2020 Democratic Nominee

[bad_teammate 13496]

Sorry to double post, but allow me to post a substantive discussion of Warren v. Sanders.

While both are economic populists, they are actually very different in their overall vision of how our economy should be structured. Warren has a gang of great  policy  ideas whose goal is to restore fairness to capitalism. She is a believer in the invisible hand of the free market and thinks there is some golden era of fair capitalism (pre-1980s) that we need to get back to. We need to Make Capitalism Great Again, essentially. I'm simplifying things, but in the Warren vision there's a rose-colored tint thrown over the growth of the middle class post-WWII.

She is from white areas whose growth in that era was actually significant and without the violence and upheaval of, say.... a place where a young Jewish man might chain himself to African-American protesters. She was a Republican until the mid-1990s and has a very 1960s/70s Republican vision of economy. To many, that's attractive. The idea of a fairer capitalist system that existed before the insanity of the 1980s and has spiraled into madness since then is something that will resonate with many.

It doesn't resonate with me, because I think the idea that we had a fair and good capitalism in the past is laughable bullshit.

I still like her because she's smart as hell and genuinely cares about the middle class, which is a massive improvement over every Republican and many of the dead-eyed vampires in the DNC.

I prefer Sanders because not only does he want to, like Warren, reign in the power of large enterprise and limit its ability to sink the nation; he wants to remove private industry from vital parts of American life and turn that control over to the actual people.

To those of you who are right, center-right, and center, maybe you don't even see the difference between those things. And that's OK.

[Brian Fantana 6862]

1 hour ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I agree. Bama Chick obviously isn't some intellectual powerhouse or great political thinker of our day, but she never claimed to be so it's unfair to insult and deride her as brain dead or otherwise. It's the personal insults which are super lame. I know Bama Chick throws out what must sound to her as clever personal insults a lot, but take the high road and don't justify fighting fire with fire with personal insults is my position. She's just someone who's flat wore out with Trump's presidency and lashes out emotionally like millions of other people and just doing the best they can to try and psychologically level set themselves in the face of such an attack on their worldview. 

I guess to be fair, bad_teammate insults everyone of every ilk, even those closest to his ideology, so he's not targeting her simply because he views her as a dumb broad or whatever language he would use in his home.

I like how you're trying to shit on someone else for misogyny while at the same time tossing out this incredibly patronizing, condescending, and sexist post. I'm sure @Bama Chick really appreciates your fake, white bread "woke" bullshit you fucking retard.

[RayDog 682]

The biweekly daikykos poll which gauges insiders is

Warren 22%, Beto 15%, Harris 13%, Biden 13%, and Bernie 10%. Nobody else above 2%.

Warren got a nice bump from the last poll after her announcement.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

32 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Sorry to double post, but allow me to post a substantive discussion of Warren v. Sanders.

While both are economic populists, they are actually very different in their overall vision of how our economy should be structured. Warren has a gang of great  policy  ideas whose goal is to restore fairness to capitalism. She is a believer in the invisible hand of the free market and thinks there is some golden era of fair capitalism (pre-1980s) that we need to get back to. We need to Make Capitalism Great Again, essentially. I'm simplifying things, but in the Warren vision there's a rose-colored tint thrown over the growth of the middle class post-WWII.

She is from white areas whose growth in that era was actually significant and without the violence and upheaval of, say.... a place where a young Jewish man might chain himself to African-American protesters. She was a Republican until the mid-1990s and has a very 1960s/70s Republican vision of economy. To many, that's attractive. The idea of a fairer capitalist system that existed before the insanity of the 1980s and has spiraled into madness since then is something that will resonate with many.

It doesn't resonate with me, because I think the idea that we had a fair and good capitalism in the past is laughable bullshit.

I still like her because she's smart as hell and genuinely cares about the middle class, which is a massive improvement over every Republican and many of the dead-eyed vampires in the DNC.

I prefer Sanders because not only does he want to, like Warren, reign in the power of large enterprise and limit its ability to sink the nation; he wants to remove private industry from vital parts of American life and turn that control over to the actual people.

To those of you who are right, center-right, and center, maybe you don't even see the difference between those things. And that's OK.

This is really good analysis showing the clear distinction between Warren and Sanders.  I wish our media was better at pointing this out. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, RayDog said:

Warren 22%, Beto 15%, Harris 13%, Biden 13%, and Bernie 10%.

