Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee

used2b

By used2b
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26835

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

This is nonsense and is sad how much it’s leaked into common knowledge.  Go watch his 1992 convention speech, four years after he left office.  Or better listen to any of his physicians that tended to him in the White House. 

It was a great speech, but given his presentation of unprepared material and behaviors at the time I tend to agree with those who observed cognitive decline consistent with early stage dementia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 23.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bad_teammate

    3638

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2212

  • Hank Kingsley

    1252

  • Js1

    1230

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton

3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 21733

Posted
Posted

Dear Democratic Party, 

40% of the current electorate will not vote for you.  Do not try to "unite" or "bring together" everyone in this country. It will not work. 

Focus on the other 60% and people that don't currently vote. Make sure you have a candidate with progressive tendencies instead of a "centrist".  We are tired of the old guard bullshit. We do not want dinosaurs running the country. Do no mistake the frustration with Trump and the GOP as love for the Democratic Party.  Tell Hillary to butt out and watch silently from the sidelines. Listen to the people. Provide a candidate that will inspire women, POC, and young people to vote. 

Oh, and legalize weed nationally.

Thanks, 
HK

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pancho

Pancho 46253

Posted
Posted

Joy Reid had a poll on her Twitter a week or so ago asking who did her followers want as the ticket for 2020. The results were mostly (almost all responses) Harris and Beto.  Didn’t seem like most cared about the order of the ticket as long as it was those 2 on it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

This guy sounds worse than Obama.  Hillary levels of awfulness. 

Quote

Capital & Main reviewed the 167 votes O’Rourke has cast in opposition to the majority of his own party in the House during his six-year tenure in Congress. Many of those votes were not progressive dissents alongside other left-leaning lawmakers but were instead votes to help pass Republican-sponsored legislation. In many cases, Democratic lawmakers said that those measures were designed to help corporate interests dismantle Obama administration programs and regulations.

Amid persistently high economic inequality and a climate change crisis, O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ tax agenda, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act, weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Trump’s immigration policy. Consumer, environmental, public health and civil rights organizations have cast legislation backed by O’Rourke as aiding big banks, undermining the fight against climate change and supporting Trump’s anti-immigrant program. During the previous administration, President Barack Obama’s White House issued statements slamming two GOP bills backed by the 46-year-old Democratic legislator.

O’Rourke’s votes for Republican tax, trade, health care, criminal justice and immigration-related legislation not only defied his national party, but also at times put him at odds even with a majority of Texas Democratic lawmakers in Congress. Such votes underscore his membership in the New Democrat Coalition, the faction of House Democrats most closely aligned with business interests. 

https://capitalandmain.com/beto-vs-democrats-texas-lawmaker-frequently-voted-to-help-trump-and-gop-1220

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 23037

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I would like Beto to respond.  It certainly doesn't look great.

Rep. O'Rourke voted against a majority of House Democrats 60 times (6.0%) in the 113th Congress (2013-14). The average House Democrat voted against his or her party 11.0% of the time.

Rep. O'Rourke voted against a majority of House Democrats 47 times (4.9%) in the 114th Congress (2015-16). The average House Democrat voted against his or her party 5.6% of the time.

Rep. O'Rourke has voted against a majority of House Democrats 60 times (8.2%) in the 115th Congress (2017-18). He ranks 74th among all representatives in voting against his party. The average House Democrat votes against his or her party 7.1% of the time.

^Taken from the three ProPublica links in the article.

It shouldn't be surprising given the author, but this entire article is a masterclass in manipulating data to make the point you want it to.  Bottom line: When not running for a Senate seat, Beto votes with his party more than most.  When running for a Senate seat, he crossed the aisle a bit more, which is to be expected for someone trying to pull in voters.  So many words for such a non-story.

Edited by Chuckie Finster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46150

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Rep. O'Rourke voted against a majority of House Democrats 60 times (6.0%) in the 113th Congress (2013-14). The average House Democrat voted against his or her party 11.0% of the time.

Rep. O'Rourke voted against a majority of House Democrats 47 times (4.9%) in the 114th Congress (2015-16). The average House Democrat voted against his or her party 5.6% of the time.

Rep. O'Rourke has voted against a majority of House Democrats 60 times (8.2%) in the 115th Congress (2017-18). He ranks 74th among all representatives in voting against his party. The average House Democrat votes against his or her party 7.1% of the time.

^Taken from the three ProPublica links in the article.

