Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2701  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:10 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,753
What do the PUMAs have to do with this thread? This thread is about Democrats. The PUMAs are and always were Republicans, marching to the tune of Rush Limbaugh.
  #2702  
Old 10-21-2019, 10:33 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,911
Apparently, Buttigieg is hiring his political team based upon if they have earned Mark Zuckerberg's endorsement:

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/a...g-in-rare-move

Quote:
Facebook Inc. chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg has privately recommended several potential hires to Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign, a rare example of direct political involvement from one of tech’s most powerful executives.

Earlier this year, Zuckerberg sent multiple emails to Mike Schmuhl, Buttigieg’s campaign manager, with names of individuals that he might consider hiring, campaign spokesman Chris Meagher confirmed. Priscilla Chan, Zuckerberg’s wife, also sent multiple emails to Schmuhl with staff recommendations. Ultimately, two of the people recommended were hired.
Given my antipathy for Facebook, this does not bode well for me voting for Pete
  #2703  
Old 10-21-2019, 12:42 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
LOL, Hillary with zero fucks left to give:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillar...a=twitter_page
Please note: Neither Stein nor Gabbard need be allied with or cooperating with Russia in order to qualify as "Russian assets" in this context. And of course Russia doesn't expect either to become President; they just want to weaken the Democratic candidate and therefore increase the chance that their puppet gets re-elected.
  #2704  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:27 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,895
I’ve pointed it out in the Gabbard thread, “asset” is not the same as “agent” and many are confused about that.

Clearly the Russian machine continues to try to mess with our process and to develop assets in that goal. There is reasonable evidence that they are in fact doing what they can to give Gabbard as much amplification as their machinations can make possible. They’d be satisfied with just getting her message (which is mostly the same as theirs) on the debate stage like it is. And they will do what they can to have third party candidate running who can poach a percent or so from a D candidate. That shouldn’t be a controversial position.
  #2705  
Old 10-21-2019, 05:31 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Why are the progressives always the boogeypersons in these scenarios? You don't think moderates would be inclined to stay home if Biden gets a plurality but doesn't win the nomination? Have you forgotten that 25% of Hillary Clinton's 2008 primary voters defected to McCain after not getting their way?
OK, Hillary got 19M votes in the primaries. 25% of that is 4.75M. Add those to Obama's vote share, and subtract them from McCain's, and you're saying that absent this, Obama would have won 57.4% of the two-party vote share.

Just saying this seems improbable, given that no Dem has managed that feat since LBJ.
  #2706  
Old 11-01-2019, 05:45 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,265
Beto folds.
  #2707  
Old 11-01-2019, 08:33 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Damn, the primary just got 60% less funny.
  #2708  
Old 11-02-2019, 11:38 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
To this point:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/u...n-ukraine.html

Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies

Quote:
But the renewed scrutiny of Hunter Biden’s experience in Ukraine has also been fanned by allies of Mr. Trump. They have been eager to publicize and even encourage the investigation, as well as other Ukrainian inquiries that serve Mr. Trump’s political ends, underscoring the Trump campaign’s concern about the electoral threat from the former vice president’s presidential campaign.

The Trump team’s efforts to draw attention to the Bidens’ work in Ukraine, which is already yielding coverage in conservative media, has been led partly by Rudolph W. Giuliani, who served as a lawyer for Mr. Trump in the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Giuliani’s involvement raises questions about whether Mr. Trump is endorsing an effort to push a foreign government to proceed with a case that could hurt a political opponent at home.

Mr. Giuliani has discussed the Burisma investigation, and its intersection with the Bidens, with the ousted Ukrainian prosecutor general and the current prosecutor. He met with the current prosecutor multiple times in New York this year. The current prosecutor general later told associates that, during one of the meetings, Mr. Giuliani called Mr. Trump excitedly to brief him on his findings, according to people familiar with the conversations.

Mr. Giuliani declined to comment on any such phone call with Mr. Trump, but acknowledged that he has discussed the matter with the president on multiple occasions. Mr. Trump, in turn, recently suggested he would like Attorney General William P. Barr to look into the material gathered by the Ukrainian prosecutors — echoing repeated calls from Mr. Giuliani for the Justice Department to investigate the Bidens’ Ukrainian work and other connections between Ukraine and the United States.
This is why Barr couldn't answer Harris's question about if Dotard ever asked for his political opponents to be investigated - because he had done so, and will do so again.
May 2nd, 9:28am. Really, it's all there, except for Trump's direct involvement, which was occurring at this time, but no evidence until the whistleblower report 4+ months later.