I think these are THE FIVE to choose from for democrats.  

I don't see a Bloomberg, Castro, or Inslee cracking in there.

MAYBE Klobuchar  

[bad_teammate 13496]

This is really good analysis showing the clear distinction between Warren and Sanders.  I wish our media was better at pointing this out. 

Our mainstream media hates socialist thinking. Look at the Anderson Cooper interview with AOC as evidence.

[tantric superman 4668]

4 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

She brings a different perspective--a perspective, by the way, that is probably far more in tune with the majority of voters than any of the elitist pseudo-academicians on this board--that I think is valuable and worth considering.

Harvard and Alabama were my safety schools.

[RayDog 682]

27 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is really good analysis showing the clear distinction between Warren and Sanders.  I wish our media was better at pointing this out. 

Our mainstream media hates socialist thinking. Look at the Anderson Cooper interview with AOC as evidence.

Given that social programs have majority support among the public, all of CNNs program hosts are far right wing as are the vast majority of their guests.

Edited January 8, 2019 by RayDog

[F250 29196]

3 minutes ago, RayDog said:

Given that social programs have majority support among the public, all of CNNs program hosts are far right wing as are the vast majority of their guests.

[David Dennison 19519]

27 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is really good analysis showing the clear distinction between Warren and Sanders.  I wish our media was better at pointing this out. 

Our mainstream media hates socialist thinking. Look at the Anderson Cooper interview with AOC as evidence.

He's not a member of the mainstream media. He's a Vanderbilt. He's a member of the elite of the elite.

[Brisketexan 106876]

This is really good analysis showing the clear distinction between Warren and Sanders.  I wish our media was better at pointing this out. 

It is a decent analysis. And it’s particularly on-target as to how Warren isn’t anti-capitalism, she’s pro reformed capitalism. Which puts her much closer to my take on things.

 

I actually think she’d be a decent president. BUT...I don’t think she can win. Because the determinative voter demographic is the “stupid and shallow” vote. And among that group, “Pocahontas” sticks, and they naturally lean against a woman candidate.

 

It ain’t just about picking the horse you like. It has to be one that can win. Which is why Bama Chick is not off-target. She’s observing what matters to the determinative voting bloc.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It is a decent analysis. And it’s particularly on-target as to how Warren isn’t anti-capitalism, she’s pro reformed capitalism. Which puts her much closer to my take on things.

 

I actually think she’d be a decent president. BUT...I don’t think she can win. Because the determinative voter demographic is the “stupid and shallow” vote. And among that group, “Pocahontas” sticks, and they naturally lean against a woman candidate.

 

It ain’t just about picking the horse you like. It has to be one that can win. Which is why Bama Chick is not off-target. She’s observing what matters to the determinative voting bloc.

Her handling of the ancestry thing was very cringe-worthy even to enlightened super geniuses like me.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

It is a decent analysis. And it’s particularly on-target as to how Warren isn’t anti-capitalism, she’s pro reformed capitalism. Which puts her much closer to my take on things.

 

I actually think she’d be a decent president. BUT...I don’t think she can win. Because the determinative voter demographic is the “stupid and shallow” vote. And among that group, “Pocahontas” sticks, and they naturally lean against a woman candidate.

 

It ain’t just about picking the horse you like. It has to be one that can win. Which is why Bama Chick is not off-target. She’s observing what matters to the determinative voting bloc.

I think she can absolutely win.  She can overcome her perceived shortcomings and flaws the exact same way Trump did...Through her messaging that resonates with the common folk.  That is her appeal. 

She is selling a product that is high in demand with little suppliers.  

I think she thrives on constantly being underestimated. 

[F250 29196]

54 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think she can absolutely win.  She can overcome her perceived shortcomings and flaws the exact same way Trump did...Through her messaging that resonates with the common folk.  That is her appeal. 

She is selling a product that is high in demand with little suppliers.  

I think she thrives on constantly being underestimated. 

Trump's only talent is being a salesman and a shyster which really helped him project the persona that would attract followers. Warren comes off as a person of substance and not someone that is good at rallying the blue collar masses with meaningless utterances.

It would be a popularity contest between a college professor and P.T. Barnum.