It shouldn't be surprising given the author, but this entire article is a masterclass in manipulating data to make the point you want it to.  Bottom line: When not running for a Senate seat, Beto votes with his party more than most.  When running for a Senate seat, he crossed the aisle a bit more, which is to be expected for someone trying to pull in voters.  So many words for such a non-story.

Thanks for the research.  However, there are definitely a couple of votes, especially on the environmental side, that don't sit well with me.  Granted, that is one of my main issues.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 23037

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Thanks for the research.  However, there are definitely a couple of votes, especially on the environmental side, that don't sit well with me.  Granted, that is one of my main issues.  

And that's fair.  But I also think if you analyze the multi-year voting record of any congressperson, especially someone running for higher office, there's probably going to be a few individual votes that raise eyebrows.  And the unfortunate truth is that someone who votes with their part 100% of the time is very unlikely to ever be a serious candidate in the general.

If the author had framed the article as "Beto needs to explain these environmental votes" then I would have no problem with it.  A candidate's voting record SHOULD be analyzed and questioned.  But when the title of the article is literally "Beto vs. the Democrats", it's clickbait nonsense.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Rep. O'Rourke voted against a majority of House Democrats 60 times (6.0%) in the 113th Congress (2013-14). The average House Democrat voted against his or her party 11.0% of the time.

Rep. O'Rourke voted against a majority of House Democrats 47 times (4.9%) in the 114th Congress (2015-16). The average House Democrat voted against his or her party 5.6% of the time.

Rep. O'Rourke has voted against a majority of House Democrats 60 times (8.2%) in the 115th Congress (2017-18). He ranks 74th among all representatives in voting against his party. The average House Democrat votes against his or her party 7.1% of the time.

^Taken from the three ProPublica links in the article.

It shouldn't be surprising given the author, but this entire article is a masterclass in manipulating data to make the point you want it to.  Bottom line: When not running for a Senate seat, Beto votes with his party more than most.  When running for a Senate seat, he crossed the aisle a bit more, which is to be expected for someone trying to pull in voters.  So many words for such a non-story.

This does not take into account the fact that he occupies one of the most blue districts in the entire country, and obviously much more blue than the average district a Texas dem occupies.  There was no tactical reason for him to vote for the CFPB reform bill, lifting the oil export ban, drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, insulating the utility industry against liability, making attempted murder of cops punishable by death, and weakening financial regulations.  

He's to the right of Obama.  

Edited by Fozzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
happyfunball

happyfunball 481

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

This does not take into account the fact that he occupies one of the most blue districts in the entire country, and obviously much more blue than the average district a Texas dem occupies.  There was no tactical reason for him to vote for the CFPB reform bill, lifting the oil export ban, drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, insulating the utility industry against liability, making attempted murder of cops punishable by death, and weakening financial regulations.  

He's to the right of Obama.  

The left is falling for the same type of charm as they did with Obama which is why Lizzy Warren would be a better choice. Need someone proven with strong views that will push for reform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 23037

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

The left is falling for the same type of charm as they did with Obama which is why Lizzy Warren would be a better choice. Need someone proven with strong views that will push for reform.

To highlight how dumb the premise of "Candidate X vs. the Democrats!!!" is:

Sen. Warren has voted against a majority of Senate Democrats 99 times (18.2%) in the 115th Congress (2017-18). She ranks 8th among all senators in voting against her party. The average Senate Democrat votes against his or her party 10.3% of the time.

OMG Warren is to the right of Obama!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

To highlight how dumb the premise of "Candidate X vs. the Democrats!!!" is:

Sen. Warren has voted against a majority of Senate Democrats 99 times (18.2%) in the 115th Congress (2017-18). She ranks 8th among all senators in voting against her party. The average Senate Democrat votes against his or her party 10.3% of the time.

OMG Warren is to the right of Obama!

Did you bother to look at what votes she differed form her party?  Many of them are for court nominations where she is dissenting from the left, not the right.  She votes in line with Trump's positions far less than Beto.  Indeed, when you factor in the vote share Trump received in Beto's district, he's one of the most pro-Trump Dems in the entire house.  

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/house/

Edited by Fozzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pancho

Pancho 46253

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

The left is falling for the same type of charm as they did with Obama which is why Lizzy Warren would be a better choice. Need someone proven with strong views that will push for reform.

No it doesn’t look like the left is anointing Warren as the candidate.

not at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 23037

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Did you bother to look at what votes she differed form her party?  Many of them are for court nominations where she is dissenting from the left, not the right.  She votes in line with Trump's positions far less than Beto.  Indeed, when you factor in the vote share Trump received in Beto's district, he's one of the most pro-Trump Dems in the entire house.  

