became an Excremental and the piss cola was looking super awesome by comparison. I'm a registered independent, but lean more blue than red; I don't agree full with either side.
Black Lives Matter
2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
The large selection means that their first choice likely won't make it, so they need to be ready to go to their second (or third, or fourth) choice by the time they vote. It also means that the candidates should try to expand their appeal, or at least, not hurt their appeal, beyond their core supporters, for when it's time for those to shift support.
There is also the issue that someone with 30-40% support could get chosen (see Republican Primary, 2016), if the field is very divided. Though what helps (and hurts) the Democrats in this regard is proportional allocation (as opposed to winner take all), which means that someone who has 30% in the polls will only have about 30-35% of the delegates, not enough to win the election on the first (or likely first few) ballots. That's another reason to expand appeal beyond their base, to try to capture other candidates delegates when their unbound.
But yes, there is the very real chance that there could be some lasting damage if candidates or their supporters go negative or care only for their candidate to the exclusion of all others.
Also, something that kind of surprises me is how stable the polls are given how many candidates there are. Though I imagine, even if that remains true, once candidates start exiting the race down the line (or it's clear they won't be able to win), there will be some shifts in the polls.
Paingod wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:11 am
For people who are into politics, is having a veritable clown car of choices for a candidate a good thing? Does it dilute the selection too much, or cause other problems? Is there a risk of all these different fragments being alienated and not voting for the "selected" Blue Candidate if their particular person doesn't make the cut? Didn't that happen to Clinton when she rose up over Sanders?
I'm super-excited about a lot of the choices - without being too attached to any of them. My personal pick would be Harris, but mostly because of how she's conducted herself in examining people she's grilling. I enjoyed watching that, and think she's at least got the right temperament for the job.
Whatever happens, I really hope the fence-sitters feel some motivation and the US has a massive record-shattering turnout. I spent my whole life feeling jaded by the voting system, claiming that every election was like having to choose between a dogshit taco and bloody piss cola. When Trump came along, suddenly the dogshit taco became an Excremental and the piss cola was looking super awesome by comparison. I'm a registered independent, but lean more blue than red; I don't agree full with either side.
The main danger is the fairly high chance that the Democrats wind up with a brokered convention, because there are so many candidates and because most (all?) democratic primary states allocate their delegates proportionally to the vote, so that it's going to be pretty hard for one candidate to get an outright majority unless the field narrows *a lot* fairly early. And that brokered convention could easily turn bitter and acrimonious, especially if there is not a clear plurality leader going into the convention (or if said plurality leader doesn't get the nomination).
pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:38 am
I swear Democrats will eat their own sometimes if a candidate doesn't check EVERY single box.
Yep. People here seem to think that this is just part of the normal primary go-around. Fine. But I thought we all pretty much agreed that we're far removed from "normal" in our politics these days. Yet, I see the way Dems have treated their own aspiring candidates, and I am really concerned the Dem primary is going to become a total shit-show. Buttigieg appears to be a promising candidate. He has inspired people to get behind him, and he's been taking off in the polls. Yet he's being savaged by the left because his "progressive" credentials aren't quite progressive enough.
I feel like we're in for Attack of the Bernie Bros, Part II. Except this time it's going to include Warren's supporters, and maybe other factions. That does not appear to me to be a recipe for success against Trump.
I think I'll drive a spike through my head if the Dems end up giving us 4 more years of Trump because they can't get their shit together.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Yeah, I'm not sure I see the issue either. You're in jail, you lose many of your rights. It's why they call it jail and not Mar-a-Lago.
Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:03 am
Yet he's being savaged by SOME in the left because his "progressive" credentials aren't quite progressive enough.
FTFY. In your zeal to find fault in the dem party, try not to commit the very sin you're railing against.
Last edited by hepcat on Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:58 am
By that logic, not letting children vote is a policy rooted in age-ism and adult supremacy.
Not even close. Taking away the right to vote from felons is absolutely rooted in racism. Look into it.
pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:02 am
Allowing rehabilitated felons to vote is one thing. But ones who are actively incarcerated? Nope.
This. I have no issue to people losing their vote while incarcerated but once they get out the system is supposed to have rehabilitated them and thus that right should be returned.
That said, we also need a lot of work to make the system come close to rehabilitating anyone.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
Primaries have always been a beat-em-up with wild speculation and knee-jerk reactions to every candidate's misstep. I think we're just paying more attention to it this time because the stakes are so high.