 

 

[Brisketexan 106876]

Trump's only talent is being a salesman and a shyster which really helped him project the persona that would attract followers. Warren comes off as a person of substance and not someone that is good at rallying the blue collar masses with meaningless utterances.
It would be a popularity contest between a college professor and P.T. Barnum.
 
 

Exactly.

Circus beats substance with that most important demographic: fucking idiots.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, F250 said:

Trump's only talent is being a salesman and a shyster which really helped him project the persona that would attract followers. Warren comes off as a person of substance and not someone that is good at rallying the blue collar masses with meaningless utterances.

It would be a popularity contest between a college professor and P.T. Barnum.

How do you know Warren can’t rally followers? What evidence supports this? Did you think Trump would become what he did when he came down the escalator? 

Also, for 2020 Trump will have a public record as a lying failure instead of the successful businessman outsider that gets things done.

[Anastasis 23716]

57 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Exactly.

Circus beats substance with that most important demographic: fucking idiots.

The Achilles heal of democracy. 

[Patrick Bateman 3966]

Be sure to tune in..... maybe.

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26843]

8badmofo will be doing a response on shaggytexas.com

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Circus beats substance with that most important demographic: fucking idiots.

Actually it’s appealing to emotion instead of policy.  

There is a powerful emotion that resonates in Warren’s campaign that’s easy to miss:

Vengeance.  

Vengeance against the system that’s been fucking over Americans for decades.  Vengeance against the corruption that’s destroying democracy. 

I’m just saying, there are a lot of folks looking for blood and she’s not afraid to make people angry to inspire change.

This is something that separates her from a Beto or Biden with the “come together” schtick. 

[F250 29196]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

How do you know Warren can’t rally followers? What evidence supports this? Did you think Trump would become what he did when he came down the escalator? 

Also, for 2020 Trump will have a public record as a lying failure instead of the successful businessman outsider that gets things done.

I've seen her speak. She is an intellectual that writes actual books and is a populist that doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator. Trump is the opposite and the opposite works a hell of a lot better. Bread and circuses have been a winning formula for centuries.

 

[Brisketexan 106876]

I've seen her speak. She is an intellectual that writes actual books and is a populist that doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator. Trump is the opposite and the opposite works a hell of a lot better. Bread and circuses have been a winning formula for centuries.
 

This man gets it. Stupid and evil win because they’ve got superior numbers.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Yeah yeah, if you ignore the midterms and Barack Obama and Bill Clinton 

You guys are so fucking jaded.

[Brisketexan 106876]

Yeah yeah, if you ignore the midterms and Barack Obama and Bill Clinton 

You guys are so fucking jaded.

Gee, I wonder why.

 

Here’s a point to ponder: historically, is a functioning liberal democracy a) the rule, or b) a huge outlier?

 

We’re regressing to the mean, worldwide. It’s humanity’s natural resting place - utter buttfuckery.

[F250 29196]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah yeah, if you ignore the midterms and Barack Obama and Bill Clinton 

You guys are so fucking jaded.

Actually I am not jaded. Earlier you said Warren could use messaging the same way Trump did to appeal to the common folk. I disagree because populism isn't really an ideology or a set of principles most people adhere to. It's a movement usually centered around a dominant personality that can rally the masses. This is what Trump does best, he appeals to the lowest common denominator and lies his ass off.

Warren can explain how people are genuinely being exploited but no one gives a shit about that stuff, it's boring. Warren isn't capable of stirring up fear and hatred which isn't boring.

My point is there is no way she can replicate Trump's success at the populist game.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Fatalism aside, I think Trump will end up being an anomaly in our system.  Not saying it gets better anytime soon but this flirtation with authoritarianism will be short lived. 

The mob is fickle

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, F250 said:

Actually I am not jaded. Earlier you said Warren could use messaging the same way Trump did to appeal to the common folk. I disagree because populism isn't really an ideology or a set of principles most people adhere to. It's a movement usually centered around a dominant personality that can rally the masses. This is what Trump does best, he appeals to the lowest common denominator and lies his ass off.

Warren can explain how people are genuinely being exploited but no one gives a shit about that stuff, it's boring. Warren isn't capable of stirring up fear and hatred which isn't boring.

My point is there is no way she can replicate Trump's success at the populist game.

That’s a good and fair point.  

However, there was a strong populist movement with Bernie not using the Trump tactics. Those folks didn’t just disappear.