 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/house/

I know being contrarian is your shtick, so I'm not going to get stuck in a pointless debate, but citing Beto's district (as you assuredly know) is pointless.  He was running for higher office, not re-election.  

Again, as I've said before, if you're being painted as not progressive enough by the Bernie Bros and a MFing socialist by the Republicans, you're probably in the sweet-spot for a national election.

Neither Bernie nor Warren stand a chance in 2020, even if they are both more than qualified to be great Presidents.  Democrats can whine and complain that things aren't fair, or they can find a candidate with more crossover appeal.  

There will be a time in the future when an Elizabeth Warren could win.  That's not 2020.

 

Edited by Chuckie Finster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87172

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

If the left anoints anyone it will be Bernie because he unquestionably has the best left-credentials of anyone in the field.  Liz is good on economic issues but more mixed elsewhere. 

Being anointed by the white liberals doesn't win you a presidential primary anymore for the Democrats.  You can't win just by sweeping Vermont/New Hampshire, the Midwest and caucus states in low population states.  Delegate-rich states in the south, Texas, California, Virginia and NC matter more.   Nothing from 2016 to now tells me Bernie solved his issues with minority-Democrats, especially black women, who decide presidential primaries. 

Edited by Js1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I know being contrarian is your shtick, so I'm not going to get stuck in a pointless debate, but citing Beto's district (as you assuredly know) is pointless.  He was running for higher office, not re-election.  

Again, as I've said before, if you're being painted as not progressive enough by the Bernie Bros and a MFing socialist by the Republicans, you're probably in the sweet-spot for a nationwide, general election.

 

As a Dem, you're going to get painted as a commie irrespective of what you actually support.  I don't think his voting record is reflective of tactical decisions in view of his Senate campaign, especially given how he ran that campaign.  If that were true then he wouldn't have taken positions and much more salient (not necessarily meaningful though) issues like Kaep and police violence.  Those things are lightening rods for reactionaries so it's not like he was choosing to avoid partisan issues in favor of running a bland centrist campaign like Jon Ossoff did, for example.  I really doubt he had the temerity to make an issue out of police violence towards minorities but was too sheepish to avoid watering down the Volcker rule.  That just doesn't make any sense.

Edited by Fozzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46150

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Democrats can whine and complain that things aren't fair, or they can find a candidate with more crossover appeal.  

There will be a time in the future when an Elizabeth Warren could win.  That's not 2020.

I still don't know if this is correct.  It's a weird fucking political climate that we have never experienced before, at least not in modern times.  My inner logic dictates that you are correct, but I'm also afraid it might be the opposite and Bernie or Warren actually have the better chance.  The shitty part is we get it right this time or it's all over.  There is no next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Being anointed by the white liberals doesn't win you a presidential primary anymore for the Democrats.  You can't win just by sweeping Vermont/New Hampshire, the Midwest and caucus states in low population states.  Delegate-rich states in the south, Texas, California, Virginia and NC matter more.   Nothing from 2016 to now tells me Bernie solved his issues with minority-Democrats, especially black women, who decide presidential primaries. 

I don't think his favorability with black women is much of an issue.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celery Man

Celery Man 21093

Posted
Posted

Also this -


The government of the greatest country the world has ever known, the wealthiest, most powerful nation on the planet: closed until further notice.

This shutdown – hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans working without pay during the holidays, basic government functions no longer available to the taxpayers who fund them – didn’t have to happen. The Senate passed a compromise government funding bill two days ago, 100–0. The men and women who can’t agree on what to name a post office were able to unite and unanimously agree on how to fund the entire government.

But maybe it was intended to happen.

Maybe in the face of an investigation that seeks the facts surrounding allegations of collusion with a foreign government and obstruction of justice within our own government… as one aide after another pleads guilty… as the stock market tumbles… as men and women intent on keeping their dignity and their conscience flee his administration… perhaps the President calculates that by adding to the blizzard of bizarre behavior over the last two years and shutting down the government at Christmas, while his own party still controls each branch of it, the institutions that we need for our democracy to function (and to ensure no man is above the law) will be overwhelmed.

From a President who promised action, we got distraction.

But my concern for the country goes beyond the immediate pain and dysfunction that this shutdown will cause. Beyond even ensuring that this President is held accountable. What’s happening now is part of a larger threat to us all.