Paingod wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:11 am
For people who are into politics, is having a veritable clown car of choices for a candidate a good thing? Does it dilute the selection too much, or cause other problems? Is there a risk of all these different fragments being alienated and not voting for the "selected" Blue Candidate if their particular person doesn't make the cut? Didn't that happen to Clinton when she rose up over Sanders?
I'm super-excited about a lot of the choices - without being too attached to any of them. My personal pick would be Harris, but mostly because of how she's conducted herself in examining people she's grilling. I enjoyed watching that, and think she's at least got the right temperament for the job.
I think it's healthy for the party's factions and nascent leaders to work out their future in public view, even if that goes all the way to a competitive convention. One hopes it doesn't end with the establishment character (Biden) stifling all rivals through backroom maneuvers.
I'm still on Team Warren, but I will support whomever emerges victorious, even if it's one of the few candidates that I don't like. My sense is that most Democrats will go along with that if the nominee is chosen openly, fairly, and democratically. The also-rans will form a strong pool of cabinet choices. If Warren doesn't prevail, she'll make a fine secretary of labor or commerce.
pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:02 am
Allowing rehabilitated felons to vote is one thing. But ones who are actively incarcerated? Nope.
pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:38 am
I swear Democrats will eat their own sometimes if a candidate doesn't check EVERY single box.
Yep. People here seem to think that this is just part of the normal primary go-around. Fine. But I thought we all pretty much agreed that we're far removed from "normal" in our politics these days. Yet, I see the way Dems have treated their own aspiring candidates, and I am really concerned the Dem primary is going to become a total shit-show. Buttigieg appears to be a promising candidate. He has inspired people to get behind him, and he's been taking off in the polls. Yet he's being savaged by the left because his "progressive" credentials aren't quite progressive enough.
I feel like we're in for Attack of the Bernie Bros, Part II. Except this time it's going to include Warren's supporters, and maybe other factions. That does not appear to me to be a recipe for success against Trump.
I think I'll drive a spike through my head if the Dems end up giving us 4 more years of Trump because they can't get their shit together.
Especially on Twitter, there will always be people talking about how Candidate X isn't pure enough for them. The good news is that for the most part they're not high in number, and also the far out lunatics can wind up doing candidates a service. You need far out crazies calling you a sellout in order to help you sell an image as someone who's sensible and thoughtful and not crazy.
hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:09 am
Yeah, I'm not sure I see the issue either. You're in jail, you lose many of your rights. It's why they call it jail and not Mar-a-Lago.
Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:03 am
Yet he's being savaged by SOME in the left because his "progressive" credentials aren't quite progressive enough.
FTFY. In your zeal to find fault in the dem party, try not to commit the very sin you're railing against.
I'll take that fix, and I also will try to keep in mind that my Twitter feed is not necessarily representative of the electorate. But, man, I feel like the knives are out for Mayor Pete.
And it's the myopic view from some progressives that just kills me. Take this issue of whether incarcerated felons should be able to vote. I can see both sides. Yes, felons loose rights when found guilty and incarcerated. Maybe it's not unreasonable that the right to vote is one of the rights they forfeit while in prison. On the other hand, our country basically uses prison to warehouse young black men convicted of non-violent, drug-related offenses. If that situation is ever going to change, maybe it makes sense to make sure that those most disproportionately impacted by that approach to criminal justice have a say in electing those who will make policy. I think there are valid arguments on both sides.
But it is beyond me that, for some, because a candidate doesn't check the most progressive box on that one issue, they are precluded from further consideration.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Kurth wrote:But it is beyond me that, for some, because a candidate doesn't check the most progressive box on that one issue, they are precluded from further consideration.
Unfortunately most people vote for a candidate based on one pet issue.
I know people who otherwise were against everything Trump stood for who still voted for him because "gun control." And even worse, they've spent the last 3 years downplaying and diminishing all of Trump's flaws just so they can feel like they voted "correctly."
Kurth wrote:But, man, I feel like the knives are out for Mayor Pete.
Some people never get past the idea that anyone that succeeds needs to be pulled down because they didn’t.
Perhaps.
Or perhaps it's that those aspiring to power need to be examined more closely. Drumpf was a 2 bit con artist with a rich daddy that could be ignored previously.
Every single voter is allowed to make their decisions based on their own criteria, no matter how stupid. This single voter is doing that, which is fine. They also decided that announcing it to the world was necessary, which is annoying but that's the current world. Fantastic.
As Kurth points out, twitter feeds are not statistically accurate polls. For every crackpot on the right, there's one on the left. until they become a group like the anti-vaxxers they can safely be ignored, I think. They certainly shouldn't be used to paint millions of people as having similar opinions.
