2020 Democratic Nominee

[Js1 85558]

18 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Dem candidate will need to simplify the message rather than throw out fringe ideas like 70% tax on > $10M of wealth. 

Focus on job creation, higher wages, and national security. 

Yeah, fringe ideas that 60+% of the country support, including a majority of Republicans.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13587]

4 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Anyone else catch Joe Lieberman mealy-mouthing his “Democrats need to be more centrist to have a broader appeal and both sides are to blame for the state of politics today” message?

Made me want to throw my mascara at the TV while I was getting ready. But I didn’t because that shit is expensive and he’s not worth it.

Can someone lock him in a closet until November 6, 2020?

Joe-mentum

[Biff Tannen 45721]

34 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Yeah, fringe ideas that 60+% of the country support, including a majority of Republicans.

This is the kind of shit that makes me just want to beat my head against the wall.  These ideas are fucking popular.  Why the fuck do people vote against their own interests?!?!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

49 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is the kind of shit that makes me just want to beat my head against the wall.  These ideas are fucking popular.  Why the fuck do people vote against their own interests?!?!

The propaganda is strong and people are dumb.  

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

This is the proper response to anyone who voted for anyone other than Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general when that person talks about what the Dems should do in 2020:

 

Shouting out any voter who may have not voted Democrat in 2016, but whom is strongly considering voting for a Democrat in 2020 and would like to have some input in who makes it through the primaries?   

Bold strategy, Cotton.  And by Cotton, I mean you seem really white and out of touch.  

I didn’t vote for her in 2016, and I think the Love for Biden and O’Rourke is insane. 

We’re co-hosting something from Castro later this Spring, we’d love to have you but I guess I can’t pariopate because I didn’t vote for Hillary-maybe the most easy to like candidate since Coolidge.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I think what bad teammate is saying is if you didn’t vote for Hillary in 2016 your judgment really can’t be trusted. 

I have yet to hear any Gary Johnson voters admit they got it wrong in 2016 and that says a lot IMO.

And I say that as a 2012 Gary Johnson voter that got it wrong.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Laga4 1270]

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

The wall, Muslim ban = sub-40% support

Universal healthcare, free college, taxing the rich = 60+% support

LiBeRaLs MuSt MoDeRaTe

The problem is where the 40% live.  

[Biff Tannen 45721]

2 minutes ago, Laga4 said:

The problem is where the 40% live.  

Areas nowhere near the border?

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

Shouting out any voter who may have not voted Democrat in 2016, but whom is strongly considering voting for a Democrat in 2020 and would like to have some input in who makes it through the primaries?

"Some input" = "I support this candidate, but I'm not attacking any of the others and I'll back whoever wins."?

Great!

"Some input" = "I support this candidate, and these other candidates are bad because..."? 

Quote

We’re co-hosting something from Castro later this Spring, we’d love to have you but I guess I can’t pariopate because I didn’t vote for Hillary-maybe the most easy to like candidate since Coolidge.  

The fact that you thought that how easy it was to like her mattered is what makes you not really worth listening to with regard to who the Dems should run. There's no reason to believe you've gotten any smarter, and you're using your hurt feelings as an excuse to keep being the same brand of dumb that made you vote for Trump or Johnson in 2016. Funny how it works, it's almost like it's all in complete bad faith.

 

(It is.)

[Js1 85558]

10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Areas nowhere near the border?

The hoards of illegal messicans and some turrists are overrunning Williston, North Dakota and Huntington, WV!!!!

[Fozzz 152]

lol she calls them neolibs.  If Tulsi can find a way to make it to the debates, we could watch her call Kamala a shitlib on live TV.  

This is a good speech, btw.

 

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think what bad teammate is saying is if you didn’t vote for Hillary in 2016 your judgment really can’t be trusted. 

I have yet to hear any Gary Johnson voters admit they got it wrong in 2016 and that says a lot IMO.

And I say that as a 2012 Gary Johnson voter that got it wrong.

So if I voted for Gary Johnson and worked on his campaign in 2016, what exactly did I get wrong?  What, precisely, in your objective judgement did I do wrong?  I swung Texas for Trump?  Is that what you're suggesting?  I mean, you're very smart with hardly any free time away from your dayjob...do tell me in state-of-the-art terminology what I should admit that I got wrong?  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

If you thought Gary Johnson would make the best president and had a realistic shot, more power to you. Your judgment is still questionable because you were at least half wrong. 

If you didn’t give a shit about Trump winning and thought your vote didn’t matter, I’m not sure why you voted in the first place. 

Pretty much any vote not for Hillary helped Trump and if you couldn’t see that going in, your judgment is suspect.