If our institutions no longer work, if we no longer have faith in them, if there’s no way to count on government even functioning (three shutdowns this year alone), then perhaps ultimately we become open to something else. Whatever we choose to call it, whether we openly acknowledge it at all, my fear is that we will choose certainty, strength and predictability over this constant dysfunction, even if it comes at the price of our democracy (the press; the ballot box; the courts; congress and representative government).

If there were ever a man to exploit this precarious moment for our country and our form of government, it’s Trump. Sending 5,400 troops to U.S. border communities during the midterm elections. Organizing Border Patrol “crowd control” exercises in El Paso on election day. Defying our laws by taking children from their parents, keeping kids in tent camps, turning back refugees at our ports. Calling the press “the enemy of the people” and celebrating violence against members of the media. Pitting Americans against each other based on race and religion and immigration status. Inviting us to hate openly, to call Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals, to call asylum seekers animals, to describe Klansmen and neo-Nazis as very fine people. Seeking to disenfranchise fellow Americans with made up fears of voter fraud. Isolating us from the other great democracies as he cozies up to dictators and thugs. Lying again and again. Making a mockery of the United States – once the indispensable nation, the hope of mankind.

So we can engage in the immediate fights about blame for this latest shutdown… fall into his arguments about a wall, or steel slats, at a time of record border security and in the face of asylum seekers – our neighbors – fleeing the deadliest countries in the world… we can respond to his name-calling and grotesque, bizarre behavior… or we can pull up, look back at this moment from the future and see exactly what is happening to our country.

We are at risk of losing those things that make us special, unique, exceptional, those things that make us the destination for people the world over, looking for a better life and fleeing countries who lack our institutions, our rule of law, our stability.

If ever there was a time to put country over party it is now. This is not about a wall, it’s not about border security, it’s not about Democrats and Republicans. It’s about the future of our country – whether our children and grandchildren will thank us or blame us. Whether we will lose what was fought for, made more perfect, by the men and women who risked and lost their lives at Antietam, on Omaha beach, in Jackson, Mississippi… whether we will be defined by greatness and ambition or pettiness and fear. Whether we will continue to live in the world’s greatest democracy, or something else.

In the short term – let’s pass the funding bill that was agreed to by the Senate 100–0 just a few days ago. Send it to the President with the confidence that we represent the people of this country and that we are willing to override his veto if he cannot respect their will. Show that government can work, that we can see past our immediate differences to serve the greater good. To put country over party. To put country over one man. To do what we were sent here to do.

In the longer term – we must strengthen all of our institutions at the very moment they are called into question. Some clear opportunities for Congress: Ensure that our representatives in government reject PAC money, corporate and special interest influence. Demand that they hold town halls in our communities, listen to and respond to their constituents. Show America that they are working for us and for no one else.

Take action on the most urgent issues of our day: climate change, healthcare, endless war, income inequality, immigration, the vibrancy of rural communities and inner cities, education and criminal justice reform. Define the goal in each area, build the coalition to achieve it, find the common ground (between parties, between branches of government), and move forward. Prove that our system of government – whatever its problems – is still the best thing under the sun.

It’s action vs. distraction. One will save our democracy, the other will lead to its end.

- Beto









PAID FOR BY BETO FOR TEXAS



  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Disco Strangler

Disco Strangler 1911

Posted
Posted
Quote

 

Beto is running.  This commentary on top of his recent appearances at the tent cities in Tornillo show him doing much more than testing the water.  The more criticism of the Trump at this point in the cycle, the better.  Don't know if the Operation Send Our Troops to the Border Just In Time for Election Day (aka Operation Scare the Olds) made the difference in the final outcome of our senate race or not, but Beto has a special standing to call that shit out for exactly what it was.  I expect Julien Castro is waiting to see what Beto does before throwing his hat in the ring.  Between those two, Beto definitely is the more tested candidate of the two.  He actually put his balls on the line to put some real skin in the game for Texas. 

Bernie's saggy old man balls were too old in 2016 and he needs to keep his ass on the sidelines from here on out.  The free world cannot afford to have him be the 2020 nominee.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted

He’s a threat to Bernie and his bros.

A much younger, much more charismatic candidate from a red (verging on purple) state with a large number of electoral votes who is running with a grassroots, enthusiastic, and hopeful message?

That’s Bernie’s worst fucking nightmare.

TL;DR - Bernie’s jus jealous.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

Berniebros and "the pure" are casting Beto as a corporate asset. WTF? He ran his entire campaign on Bernie's fucking model.

I'll give O'Rourke credit...he didn't take much from Wall Street/banks.  But he sure as shit whored himself out to to every other corporate sector in the land.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...