Kurth wrote:But, man, I feel like the knives are out for Mayor Pete.
Some people never get past the idea that anyone that succeeds needs to be pulled down because they didn’t.
Perhaps.
Or perhaps it's that those aspiring to power need to be examined more closely. Drumpf was a 2 bit con artist with a rich daddy that could be ignored previously.
Every single voter is allowed to make their decisions based on their own criteria, no matter how stupid. This single voter is doing that, which is fine. They also decided that announcing it to the world was necessary, which is annoying but that's the current world. Fantastic.
As Kurth points out, twitter feeds are not statistically accurate polls. For every crackpot on the right, there's one on the left. until they become a group like the anti-vaxxers they can safely be ignored, I think. They certainly shouldn't be used to paint millions of people as having similar opinions.
Yeah, I agree. Mayor Pete has been the mayor of a smallish city for 6ish years, was almost completely unknown nationally prior to 2019, and is now up to #3 in a crowded Democratic primary field in some polls. It seems entirely appropriate for him to go through a harsh round of vetting at this point, and to see how well he holds up.
Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:03 am
Yep. People here seem to think that this is just part of the normal primary go-around. Fine. But I thought we all pretty much agreed that we're far removed from "normal" in our politics these days. Yet, I see the way Dems have treated their own aspiring candidates, and I am really concerned the Dem primary is going to become a total shit-show. Buttigieg appears to be a promising candidate. He has inspired people to get behind him, and he's been taking off in the polls. Yet he's being savaged by the left because his "progressive" credentials aren't quite progressive enough.
I feel like we're in for Attack of the Bernie Bros, Part II. Except this time it's going to include Warren's supporters, and maybe other factions. That does not appear to me to be a recipe for success against Trump.
I think I'll drive a spike through my head if the Dems end up giving us 4 more years of Trump because they can't get their shit together.
I don't get it either. There are a bunch of Democratic candidates that I'm not super thrilled with for various reasons. Barring massive head trauma, I will vote for any of them over Trump in a heartbeat whether they are my first choice or 27th.
Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:03 am
Yep. People here seem to think that this is just part of the normal primary go-around. Fine. But I thought we all pretty much agreed that we're far removed from "normal" in our politics these days. Yet, I see the way Dems have treated their own aspiring candidates, and I am really concerned the Dem primary is going to become a total shit-show. Buttigieg appears to be a promising candidate. He has inspired people to get behind him, and he's been taking off in the polls. Yet he's being savaged by the left because his "progressive" credentials aren't quite progressive enough.
I feel like we're in for Attack of the Bernie Bros, Part II. Except this time it's going to include Warren's supporters, and maybe other factions. That does not appear to me to be a recipe for success against Trump.
I think I'll drive a spike through my head if the Dems end up giving us 4 more years of Trump because they can't get their shit together.
I don't get it either. There are a bunch of Democratic candidates that I'm not super thrilled with for various reasons. Barring massive head trauma, I will vote for any of them over Trump in a heartbeat whether they are my first choice or 27th.
To be fair, "Laura Seay" seems to be saying that she won't vote for Buttigieg in the primary, not that she wouldn't vote for him over Trump.
I admit I don't get it. The dems could come out in clown cars and throw pies in their faces and still have their shit more together than drumpf and Co. The idea that the Dems could lose because they "don't have their shit together" boggles my mind. The Dems are already the only competent adults in the room since there will be no real challenger on the right. Like, 90% of dems anyway.
It's literally not a choice for anyone paying attention. Barring a competent challenger coming forth on the right, there is *no* choice for anyone in the country. Outside of racists and those in on the graft I guess. And even racists that support drumpf have to be simple. I'll work a shitty job for shitty pay in shitty conditions as long as the CEO doesn't hire Mexicans is not a rational outlook, no matter how much you hate Mexicans.
I get that this is not how 40% of Americans view the situation, but it boggles my mind that they don't. The facts are right in front of them. It's mindless tribalism, which is repugnant to me.
There are plenty of conservative values that I can understand, even if I don't always agree, but drumpf isn't a conservative. He's not even a republican. Hillary was more of a conservative than Drumpf is.
What the fuck is going on in the world these days?
El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:26 pm
Yeah, I agree. Mayor Pete has been the mayor of a smallish city for 6ish years
I'm not enamored with Pete as he's simply too inexperienced for me to take seriously. There are a million people who I respect and admire that I also don't think should be president of your country. Beto is also too young and inexperienced imo, although he's working on that.
Whatever gets the vote out, I guess. Whatever happens to the country after election day seems to be secondary.
)
