Beto 2020

[Incredulity 11561]

3 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

I miss all of the well formulated policy talks when our current president was campaigning against his 15 Republican opponents in the primary.

Totally this.

16 people debating isn't a debate.  Its reality TV.  Which everyone seems to love.

 

Not sure how the parties should deal with larger pools of canidates, seemingly a good thing on its face.  16,18, 20 people on a debate on the stage isn't the answer.  Hell, anything more than 4 or 5 is pretty much a circus.

[Pescado_Rojo 19332]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

Totally this.

16 people debating isn't a debate.  Its reality TV.  Which everyone seems to love.

 

Not sure how the parties should deal with larger pools of canidates, seemingly a good thing on its face.  16,18, 20 people on a debate on the stage isn't the answer.  Hell, anything more than 4 or 5 is pretty much a circus.

Make brackets, like the NCAA. 5, 4 person rounds. Final 5 make the main stage. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23362]

Maybe that's why the democrats are breaking up the debates over multiple days and randomly selecting who gets to go which day. 

[Incredulity 11561]

1 minute ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Make brackets, like the NCAA. 5, 4 person rounds. Final 5 make the main stage. 

Fuck it.

 

Literally, Thunderdome down to the final 4.  Can't wait to see Bernie chasing someone with a chainsaw.

[Incredulity 11561]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Maybe that's why the democrats are breaking up the debates over multiple days and randomly selecting who gets to go which day. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/14/694841980/initial-democratic-primary-debates-will-accommodate-up-to-20-candidates

 

Which agrees with what you say, but also  up to 20 canidates at once.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Incredulity

[Guest Lobo]

24 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, I'm not really worried about that. 

Yes, thankfully no Democrat has ever seized upon an opportunity to be equally divisive to the nation.  Their run from 1845 thru the Civl War, particularly in the South was one of national soul healer, bringing people (of all types) together.  None were as bad as Trump, but several were quite dangerous.  

[bolverk 29413]

3 hours ago, horncyclist said:

I honestly don't get the "lack of substance" attacks on Beto. He had plenty of well-thought out policy proposals during his Senate campaign, most important to me a multipronged structural reform proposal. Campaign finance reform was at the center of that. Theres a reason End Citizens United made him their first Senate endorsement.

He doesn't make broad policy proposals the centerpiece of his campaign messagaging like Warren but it doesn't mean he does not have them or is not capable of digging into policy. His campaign is just built around the positivity message.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 

 

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, this. Hell, one of his substantive proposals, a ban on the further selling of assault weapons, was probably one of his main limiters (besides party) in the Senate race. Plus, bumper sticker campaign proposals that aren't fully thought out or vetted are a good part of the reason our government is the mess that it is. I prefer his approach of dialogue, taking in data, and then formulating a plan. A government full of Betos would be good. Which is why I'll support him. 

I'm about three hours behind so my apologies if the following thoughts have already covered (responding now because I don't want to lose them by the time I catch up).

One thing that seems to be lost in the discussion is who does the candidate bring with them as part of their team, which I think just as important as the candidate him/herself. In other words, who are the policy wonks that come on board with the new president. It's obviously hugely important. Think about the Trump and Bush 2 campaigns/administrations would'be been without either the nationalists (former) or the neo-cons (latter). As individuals, yeah, neither had "policy chops."

Maybe Beto does or doesn't have them personally - that's not my point. This question is to seek the answer about who is on his team and making policy for him. Obviously, it applies to other candidates too. Make no mistake, whoever is the chosen candidate will bring their team to help them to help steer the direction of the entire executive branch apparatus, and that is very consequential.

[Texas73 420]

2 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Yes, thankfully no Democrat has ever seized upon an opportunity to be equally divisive to the nation.  Their run from 1845 thru the Civl War, particularly in the South was one of national soul healer, bringing people (of all types) together.  None were as bad as Trump, but several were quite dangerous.  

WUT? The Democratic party has changed since the period of 1845 - 1865. Catch up. I appreciate the dig to Trump but still...

[Celery Man 20886]

The level of "I'm a genius pundit" certainty that is cast without evidence from the Beto Boosters is astonishing to see. It's like 2016 didn't happen, or at least that there was nothing to learn about having such confidence in one's own certainty.
I ask this all the time, but can someone show me the map? Second, can someone show me the evidence for that map?
I'm not saying it's not there, but it would be very instructive for those of you who are bone-deep certain that Beto is going to win Texas to look at the demographics, polls, and history of the actual states and then think of the real, honest case.
270towin
Click "2016 Actual" and make the map.