[F250 29196]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That’s a good and fair point.  

However, there was a strong populist movement with Bernie not using the Trump tactics. Those folks didn’t just disappear.

Bernie is old and consistent which gives him a certain authenticity most politicans lack. Hell, I like him and I don't even agree with his politics. Ron Paul was similar in that he was old but consistent with his beliefs. Both were political outsiders seen as a little bit kooky but had an army of young supporters. It's odd for really old politicians to draw in so many young people. I assume it's their authenticity that attracts the youth.

[Celery Man 21094]

 

[Fozzz 152]

Klobuchar is trash.

 

lol

[Fozzz 152]

Quote

Wall Street executives have heard from several potential 2020 Democratic candidates for president, including Sens. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, as recently as last month.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/07/wall-street-and-new-york-business-execs-gear-up-for-2020-presidential-election-.html

Disqualifying.

[bad_teammate 13496]

49 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/07/wall-street-and-new-york-business-execs-gear-up-for-2020-presidential-election-.html

Disqualifying.

100% disqualifying

[Pancho 46276]

 

[Js1 87175]

Good.

I hear Kamala is extremely close to announcing - MLK weekend or thereabouts.

[Guest Lobo]

3 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

 

I support the notion, but I am genuinely curious about how you "fund" an impeachment.  The only thing darker than soft money electing a president is soft money removing one.  I don't want Trump in office, but I'd like him to be removed by constitutional or judicial means, not by Tom Steyer's slush fund.  

[bad_teammate 13496]

5 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

 

"Billionaire Impeachment Activist"... ugh this country is so stupid

[NowThis 931]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Good.

I hear Kamala is extremely close to announcing - MLK weekend or thereabouts.

don't like her at all

[bad_teammate 13496]

14 minutes ago, NowThis said:

don't like her at all

Courting billionaire support is already strikes 1, 2, and 3 for me.

I decided to look at her Wikipedia page and...

-------------------------------------

While Harris was the San Francisco District Attorney, the overall felony conviction rate rose from 52% in 2003 to 67% in 2006, the highest in a decade; there was an 85% conviction rate for homicides, and convictions of drug dealers increased from 56% in 2003 to 74% in 2006. ...

Officers within the SFPD credited Harris with tightening loopholes in bail and drug programs that defendants had exploited in the past. ...

In 2012, Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo ruled that San Francisco District Attorney Harris's office violated defendants' rights by hiding damaging information about a police crime lab technician, and was indifferent to demands that it account for its failings.

-------------------------------------

I'll vote for her over Donald in the general, but no thanks in the primary.

[hayden_horn 11402]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Courting billionaire support is already strikes 1, 2, and 3 for me.

I decided to look at her Wikipedia page and...

-------------------------------------

While Harris was the San Francisco District Attorney, the overall felony conviction rate rose from 52% in 2003 to 67% in 2006, the highest in a decade; there was an 85% conviction rate for homicides, and convictions of drug dealers increased from 56% in 2003 to 74% in 2006. ...

Officers within the SFPD credited Harris with tightening loopholes in bail and drug programs that defendants had exploited in the past. ...

In 2012, Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo ruled that San Francisco District Attorney Harris's office violated defendants' rights by hiding damaging information about a police crime lab technician, and was indifferent to demands that it account for its failings.

-------------------------------------

I'll vote for her over Donald in the general, but no thanks in the primary.

yeah, that's gross

[Zombie 284]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Courting billionaire support is already strikes 1, 2, and 3 for me.

I decided to look at her Wikipedia page and...

-------------------------------------

While Harris was the San Francisco District Attorney, the overall felony conviction rate rose from 52% in 2003 to 67% in 2006, the highest in a decade; there was an 85% conviction rate for homicides, and convictions of drug dealers increased from 56% in 2003 to 74% in 2006. ...

Officers within the SFPD credited Harris with tightening loopholes in bail and drug programs that defendants had exploited in the past. ...

In 2012, Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo ruled that San Francisco District Attorney Harris's office violated defendants' rights by hiding damaging information about a police crime lab technician, and was indifferent to demands that it account for its failings.

-------------------------------------

I'll vote for her over Donald in the general, but no thanks in the primary.

