UTDD

The actual organization name was originally Stop Promoting Homosexuality America (trade name was Alliance for Traditional Marriage) and the controversial aspect of the organization by far was the gay conversion therapy advocacy. The organization also did help pass Hawaii Constitutional Amendment 2, which was the 1998 traditional marriage amendment. I think if Tulsi has truly disavowed a lot of her past with her father Mike, then that's fine but it's fair to look at her past and how long she took to take certain positions. Tulsi in my opinion is neither a Democrat or Republican in the traditionalist sense. I still live in Hawaii three months out of the year for my work and still retain a lot of ties with the political operatives that mostly run Hawaii politics in the Democrat machine. (Daniel Inouye was the true original godfather of the party and had tremendous clout, and now power has coalesced in new people after his death) This is the only candidate I absolutely can speak with some personal confidence on my own direct experience as I have personally met and worked with her and her people numerous times all the way from her time on the Honolulu City Council to her first run as an early underdog for Congress against a more known candidate named Mufi Hanneman. (former Mayor of Honolulu who also lost for the governor's slot against Neil Abercrombie partially by producing a very stupid brochure highlighting his Iolani/Harvard background against Abercrombie's University of Hawaii credentials -- elitism does NOT play well in Hawaii AT ALL) She is not trying to become President right now. Everything she has done even up until right now running for President was already in a long-term strategic plan before 2011 at the very latest as I know this existed at that point. She is *incredibly* ambitious, and I am very curious to see if she ever gains any traction, but I ultimately her goal isn't to become President in 2020 as a realistic strategy.

I think Booker did well and he may actually ding Kamala who did ok but nothing special but I don't think either broke Biden, it will be up to the next debate perhaps. Biden's biggest danger is actually himself, not any particular candidate. I always have mixed emotions about Tulsi as this is truly the candidate that I actually on a personal direct level know so much more than what is shown on her public persona, but she did well tonight.

I haven't seen enough yet to believe that Harris or Booker can break Biden's firewall in South Carolina. Maybe even Warren has a better shot at this point.

"Anxiety around people" = political office? Ok.

Yeah, it's great isn't it?

Wow, that's actually possible. I certainly could see NH squeaking blue, and AZ/WIS squeaking red.

In my opinion (at least right now as a prediction) Wisconsin is BY FAR the most important state for the election unless Arizona can be flipped. I think there is a pretty solid chance with all Dem candidates that Pennsylvania will turn blue as will Michigan, but Wisconsin is more iffy to me depending on which candidate is the general election flagbearer against Trump.

Ah, upscale College Station I see...

Wow, his video was my first exposure to him and what a great first impression!

I'll join you both for the execution by firing squad. I had Whataburger before In-N-Out but prefer the latter a little bit after trying it. I do dislike the latter's fries though...

Overall yes on the macro level, but I don't think it's incorrect to say that with specific voters in key strategic areas specific policy positions didn't make a difference. How Trump overall actually ran and even how you characterize that overall on a national level is completely irrelevant versus what strategic decisions may have actually swung enough voters. It doesn't matter actually whether you think Trump ran as a moderate or extremist at all frankly (for 2016), what matters is that he took specific strategic policy positions that may have a made a difference in swinging enough voters where it counts. If you think I am trying minimize his overall campaign as a whole by policy to say he is not "extreme" feels like a reading comprehension fail because that issue isn't that relevant overall, it's much more about the fact that taking specific positions - regardless of the overall tone nationally - mattered and might matter again. If people focus too much on the overall tone of the campaign and ignore the actual strategies being employed, they risk their own defeat at their own peril. If Trump 100% only ran as insurgent extremist and did not talk about specific issues important to voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, he probably loses. Those positions were not extreme at all and in fact had some crossover with candidates more left than the typical Republican.

Me too, although ideally I would like a great default option with the ability to augment my coverage with additional things if desired. I always worry about only having one option because if it's not done well, you have some serious problems. My worry about the federal government and corporations are really not all that different if there is an absence of the proper internal/external pressures/safeguards to ensure things are run well, etc.

I don't think Trump ran completely far right at all (yes of course on immigration and some other issues) and I thought he was more left than Hillary on a few issues. He promised to keep certain social programs and even railed against corporate free trade agreements that he argued were hurting the manufacturing sector. He appealed to blue collar whites by advocating specific populist policies that often appeal to more centrist voters traditionally, etc. Now, maybe he flat out lied, (ok yes I'm down with that idea) but I don't think he ran hard right on everything. Hillary's positions were not why she lost anyway, it was because she was Hillary Clinton the individual/character that she is that she lost.