Pot/kettle

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

15 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Agreed. As a human being, I love Beto. He's in my top 5. 

Buttigieg, Warren, Sanders and Yang are pushing the big ideas. A lot of people are afraid of change, but warm up to it pretty quickly when it provides positive results. That's how we unify IMO. 

 

My top 3:

1.  Buttigieg

2.  Yang

3.  Beto

 

If it needs to be some establishment type: Biden

 

I give my group a 5% chance.  

[Pescado_Rojo 19332]

13 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Yes, thankfully no Democrat has ever seized upon an opportunity to be equally divisive to the nation.  Their run from 1845 thru the Civl War, particularly in the South was one of national soul healer, bringing people (of all types) together.  None were as bad as Trump, but several were quite dangerous.  

Wow, did we just get a 180 year old whadabout? 

[Celery Man 20886]

Lol4

[Guest Lobo]

No my point was that history teaches us that sometimes it's not the first divisive political figure that brings about alarming change...it's sometimes what that poster pointed out---it's who comes after them once the groundwork has been laid that's truly disturbing.  You have to have Polk before you get to Davis.  I worry more about who comes after Trump than the current gameshow host we have piddling around the West Wing.  

[wildcat09 29266]

10 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

 

Pot/kettle

 

I think Bernie's map is pretty clear: win Hillary's states, add Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. His appeal in the midwest certainly makes that possible.

I think one possibility people haven't really considered is each candidate's ability to flip Florida. If a Dem can flip Florida, they only need to win one of those three above. Bernie might have some appeal to the old Jewish vote in Florida, but I think Beto would have more appeal statewide than Bernie and Beto would have a better chance of flipping Florida than Texas.

All this is pointless though because Mayor Pete is going to win all 50 states.

 

[bolverk 29413]

21 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Yes, thankfully no Democrat has ever seized upon an opportunity to be equally divisive to the nation.  Their run from 1845 thru the Civl War, particularly in the South was one of national soul healer, bringing people (of all types) together.  None were as bad as Trump, but several were quite dangerous.  

Cruiser, I posted with FChorn. I knew FChorn. Cruiser, you're no FChorn. 

[Guest Lobo]

I have no idea who FChorn is, but I guess I should change my name back.  Y'all busted me.  I actually left the old site for several months and asked Bob to delete my entire history on there for something I was doing related to higher ed.  Came back under this name once the dust settled and we didn't get the bid.  I guess I can go back to Cruiser if the everything on the old site is still gone forever.  But I don't know about that new guy running it.  

Anyway, sounds like Congressman O'Rourke had a good first day fundraising.  I know it's got Secretary Castro quite bummed out.  

[Bama Chick 28596]

Beto 2020 - Be nice.

[Celery Man 20886]

Kinder/gentler

[Macanudo 12928]

7 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Be nice.

Until it's time to not be nice.

[Brisketexan 104651]

10 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Until it's time to not be nice.

I actually use this quote as a life-lesson with my kids.

Along with "pain don't hurt" and "a polar bear fell on me."  My fatherly advice is a bit erratic, but often entertaining.

[Brisketexan 104651]

33 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

My top 3:

1.  Buttigieg

2.  Yang

3.  Beto

 

If it needs to be some establishment type: Biden

 

I give my group a 5% chance.  

Chitown, you think too much like me.  That's a black mark on your record.

Oh, and because Beto is included in your group, I think the chances are close to 10%.  But still.....pretty damned low.

[TwiceHorn 31304]

On 3/17/2019 at 9:01 AM, Larry T. Spider said:

Of the Democrats on here, I’m far from the most liberal. But, I’m all in with what BT is advocating for on healthcare. The current system is a nightmare for millions of people for all the reasons outlined above. 

Ill give a personal anecdote. About 12 years ago my now wife was diagnosed with a chronic health condition and was fired from her job for missing work to sort out new doctors, medications, have tests run, etc. She got a new job that allowed her flexibility to figure all of this out as a 23 year old. It didn’t offer any benefits such as health insurance but she had to take it to pay her bills. She got health insurance through cobra....but it was about to expire and her condition would now be considered pre-existing and not covered when she got insurance in the future. This was pre-Obamacare. We got married and I put her on my insurance. 