Last edited by JohnT; 11-02-2019 at 11:39 AM.
  #2709  
Old 11-12-2019, 01:11 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,265
Deval Patrick is looking to announce his bid for president as early as this week.
  #2710  
Old 11-12-2019, 09:33 AM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,744
The analysts on PBS Newshour last night gave a pithy explanation as to why we're getting late entrants like Bloomberg: "Biden can't win the nomination, and Warren can't win the general."

That doesn't address the dozen other candidates already in the race, who are waving their arms and yelling "what am I...chopped liver?"
  #2711  
Old 11-12-2019, 11:02 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 287
For those who didn't catch it, Biden did a live town hall on CNN last night and you know he had a good night when the only negative his opponents have to say after the event is he was given a longer event than the others.
  #2712  
Old 11-12-2019, 01:46 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
The analysts on PBS Newshour last night gave a pithy explanation as to why we're getting late entrants like Bloomberg: "Biden can't win the nomination, and Warren can't win the general."

That doesn't address the dozen other candidates already in the race, who are waving their arms and yelling "what am I...chopped liver?"
I think Mayor Pete would have a very good chance against Trump if he wins the nomination. I'm not so sure about Biden being able to win the general. The problem with Biden is that Trump would use the Ukraine issue to paint Biden as hiding something, the same way he did against Clinton with the e-mails. It will probably resonate with just enough people in the swing states to make a difference. These are the voters who the saying "if there's smoke there's fire" doesn't matter. Even if it's just smoke, that's enough for them. As far as Warren goes, the question is does she pick up more voters on the left than she would lose in the center in the swing states. I don't think the upper midwest swing states have enough far left types to make up the difference, even if they all come out on election day. Given all that, I think that as things stand right now Mayor Pete is the way to go.
  #2713  
Old 11-12-2019, 01:55 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I think Mayor Pete would have a very good chance against Trump if he wins the nomination. I'm not so sure about Biden being able to win the general. The problem with Biden is that Trump would use the Ukraine issue to paint Biden as hiding something, the same way he did against Clinton with the e-mails. It will probably resonate with just enough people in the swing states to make a difference. These are the voters who the saying "if there's smoke there's fire" doesn't matter. Even if it's just smoke, that's enough for them. As far as Warren goes, the question is does she pick up more voters on the left than she would lose in the center in the swing states. I don't think the upper midwest swing states have enough far left types to make up the difference, even if they all come out on election day. Given all that, I think that as things stand right now Mayor Pete is the way to go.
My concern is that Pete will simply be that "fag" candidate inside the union halls that we need to win across the Industrial Midwest. The blue collar trades and unskilleds aren't always know for being the most enlightened fellas around. I say this as someone who spent the past couple decades hanging out in union halls, and have plenty of friends and family members who are still there. It was an exhausting slog trying them to get out for Hillary, mostly impossible at the end of the day, and I fear it would be the same with Pete.

It's one thing to wear a campaign shirt for a woman candidate around the guys, but no one's gonna want to be the first one to show up at the union hall in a shirt advertising a gay guy. You'd be asking for...well, a lot of ball busting. And that would be the end of that.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 11-12-2019 at 01:58 PM.
  #2714  
Old 11-12-2019, 02:00 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I think Mayor Pete would have a very good chance against Trump if he wins the nomination. I'm not so sure about Biden being able to win the general. The problem with Biden is that Trump would use the Ukraine issue to paint Biden as hiding something, the same way he did against Clinton with the e-mails. ...
A openly gay guy wont play in Peoria in 2020. Maybe America will be ready in 2028, I hope so.

We havent seen the inside of pets skeleton closet yet, we dont knwo what dirt the GOP and Kremlin have on him.

All the polls say Biden will do the best vs Trump.
  #2715  
Old 11-12-2019, 06:12 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 287
Now Pete is in the frontrunner tier he is facing real backlash. Up to recently he kind of got by against his rivals who treated his rising polls as a flash in the pan like Harris.

Well Iowa is less than 100 days away. He's here to stay.