But hey that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Js1 85558]

Also if you don’t think Booker and Harris just got a leg up after the Northam thing. Democrats will want to show they can move WAY past white dudes in blackface 

[Fozzz 152]

 

 

[Guest Lobo]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If you thought Gary Johnson would make the best president and had a realistic shot, more power to you. Your judgment is still questionable because you were at least half wrong. 

If you didn’t give a shit about Trump winning and thought your vote didn’t matter, I’m not sure why you voted in the first place. 

Pretty much any vote not for Hillary helped Trump and if you couldn’t see that going in, your judgment is suspect.

But hey that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

So Trump beat Hillary by about 800,000 votes in Texas, thus taking all of its electoral college votes because I voted for Johnson?  Got it.  I mean, you said any vote not for Hillary helped Trump.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

10 minutes ago, Lobo said:

So Trump beat Hillary by about 800,000 votes in Texas, thus taking all of its electoral college votes because I voted for Johnson?  Got it.  I mean, you said any vote not for Hillary helped Trump.  

How many people in Texas sat out in 2016 and didn’t vote?  Would it have closed the gap? Yes it could have.

Could you have known how many people wouldn’t vote? Nope

Therefore, your vote could have been consequential. 

It’s only in hindsight that you can make your argument which makes it dubious.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Guest Lobo]

40% of eligible Texans sat out in 2016.  So yeah, me and Paco and have 'splainin to do give the slightly larger than 2-vote spread.  

Your messaging to me and the rest of my fellow Hispanics continues to ring slightly hollow.  But I'm sure it's beta-testing really well in your online chat room for fans of the Nordic Socialist platforms.   It's impossible you're not hired more frequently to run serious leftist Campaigns.  

Edited February 4, 2019 by Lobo

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I just want people to make better informed decisions and participate in democracy.

I guess that makes me a lefty socialist.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13224]

Wait, is someone who campaigned for Gary Johnson seriously trying to give advice about how to appeal to minorities? lol

----- TULSI SPEECH WATCH NOTES -----

Good:
- ASL interpreter
- good speaker, but monotone
- names Purdue Pharma
- immediate M4A
- calls out marijuana imprisonment
- "so-called criminal justice system"
- "mercenaries for hire"
- "both parties" ... "thinking up new wars"
- "neo-cons" & "neo-libs" named (hearing "neo-lib" from a presidential candidate is surreal; I wonder where she posts)
- "meet with both friends and adversaries" - "the only alternative is war"
- "stand up against military industrial complex"

Bad:
- "race, religion, and sexual orientation" (what about gender identity?)
- do I detect some Obama cadence? (a Hawaiian thing?)
- lots of security talk (she's a troop, so...)
- ok stop talking about the troops Jesus we get it (crowd losing all enthusiasm)
- "In any moment we could be annihilated by nuclear war" uhh.... are you trying to depress everyone during your announcement speech?
- MORE TROOPS TROOPS TROOPS TROOPS TROOPS TROOPS TROOOOOPS
- TTTTTTTTTTRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
- "it is love that drives a mother to run in front of a speeding car" god damnit Tulsi would you stop filling my mind with horror please?
- What's this MLK racial justice quote supposed to be about?
- this is a looooooooooooooooooooong 26 minutes

---------
Definitely making herself the "national security" candidate.

Started off very strong then got completely lost with the entire middle talking about how we're near nuclear hellfire but gosh darnit the troops are great. ... or something

Tulsi Gabbard 2020: Saving YOU From The Coming Nuclear Winter

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Who thinks this is a good idea? 

[bad_teammate 13224]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Who thinks this is a good idea? 

He does it every year. He's going live after Abrams is done. Calm down.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Beto praises @AOC: "1 of the reasons I really like [her] is I really feel she’s saying the things that she believes, that she believes this country needs. ... The strength, the power, w/ which she speaks about the things that she knows are most important is so compelling to me."

More @BetoORourke on @AOC: "I mentioned the New Green Deal. She’s the reason I mentioned the New Green Deal. She is forcing us to talk about the New Green Deal."

After praising @AOC, @BetoORourke says to laughs, "Unfortunately for many, she is too young by the Constitution to run for the presidency of the United States."

.@BetoORourke: "The ideas [@AOC] is introducing — perhaps much like the ideas Bernie Sanders introduced in 2016 — ... that everyone should be able to go to college, or ... be well enough from a health perspective to pursue their potential & live their full promise — I love that."

[Fozzz 152]

Fucking fraud. 

[gmr548 16611]

8 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm torn on how I want the Ds to run.  My head says lean center to try and get some of the Rs, like the family member I mentioned earlier, but then I worry that they are too far gone already and fuck em, so let's go forward with the progressive ideas and leave them behind.  