Everything about this situation was complicated and difficult to manage for two college educated people. 12 years later she is doing great with her health but has to take days off of work to argue with insurance companies about billing errors, prescription problems, etc. Some of this is probably unavoidable in any system but holy shit if our system isn’t a beating. Her family in England is always shocked at what we have to deal with.

If she had obtained insurance prior to expiration of her COBRA, it would not have been a preexisting condition in most if not every state.  And, in all likelihood, her pre-ACA coverage would have been cheaper than it is today, notwithstanding the overall increase in health insurance premiums, and wouldn't have had a $7000 deductible (which in itself is going to be fairly crippling if not catastrophic).  Obamacare may have done great things for the poor, but it is a straight horsefucking for the self-employed or others that don't have access to employer provided insurance.

Only reason I respond is that "preexisting condition" is often celebrated as the huge big contribution by Obamacare, and it was not the issue many would have you believe.  It was only an issue for those who had no coverage or let theirs lapse.  You wouldn't think the chronically or seriously ill would let coverage lapse.

 

Back on topic, Beto seems to win the likeability contest and makes pretty good noises, but he's kind of policy-deficient.  He's sort of the polar opposite of Warren.

Edited March 18, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Chrispy 132]

I’m not a Beto guy, but he apologizes way too much. 

[bad_teammate 13133]

1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

Pot/kettle

 

What am I stating with certainty?

I have on obvious preference, but I'm not out here saying wild things about my crone of a candidate and his ability to swing entire states from decades of going the other direction.

1) I like my guy's platform more than anyone else's.
2) I think my guy would beat Trump fairly easily, and I can show (have shown) my work. But this isn't my guy's thread, so I won't go into that here.

However, the map is the map.

The Democrats need 38 Electoral Votes to hit 270.

State: Vote Differential (Electoral Votes) - Popular votes recovered per 1 EV

* Michigan: -11k (16) - 688 (you need to flip 688 Michiganders for each EV you gain)
* Pennsylvania: -44k (20) - 2200
* Wisconsin: -23k (10) - 2300
Arizona: -92k (11) - 8400
Florida: -113k (29) - 3900
Georgia: -130k (16) - 8125
North Carolina: -173k (15) - 11500
Texas: -750k (38) - 19800 (you need to flip nearly 20,000 Texans for each EV you gain)
Ohio: -450k (18) - 25000
South Carolina: -300k (9) - 33000

Another way to think about it:
If we get 750k flippers in Texas, we get 38 EV
If we get 78k flippers in the Blue Wall, we get 46 EV

I want us to beat Trump. There is an extremely obvious route to make certain that happens.

[edit]

MATH! #Yang2020

Edited March 18, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Hank Kingsley 20716]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23362]

But Beto needs to be clearer on policy!!!!muh!

[Hank Kingsley 20716]

Yes, pissing off both Democrats and Republicans is good policy.  

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23362]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Yes, pissing off both Democrats and Republicans is good policy.  

I think that was a great approach to gun control.  We’re not going to take anyone’s guns away but seriously folks, we don’t need anymore assault rifles.

[NowThis 931]

12 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

so existing AR-15s will be grandfathered as legal right? Their prices will go sky high; will it be illegal to sell them? How will the permits be handled in this scenario?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23362]

1 minute ago, NowThis said:

so existing AR-15s will be grandfathered as legal right? Their prices will go sky high; will it be illegal to sell them? How will the permits be handled in this scenario?

Just like we handle fully automatic weapons.  

I’m sure the conservatives with the arsenal of assault rifles will be heartbroken to learn Beto is going to make the value of their inventory skyrocket. 

[NowThis 931]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just like we handle fully automatic weapons.  

I’m sure the conservatives with the arsenal of assault rifles will be heartbroken to learn Beto is going to make the value of their inventory skyrocket. 

so it's ok to own and sell fully automatic weapons or just to own? 

[EuroHorn 3204]

Do you know what AR stands for?

[bad_teammate 13133]

24 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

I like it.

Ban the sale, manufacture, distribution, and importation of semi-automatic rifles. No grabbing guns. Exactly what I advocate all the time.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23362]

Just now, EuroHorn said:

Do you know what AR stands for?

Yep, I know it doesn’t stand for assault rifle 

[bad_teammate 13133]

Oh boy the "Well, actually" gun professors are here.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23362]

5 minutes ago, NowThis said:

so it's ok to own and sell fully automatic weapons or just to own? 