To be fair, there are a LOT of idiots (ok idiots is harsh but I would say maybe law isn't their best career choice at this point) taking the CA Bar Exam from very low tier law schools that to me are committing against these kids almost highway robbery at gunpoint for their tuition frankly...

Maybe I'd waffle if we had to pick him over Collins, but over another option like Princely, I think this is the perfect high 3-star. Some reasonable questions and maybe lack of exposure causing his current ranking, but very raw upside possibilities that a good coach can get excited about to develop, etc. Maybe I'm the only one kind of amazed at just a stupid shuttle run, but that's better than a lot of NFL players going at it every Sunday right now. Yeah, he won't be 250 later...but still...As much as I have scratched my head sometimes at certain coaching moves (play calling and time management as two examples at times) I actually have pretty good faith so far in how they are evaluating the type of players they want. I'm also very confident he won't be a 3 star at the end.

WTF, he ran a 4.25 shuttle at 16 at 250 lbs? Damn...

Would we consider four if Princely/Collins both are interested?

They couldn't hit Trump the same way last time because 1) Hillary was arguably a much more concerning issue on character to a lot of voters and 2) Trump has much more history from 2016 to 2020 to hit upon and 3) it is highly likely the Dem candidate will be in a position of strength to contrast this morality as a good issue (along with healthcare which I think should be the primary issue hit on over and over as the primary issue of the election substantively) against the specific demographics in the specific counties that matter in the Midwest. Hitting Wall Street is good too in tying Trump as a NYC coastal rich kid that doesn't empathize and understand the plight of ordinary people (again this is all coming down to only (you say three states, I say six) in a few key states. It does not matter if millions of voters are energized to vote in non-competitive states, it only matters if enough voters flip or come out in the actual swing counties that will determine the electoral college. I would hit character/healthcare/out of touch elite (not one to empathize and help ordinary Americans) as key things over and over and over and not get bogged into details constantly. Emotion and passion will win, even though I personally would be convinced entirely by intellectual arguments, I do not believe that is the way to actually win. I would avoid the economy quite a bit but touch on it where I could strategically, because I think this is the core issue that will ultimately be pegged as the reason Trump won if he does in fact win. The economy is generally a positive issue for Trump in my opinion, and it's positive where it matters most and Trump knows this too which is why he has been meddling so much in specific states to "save jobs" and so forth versus ignoring essentially 40+ other states entirely.

That ad was very good actually in isolation but it's almost meme worthy and hilarious that it was Hillary of all people running it which is why I think it was actually more negative than positive versus a different candidate hitting these themes. You also have much more data on Trump now and there will be no Hillary running this time. The Trump troglodytes that will never shift are not the target -- it's suburban white women and blue collar Midwest voters that generally have a lot of decency and can be influenced against a coastal elite NYC rich silver spoon kid type persona being hit on over and over. (which no one did last time very much)

I've actually for the first time read some things on her because my gut/first impression is that she is the only Dem candidate with the intellectual gravitas to actually persuade with logic, data, and clear metrics/measurables and forecasting, etc. My main skepticism honestly with her ideas so far is the wealth tax. I think 50 million is too low a threshold and I think 3 percent over a billion is possibly too low a rate. Clearly, people at this economic level will take many measures to avoid "assets" being easily identifiable and/or present in the United States' tax jurisdiction. I also would like to hear this plan more specifically into why this type of tax would work better versus things like capital gains, wealth transfers, real estate transfers/income (investment properties not primary homes), higher income tax rates, etc. Especially tying taxes to real property as it is more difficult to "offshore" investment income based on an asset that cannot be moved out of the United States. Other countries have tried this specific type of tax and the results have not been universally good to say the least so has she studied these prior cases and identified why they worked or did not work and how her plan would be different?

Yeah, it's clear they are going to argue - assuming economy remains where it is now later on - the current economy and that things are working vs. socialism. The word socialism is a very scary word to the most important voting bloc that might matter - independents. It's also very hard right now to argue the economy is tanking so they are going to try and paint that contrast with a broad brush. I think they will play ads showing every Dem candidate raising their hand to provide health insurance to illegals (I think this is a losing issue for Dems for moderates and independents) and things of that nature to show they are trying to "socialize" everything in the country. I think the Dems should fight very dirty back and paint Trump over and over on his character and what it means to be presidential and the leader of the country so that an average child can look up to the office respectfully. The connections to dictators and how he views the role of power and especially harp over and over that he really lacks empathy (Do you honestly believe Trump cares for you or does he care about himself? type of stuff. Keep painting over and over -- "I mean really, would you want your children to end up like Trump, and that is the kind of person you are proud to tell your children about and/or to have leading your country, or do you want something different?" I think they can win independents and suburban white females in swing states harping on the bigger themes of character and integrity if they have the right candidate. Keep harping on healthcare (this is a winning issue for Democrats, I think even some conservatives are more open to a different direction on healthcare than people think) and it's ok to discuss reasonable taxes on the wealthy and what it would help with specifically (I think even a lot of Republicans are open to more taxes on the wealthy, but many more would revolt against estate taxes/wealth taxes versus income tax raises) I also don't know why the Dems don't keep pounding in the Midwest that he is a NYC elite rich kid that has no clue what it means to be an ordinary American. This is why he lacks empathy, etc. I personally don't think ideas will be all that powerful in 2020 versus having the right contrast against Trump the person (like it or not, the election probably rests on Pro-Trump vs. Anti-Trump feelings more than any specific Dem candidate and their ideas) in a great candidate that is a strong character/inspirational type of candidate that others can clearly see is someone they just trust more to take care of their families going forward. That is really in a lot of ways an emotional gut feel. That could even tweak some Midwestern poorly educated whites that broke for Trump in 2016 to go back the other way.