And the common attack I am seeing on social media is not his poor appeal with black voters which needs to improve for him to have any chance in the South --- even if he wins Iowa. Iowa is overwhelmingly white.

The common attack I'm seeing is he is a poll tested candidate whose positions have changed with the wind. I think it's not a bad strategy to have shifted from trying to be progressive-left to vying for the Biden alternative spot...but the problem is authenticity. He's the guy on record supporting Medicare For All in 2018 but in 2019 attacks it. He's the guy who said in the early debate "no matter what we say the republicans will call us socialists" to saying Beto's gun comments will give the republicans campaign add fodder. He's the guy who says Biden represents going back to the old normal which is better than Trump of course but helped rise the fuel for a Trump like candidate to win. Yet his platform is pretty similar to Biden's. He's just got a face 40 years younger to sell it.

Experience wise South Bend is 15 times smaller than San Antonio were Julian "struggling to hold 1%" Castro was Mayor.

Pete's a great debater no doubt. He has the Bill Clinton trait of being the coolest man in the room even when everyone else is flaming. But now he is in the top tier expect this to be the focus in vetting Pete: what do you actually stand for?
  #2716  
Old 11-12-2019, 07:04 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
The common attack I'm seeing is he is a poll tested candidate whose positions have changed with the wind. I think it's not a bad strategy to have shifted from trying to be progressive-left to vying for the Biden alternative spot...but the problem is authenticity. He's the guy on record supporting Medicare For All in 2018 but in 2019 attacks it. He's the guy who said in the early debate "no matter what we say the republicans will call us socialists" to saying Beto's gun comments will give the republicans campaign add fodder. He's the guy who says Biden represents going back to the old normal which is better than Trump of course but helped rise the fuel for a Trump like candidate to win. Yet his platform is pretty similar to Biden's. He's just got a face 40 years younger to sell it.
?
I've seen that tossed around. "Flip flopping " on your health care plan would be a lot more damning if the first comment wasn't from a media scrum from well before he started his Presidential campaign. Kinda bullshit, frankly, but I see Warren fanboys pretending it's a legit criticism.
  #2717  
Old 11-12-2019, 07:18 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
...He's the guy on record supporting Medicare For All in 2018 but in 2019 attacks it. He's the guy who said in the early debate "no matter what we say the republicans will call us socialists" to saying Beto's gun comments will give the republicans campaign add fodder. ...

Pete's a great debater no doubt. He has the Bill Clinton trait of being the coolest man in the room even when everyone else is flaming. But now he is in the top tier expect this to be the focus in vetting Pete: what do you actually stand for?
I think, iirc Pete wanted REAL Medicare for All, not that overpriced travesty Sanders is calling MFA but which has no relation to it at all. But that's IIRC.

Pete is a great guy, but this is not his year, America isnt quite ready. MayorPete in 2028!
  #2718  
Old 11-13-2019, 01:12 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
A openly gay guy wont play in Peoria in 2020.
The irony is Peoria is located in Illinois, one of the safest blue states in the nation. It doesn't matter if he plays in Peoria. Literally any one of the democrats running will carry Illinois.

He only needs to be competitive in the dozen or so swing states. Can he do that? No, and it's not because he is gay. It's because he looks like and talks like the overpaid, overeducated middle management guy that fired you once. When he speaks, it warms the hearts of college-educated liberals, while conversely making the eyes of working class voters glaze over.

And of course, if he somehow becomes the nominee, every black voter's social media feed will be inundated with all manner of anti-Pete propaganda. Nothing but concern-trolling news articles and memes shared by bots about how allegedly racist his tenure as South Bend mayor was, all the way until election day. The "Mayor Pete is a white supremacist who protects killer cops and gentrifies black people out of their homes" seed has already been planted, which is obvious if you just glance at what prominent leftwing voices and their followers say whenever Pete comes up. He is currently polling at an impressive 0% among black voters, and by election day he would probably end up with record low AA turnout for the Dems.

The current top 4 are deeply flawed, which is why Dem elites are getting desperate & floating even more names that should still enter the already hilariously overstuffed primary race. Bloomberg, Patrick, Holder, even Clinton. It's like watching a slow-motion car wreck. The sad thing is there were good candidates running once, but they had the wisdom to drop out (and this basic commen sense makes them seem even more qualifed to be president than the dozen also-rans currently polling in the single digits). Jay Inslee looks like a retired star quarterback and his square jaw alone could turn unthinkable states blue. Hickenlooper is a hip former beer brewer and former governor of one of the most desirable places to live in the US. Tim Ryan was uniquely suited to winning back the Midwest and he might've even flipped Ohio. These guys are idealogically diverse, but none of that matters. The average American voter can't even explain the differences between the 2 major parties if asked, much less even tell you what the difference is between a centrist democrat or progressive one. All that matters is who they want to have a beer with.