That either party needs to play to the center to win elections is a myth that has been consistently busted, including numerous times in recent years, and yet still somehow persists. Winning elections comes down to two things:

1.) Motivating your base - this has proven especially potent for Democrats because they have a larger (albeit geographically clustered) base, and for opposition parties because of the natural complacency that sets in among the supporters of the governing party. Some moderate, ala Hillary, doesn't accomplish that goal. Remember, she openly courted Republicans. It is documented that her campaign devoted resources to chasing pipe dreams in AZ, GA, and even TX. It didn't work out and the lack of enthusiasm from the base cost her the election.

2.) Being "charismatic" enough to pull in new voters and the 10 percent of this country that doesn't actually lean strongly one way or another, "independent" affiliation be damned. Your family member leans R. They are looking for a reason to vote R. Any reason. They are Bru McCoy to the Republican Party's USC. It would take a catastrophic meltdown for them to defect. And if they do, it will be more they Republican Party's doing than of any Democratic candidate. Conversely, I am an independent but in reality I vote D at a 90 percent plus clip, and at this point cannot imagine voting R outside of an extremely localized election. Rs could run a Romney or a Charlie Baker or whoever, and I'm sure they're fine and all, but I'm probably not voting for them because they're the party of Trump, Cruz, Patrick, etc. Data shows most "independents" are similar. It is a very small portion of the electorate whose vote is actually up for grabs, and while they are an important faction, they are not the most important factor in determining an election result.

I put charismatic in quotes because that word has expanded meaning in politics. It doesn't just mean engaging, sociable, and well-liked like it means regularly. In politics, it is basically means having a big personality, one way or the other. Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan... All of them as much or more because of perceived personal traits than any political positions. Similarly, Trump brought out the racists and the conspiracy nuts, Obama brought the youths and a huge minority vote, Bush rode the evangelicals... They each cultivated outsized following/turnout concentrated in their core constituencies that proved decisive. See Beto here in Texas - even if he is somewhat middle of the road for a national Democrat, he ran far to the left of what any other Texas D would have dared try. And he damn near won because of young people and suburban white women. Some moderate Democrat - HRC, John Kerry, whoever, doesn't make that happen. 

Both of those points are kind of intertwined. The American electorate is finite. Even in the most hyper-charged political atmosphere in decades we have turnout below 60 percent. We know how ingrained people's political opinions are and how hard it is to get them to flip. You just don't get a lot of ROI moving to the middle. All of the resources you deploy will yield a relatively small number of votes at the end of the day. Motivating the democratic base would have won the Ds the election in 2016. Looking at 2020 - major Democratic policy positions have solid majority support among the American public, while Trump's support, as rabidly loyal as it may be, is at 40 percent at the most optimistic count. With that kind of advantage, you don't need to go chasing a few confused Rs. You need to energize, organize, and ultimately turnout the people - who make up the majority of this country by a significant margin - who are already sympathetic to your platform. 

[tantric superman 4667]

Beto should announce that he is going after Cornyn's seat.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Beto should run for President.

Beto’s strategy of going to all the little rural towns amounted to something like a 1% difference in those places.  In other words, it wasn’t effective at mobilizing rural voters.  It’s no wonder democrats don’t go to those places.

However, I still liked the strategy he employed because it highlighted his character to the country.

[RayDog 682]

31 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Beto should run for President.

Beto’s strategy of going to all the little rural towns amounted to something like a 1% difference in those places.  In other words, it wasn’t effective at mobilizing rural voters.  It’s no wonder democrats don’t go to those places.

However, I still liked the strategy he employed because it highlighted his character to the country.

Pre Kavanaugh hearings his rural bump would have been larger  particularly since Republican enthusiasm went from 47% pre hearings to 60%+ afterwards.

I think he wins if Kennedy doesn't resign.

 

[Js1 85558]

Reiterating my “k thanks no”

 

[Fozzz 152]

Why do you care how weirdos feel about her?  Do you think she's a cyrpto-fascist?  This is similar to the Russian smears, which get used against anyone who dares stray from the acceptable line.  For example:

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21048]

It's infrastructure week in South Bend. Mayor Pete did more in 5 minutes than Trump has in 2 years. 

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

49 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

It's infrastructure week in South Bend. Mayor Pete did more in 5 minutes than Trump has in 2 years. 

 

Didn't even introduce the crew. 0/10 - corporate fascist enemy of the working man

[Huckleberry 33083]

19 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think what bad teammate is saying is if you didn’t vote for Hillary in 2016 your judgment really can’t be trusted. 

I have yet to hear any Gary Johnson voters admit they got it wrong in 2016 and that says a lot IMO.

And I say that as a 2012 Gary Johnson voter that got it wrong.

I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 and I don't regret it. Trump was winning Texas, period. My vote was merely a hail mary for the 5% mark.