You can legally buy, own, and sell fully automatic weapons right now.  It’s just incredibly hard and expensive.  

[Grandioso 2592]

The main thing is that no camp have a butthurt pity party whoever wins. We don't have the fucking luxury of not voting or throwing away "protest votes." I'm not saying team Bernie spoiled 2016: I blame Russia and the unpopularity of Hillary. However, 2016 taught us (libtards) a valuable lesson:

When you are given a choice between the lesser of two evils, take the lesser evil. Lives, livelihoods, liberty, and real shit are on the line. Hold your fucking nose and vote for Bernie, or Beto, or Warren, or literally whatever sentient human being ends up on the (D) ballot. As soon as the D contender locks up a spot, the political sport/primary fun and games are over. 

What's cool though is no one in this entire field, the last time I checked, is the biggest conservative lightning rod of the past 30 years. Hillary triggers some mechanism in the conservative brain that just defies rational explanation. 

[Brisketexan 104651]

1 minute ago, Grandioso said:

The main thing is that no camp have a butthurt pity party whoever wins. We don't have the fucking luxury of not voting or throwing away "protest votes." I'm not saying team Bernie spoiled 2016: I blame Russia and the unpopularity of Hillary. However, 2016 taught us (libtards) a valuable lesson:

When you are given a choice between the lesser of two evils, take the lesser evil. Lives, livelihoods, liberty, and real shit are on the line. Hold your fucking nose and vote for Bernie, or Beto, or Warren, or literally whatever sentient human being ends up on the (D) ballot. As soon as the D contender locks up a spot, the political sport/primary fun and games are over. 

What's cool though is no one in this entire field, the last time I checked, is the biggest conservative lightning rod of the past 30 years. Hillary triggers some mechanism in the conservative brain that just defies rational explanation. 

Dude.  Imagine if she was also black.

[bad_teammate 13133]

3 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

... I'm not saying team Bernie spoiled 2016: I blame Russia and the unpopularity of Hillary. However, ...

*slowly puts down swordcane*

[Johnny Sack 8397]

On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 12:17 PM, Jack said:

Oh there will definitely be things made up about him.  That's politics. 

That being said, you are assuming that opposition research was done by someone competent.  Look at the Virginia governor/Lt governor etc.  None of that shit came out during the election.

Second, you are also assuming Cruz revealed everything they uncovered.  

It's been less than 24 hours and we already have Beto writing about murdering children with his car (obviously fiction).

https://twitter.com/BreakingNLive/status/1106600255733317638

 

These candidates are going to go scorched earth on eachother.

 

So is he another Dror Goldberg?

[troph 24573]

The main thing is that no camp have a butthurt pity party whoever wins. We don't have the fucking luxury of not voting or throwing away "protest votes." I'm not saying team Bernie spoiled 2016: I blame Russia and the unpopularity of Hillary. However, 2016 taught us (libtards) a valuable lesson:
When you are given a choice between the lesser of two evils, take the lesser evil. Lives, livelihoods, liberty, and real shit are on the line. Hold your fucking nose and vote for Bernie, or Beto, or Warren, or literally whatever sentient human being ends up on the (D) ballot. As soon as the D contender locks up a spot, the political sport/primary fun and games are over. 
What's cool though is no one in this entire field, the last time I checked, is the biggest conservative lightning rod of the past 30 years. Hillary triggers some mechanism in the conservative brain that just defies rational explanation. 

I think the mayor galvanizes the evangelicals in a way HRC only dreamed of in her worst nightmares. Only thing worse than closet lesbian President is an out gay one.

[DixonHur 11233]

59 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

If you like your gun, you can keep it...

[Celery Man 20886]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

What am I stating with certainty?

I have on obvious preference, but I'm not out here saying wild things about my crone of a candidate and his ability to swing entire states from decades of going the other direction.

1) I like my guy's platform more than anyone else's.
2) I think my guy would beat Trump fairly easily, and I can show (have shown) my work. But this isn't my guy's thread, so I won't go into that here.

However, the map is the map.

The Democrats need 38 Electoral Votes to hit 270.