Hayes has been very promising, and I don't want to neglect the other Pelicans early pick, Alexander-Walker. He really projects perfectly for a player with Zion and Jaxson if things work out well. You never read too much into summer league, but I have to believe the Pelicans have to be actually excited in a lot of ways to be rid of Anthony Davis and moving on to a new era with frankly a lot of young intriguing players.

I heard his mom played basketball at UT? Is that right?

Agree that all things being equal, a candidate of change/excitement is often better than not. I don't think electability is the same metric as the ability to appeal to specific voting groups in specific states. This specific criteria can be independent of overall movement nationally but of course I would agree for right now it's too early to accurately forecast a model that can be relied upon yet based on current candidate conditions as it is still very fluid. I do believe you may be able to predict this better once you are down to two candidates. There will be a lot of data internally - and some public - that will probably show some strengths and weaknesses down to specific counties that matter the most. Of course this data could be wrong as it definitely incorrectly forecasted Trump's strength in the Midwest and I wouldn't underestimate his strength again no matter what polls say beforehand with poorly educated whites in the Midwest. You better assume the polls are off with that demographic and fight hard to overcome a bigger margin or get a bigger surplus than the polls say. But I think Trump is in more trouble with non-Midwest states like Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado. The Democrats have to win Pennsylvania at all costs. I would say Michigan as well. Unless they flip Florida. (that might be hard given the recent gov race but it's way too early) Electability is a general metric that really is meaningless in that it doesn't strategize and/or specify specific voting targets to win the electoral college. All that matters is the electorcal college and you should play to win. Electability is just a catchall that is pretty generic. It's great of course if a candidate is inspirational (a character metric I consider WAY more important to actually win than policies) because most voters I believe gravitate - and turnout is impacted - towards an emotional appeal (that inspires some level of a call to action) versus an intellectual one. I agree that policy positions are way less important than leadership and inspirational qualities. The ugly truth too is that Trump actually is inspirational to a not insignificant minority of certain people and those people are out there, as scary as it is to me personally to be frank. This is why I believe Obama was an incredibly dominant candidate no matter his positions - he ultimately was not really a hard left President to be frank but kind of a corporate/statist slight left/centrist in a lot of ways - and why Hillary was incredibly weak, even notwithstanding her character issues. She simply was not an inspirational type of candidate, she oozed the exact opposite I would argue. The Bob Dole of Democrats in recent memory. But a candidate that inspires 5,000,000 more voters nationally to come out and vote for the first time isn't necessarily going to be as important as the candidate that can actually swing 500,000 votes by any means necessary in the states that matter. Obama picking Biden for VP was a very brilliant strategic decision over Bayh given the specific strategies and strengths and weakness of Obama for that election. He probably would have won anyway, but his pick still helped. Even the VP pick will matter, although not nearly as much as the general election candidate's ability to basically win probably less than say 1-2 million key votes cast out the entire country. You would much rather have a candidate that can swing votes in Wisconsin and Michigan than one who can draw out more turnout in California as those two things can be mutually exclusive to some extent. You can kind of predict the general weaknesses of the candidates now, but a lot can change that may influence these current conditions. Unfortunately, I don't see an Obama - in terms of inspirational power - in this crop of candidates, but they can still win if they don't do something really, really, stupid.

To be fair, it is possible that the circumstances from a more unknown Trump in 2016 - and Hillary as the opponent - versus a more known Trump now going into 2020 possibly necessitates different strategic measures to maximize the odds of the Democrats winning the 2020 general election. I personally think only a few states (no more than 6 most likely) truly matter, and it's certainly plausible (and I think likely) that some candidates would do better overall nationally, but worse in the specific battlegrounds that might turn the electoral college.