[Hank Kingsley 21048]

Oh, and FYI

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

Fuck yes Pete, give me some of that. Let's get Puerto Rico and DC statehood as well.

[Biff Tannen 45721]

12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 and I don't regret it. Trump was winning Texas, period. My vote was merely a hail mary for the 5% mark.

I was going to do this until the last second when my friend convinced me that Hillary might actually have a shot in Texas against the dotard. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

Gary Johnson voters: "Here is why I did what I did!"

Everyone else:

[Guest Lobo]

Bad_teammate, haven't I seen you pontificate on other threads about how we need to be more European in our political and social affairs in this country?  

[bad_teammate 13224]

Just now, Lobo said:

Bad_teammate, haven't I seen you pontificate on other threads about how we need to be more European in our political and social affairs in this country?  

No, you haven't. Europe is a big place and I have no idea what you would even mean by "more European in our political and social affairs". Make an argument.

[horncyclist 1391]

Beto's interview with Oprah is being recorded today but isn't aired until Feb 16th. I'm guessing he doesn't announce at this time then since I believe the recording will be public. He couldn't control the narrative well enough. He needs to decide what he's doing. 

Really liking Pete Buttigieg. Love he called the Electoral College what it is. I believe we're going to to need massive structural reforms, including constitutional amendments to restore democracy. I know the constitution as written was intended to balance minority and small state interests but I do not think in the drafters envisioned the relative population difference between Montana and California. That each has two Senators is preposterous. Republicans exploitation of their outsized influenced to fuck the country and sell the it out to Trump and his ilk will speed up the reform of our outdated constitution.

 

[Guest Lobo]

I genuinely retract the statement then.  I really am not good with names in real life nor on the interwebs.  I have often read on this site that the United States should mirror and match the European styled democracies.  

[bad_teammate 13224]

4 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I genuinely retract the statement then.  I really am not good with names in real life nor on the interwebs.  I have often read on this site that the United States should mirror and match the European styled democracies.  

I might agree with "European styled democracies", but which ones are you talking about?

I think we should have a "fundamental reforms to our democratic system" thread. I'm sure it will be dominated by "TERM LIMITS!", but it's interesting stuff to think/talk about.

[Js1 85558]

Oh hell yes, European styled democracies. Especially the social democracies.  Hell yes.

[SubliminalHorn 6811]

4 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I genuinely retract the statement then.  I really am not good with names in real life nor on the interwebs.  I have often read on this site that the United States should mirror and match the European styled democracies.  

I like the parliamentary system rather than ours. More voices present in government with more parties. Our system constrains is to two parties. It would take a radical restructuring of our government, though which I don’t think is necessary. Ranked choice voting is the way to go for us. 

[Fozzz 152]

Wanting to get rid of the Electoral College is a nice sentiment, but none of these people would have the power to do anything about it as President, so it's kind of a pointless topic to bring up as a Presidential candidate.  Getting out of Afghanistan is also a nice sentiment, but following that up with "we've also gotta make sure that the way we do it doesn't leave us vulnerable" is a giveaway that he's not serious about it.  

[Hank Kingsley 21048]

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Wanting to get rid of the Electoral College is a nice sentiment, but none of these people would have the power to do anything about it as President, so it's kind of a pointless topic to bring up as a Presidential candidate.  Getting out of Afghanistan is also a nice sentiment, but following that up with "we've also gotta make sure that the way we do it doesn't leave us vulnerable" is a giveaway that he's not serious about it.  

Well, a serious conversation about getting rid of the Electoral College needs to happen. And hearing it from a presidential candidate from a Midwestern state adds sincerity. 

And since Buttigieg served as an intelligence officer in Afghanistan, it should seem obvious that he is serious about it and very knowledgeable about our situation there. 

[Hank Kingsley 21048]

Fozz, check out what Buttigeig says about endless wars and Afghanistan in this interview. Starts around the 4:45 mark. 

 

"We don't send troops somewhere because we don't like the regime, we send troops somewhere because it is the last resort to protect American lives. That's got to be the threshold."

[GSU&UT 1798]

17 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Wanting to get rid of the Electoral College is a nice sentiment, but none of these people would have the power to do anything about it as President, so it's kind of a pointless topic to bring up as a Presidential candidate.  Getting out of Afghanistan is also a nice sentiment, but following that up with "we've also gotta make sure that the way we do it doesn't leave us vulnerable" is a giveaway that he's not serious about it.  

Candidates are asked literally all the time about policy positions that, if elected, would have very little, if none, influence over.

[Fozzz 152]

5 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Candidates are asked literally all the time about policy positions that, if elected, would have very little, if none, influence over.

Was Buttigieg asked his opinion regarding the Electoral College or did he provide that opinion unprompted?  It's a distraction.