State: Vote Differential (Electoral Votes) - Popular votes recovered per 1 EV

* Michigan: -11k (16) - 688 (you need to flip 688 Michiganders for each EV you gain)
* Pennsylvania: -44k (20) - 2200
* Wisconsin: -23k (10) - 2300
Arizona: -92k (11) - 8400
Florida: -113k (29) - 3900
Georgia: -130k (16) - 8125
North Carolina: -173k (15) - 11500
Texas: -750k (38) - 19800 (you need to flip nearly 20,000 Texans for each EV you gain)
Ohio: -450k (18) - 25000
South Carolina: -300k (9) - 33000

Another way to think about it:
If we get 750k flippers in Texas, we get 38 EV
If we get 78k flippers in the Blue Wall, we get 46 EV

I want us to beat Trump. There is an extremely obvious route to make certain that happens.

[edit]

MATH! #Yang2020

I lean towards agreeing with you on the specific question of if Beto delivers Texas (I don't think we are there yet).  My pot/kettle statement would be more accurate if it was applied broadly to the non-Trump anti Beto folks on this thread rather than to you specifically, as it relates to confidently stating things without substantiating them meaningfully.  However, in the kindest and gentlest way, you poking fun at other people for having genius pundit level certainty about their positions is worthy of a flippant response.  With respect.  And I continue to respect your position of supporting him if he wins the nomination even if he is not at all your first choice.  He's not mine either (I would really like him as VP) and I will support whoever gets the nom whether it is Bernie or Klobuchar (or whoever in between).

[Biff Tannen 45500]

30 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

The main thing is that no camp have a butthurt pity party whoever wins. We don't have the fucking luxury of not voting or throwing away "protest votes." I'm not saying team Bernie spoiled 2016: I blame Russia and the unpopularity of Hillary. However, 2016 taught us (libtards) a valuable lesson:

When you are given a choice between the lesser of two evils, take the lesser evil. Lives, livelihoods, liberty, and real shit are on the line. Hold your fucking nose and vote for Bernie, or Beto, or Warren, or literally whatever sentient human being ends up on the (D) ballot. As soon as the D contender locks up a spot, the political sport/primary fun and games are over. 

What's cool though is no one in this entire field, the last time I checked, is the biggest conservative lightning rod of the past 30 years. Hillary triggers some mechanism in the conservative brain that just defies rational explanation. 

This is important.  Just got a Bernie email saying how Beto got more in donations than them and it's time to step up.  That's fine for now, but if Bernie goes down, his die hard supporters better step the fuck up and do the right thing.

[Hank Kingsley 20716]

6 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

 I will support whoever gets the nom whether it is Bernie or Klobuchar (or whoever in between).

I think everyone on the left is in agreement here. We have a lot of good to great choices. Debating the finer details with each candidate - especially this far out from the primaries - is healthy and needed. The eventual winner of the D primary will be stronger and hardened by the time he/she goes up against Trump. 

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Hugo Stiglitz 23362]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

 if Bernie goes down, his die hard supporters better step the fuck up and do the right thing.

Yeah, I’m prepared to be disappointed here. Not all Bernie supporters are the same but I’m sure some will attack the democrat and republican nominee because they hate both parties.  They were already preemptively unleashed on Beto months ago. 

[Hank Kingsley 20716]

I'm less worried about the "radical" Bernie fans than I was a few months ago. It's a crowded field and Bernie is currently one of the favorites. He's not going up against the Clinton machine this time around. Sure, there will be some that will sit out the election or protest vote, but I don't think it will be a significant amount. 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, I’m prepared to be disappointed here. Not all Bernie supporters are the same but I’m sure some will attack the democrat and republican nominee because they hate both parties.  They were already preemptively unleashed on Beto months ago. 

Hey, let's not blackball only Bernie supporters.  I'm not an auto Bernie voter.  I'm probable if that is my choice.  But four more years of idiot vs. 80% of Bernie's Econ?  At least it should make everyone think really hard.

Edited March 18, 2019 by tantric superman

[Hugo Stiglitz 23362]

I think we can now conclude the Clinton machine was seriously overrated. 

[bad_teammate 13133]

16 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is important.  Just got a Bernie email saying how Beto got more in donations than them and it's time to step up.  That's fine for now, but if Bernie goes down, his die hard supporters better step the fuck up and do the right thing.

Bernie supporters already did this in 2016, and voted for the winning primary candidate right in line with historical norms (8-12% defection). And that was after a rigged primary. The only ahistorical example anyone can find is Hillary primary voters going to McCain in 2008 (17-25% defection).

The left isn't going to defect to the right. It's the center that you have to worry about.