As a former criminal defense attorney, this sort of bullshit enrages me like few other things. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

25 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I support the notion, but I am genuinely curious about how you "fund" an impeachment.  The only thing darker than soft money electing a president is soft money removing one.  I don't want Trump in office, but I'd like him to be removed by constitutional or judicial means, not by Tom Steyer's slush fund.  

There are billionaires on the other side protecting Trump from impeachment.  Our system is corrupt AF.  Knock yourself out Tom Steyer, at least he’s transparent about it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Obama and Bill Clinton were the archetypal modern positive, cool, young candidates.  They were the polar opposite of Elizabeth Warren.  They said nice, hopeful platitudes, played the sax and pickup basketball, and generally were feel good blank canvasses onto which voters could project their dreams of good times to come.

Warren is old, speaks like a Harvard professor, lectures about the credit system and other topics that are both boring and not easily understood by the average voter, and she resorts to angry/negative as her way to elicit emotional appeals instead of positive dreamer appeals.  

Now, angry plays better in this climate than it did in prior decades, but the other things are going to be problematic for her.  And all of the package is a pretty far cry from Bill and Obama.  

Finally, she actually doesn’t even run that well in Massachusetts.  She barely beat Scott Brown and then won comfortably but didn’t roll up massive margins in her re-election.  She’s who the Democrats use as authority for some of their policy ideas, not a tour de force at connecting with the people and winning popularity contests.

Yeah yeah, you’re a never trump Republican that wants some moderate in a suit. Therefore Warren bad because XYZ.  The black guy named Hussein had everything going for him in 2007. 

For the record Warren beat incumbent Scott Brown by 8 points in an election he was supposed to win.  She was re-elected by 24 points. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Yeah, and Ed Markey won his last Senate election by 24 points there, too, and Hillary won by 28 in Massachusetts.  Warren performs at replacement level for a Democrat there.

The truth is neither one of us knows how well she will play in the 2020 primaries.  I’m pulling for her but I know she could fall flat on her face. 

[bad_teammate 13496]

37 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Finally, she actually doesn’t even run that well in Massachusetts.

How a candidate plays in their home state has basically nothing at all to do with their national electability.

[Guest Lobo]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

How a candidate plays in their home state has basically nothing at all to do with their national electability.

I dunno, Obama did well in Illinois.  Bush did well in Texas.  Clinton did okay in Arkansas (though he did lose an election).  Reagan did well in both Illinois and California.   

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

I dunno, Obama did well in Illinois.  Bush did well in Texas.  Clinton did okay in Arkansas (though he did lose an election).  Reagan did well in both Illinois and California.   

How did Trump do in NY?

[Guest Lobo]

Was the biggest outlier in the history of American politics also an outlier in his home state/national voting ratios?  Why yes, yes he was.  Wow Hugo, I did not see that coming.  You're like my mother with her availability heuristic.  She's had cancer twice but because a relative of hers once lived into their 90's while still smoking, that's all the evidence she needs to keep smoking.  

[bad_teammate 13496]

4 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I dunno, Obama did well in Illinois.  Bush did well in Texas.  Clinton did okay in Arkansas (though he did lose an election).  Reagan did well in both Illinois and California.   

I mean, there's absolutely a threshold to how poorly they can do at home but still have a chance nationwide, but Warren isn't exactly bombing in Mass, she's just not a phenomenon. The specific political dynamics of a state are different than an entire nation, is my point.

[Guest Lobo]

Fair point.  Has certainly hurt a number of primary candidates for POTUS over the last ~25 years.  Careful what you wish for, could bite Rep. O'Rourke in the ass.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

29 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

I agree with that, but being a phenomenon is pretty much items A-Z on the list of criteria for being a populist fervor candidate.  That’s not Warren.  I don’t see a reason why she would be more appealing outside of Massachusetts than within, either.  Trump lived in a deep blue state dominated by NYC, but he is basically a kindred spirit with small town right wing white trash everywhere, so at least with him you see how he appeals way more to places outside his home state.  Massachusetts is Warren’s wheelhouse.

I think she’s going to have to run a traditional campaign and be a candidate of ideas, party connections, and traditional fundraising.  Maybe that works, maybe it doesn’t.  But my opinion of what her candidacy would be is a very different bid than Trump’s or what Hugo believes she can be.  She’s not the catch lighting in a bottle populist folk hero candidate.

Say Bernie don’t run...where do you think those folks are going?