No one wants to have a beer with the 4 front-runners. The two old-timers might drop dead from mixing alcohol with their medications, and the other two seem likey they might rat you out to your boss for driving tipsy.

Last edited by pjacks; 11-13-2019 at 01:15 AM.
  #2719  
Old 11-13-2019, 01:47 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,982
I really wish Patrick had jumped in a year back because he is the kind of candidate the Democrats need. It's probably too late now though.
  #2720  
Old 11-13-2019, 01:20 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
...
The current top 4 are deeply flawed, which is why Dem elites are getting desperate & floating even more names that should still enter the already hilariously overstuffed primary race. Bloomberg, Patrick, Holder, even Clinton....

No one wants to have a beer with the 4 front-runners.....
I dont see any "deep" flaws in Biden and I'd have a beer with him any day. Warren too.
  #2721  
Old 11-13-2019, 01:40 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,982
I suspect Biden is the best bet among the top 4 but there are obvious concerns about his age and mental sharpness. On election day he will be around as old as Reagan was when he left office. I suppose he is lucky in that Trump is also old and even less sharp.
  #2722  
Old 11-14-2019, 12:34 AM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,386
And then there were 17 again, because Deval Patrick is running.

I'd say this candidacy is as pointless as that of Michael Bennet or Steve Bullock. He won't win. But he might such some votes away from Elizabeth Warren in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and generally cost her among the college educate demographic.
  #2723  
Old 11-14-2019, 11:03 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 86,572
'Waaaay too late and doesn't bring anything so remarkable to the table that it's worth his entry, I'd say.
  #2724  
Old 11-14-2019, 11:24 AM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
'Waaaay too late and doesn't bring anything so remarkable to the table that it's worth his entry, I'd say.
Might be a play for VP
  #2725  
Old 11-14-2019, 11:31 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,895
I could see him, just like I could have seen Bullock, as a strong general election candidate, and a strong primary candidate in a cycle that was playing out differently that this one did. But in the current universe? His path is really very narrow and very improbable. But it is a short investment for him. He would have to win or be a very close second in New Hampshire and bootstrap that moving forward. Fail that and he knows he's done.

How could that happen? I see it as Buttigieg winning Iowa yet voters in New Hampshire feeling he is too young and inexperienced (more even than America not ready for a gay president) for the general. With Buttigieg winning, and say Biden not being in the top three (demonstrating poor electability), less full on progressive Ds in New Hampshire might fairly suddenly want a moderate but more electable Warren alternative (as she has moved harder away from the more centrist D voters). Harris has proven that she is not that person in most voters minds by now. And New Hampshire is Patrick's backyard. He could in that scenario win New Hampshire and then leverage that to wins and fundraising going forward in what would then look like a long slog.

Improbable but higher probability than several others in the race have as their paths. Worth a few months of all out effort to see if it has any chance.
  #2726  
Old 11-14-2019, 11:38 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,265
I'm actually cautiously optimistic about a Patrick run. He has a lot of support from the Obama world, executive government experience and experience in the business world. As Perry Bacon of 538 says, there's a potential Goldilocks moment for him-- "He's Buttigieg but older and Biden but younger." He's also left, but not that left. He's rich, but the dude came from poverty in the south side of Chicago. With the right message, he could be the bridge between the college educated liberals/progressives and the moderates; between the suburban whites and the blacks.

If he could start raising money quickly, which he could do by tapping some of his business friends, there's a path to do well in his neighboring state of New Hampshire as well as South Carolina (especially if AA voters begin to see Biden as too weak a candidate). I'm not one of those Dems who thinks there's some sort of purity in not accepting money from PACs or wealthy donors. Why kneecap ourselves at a time when we need to do whatever it takes to beat back the cheaters and cons?

All that being said, the dude's got a lot of catching up to do. And he may just hover around 1.5% before dropping out unceremoniously in a few months.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 11-14-2019 at 11:43 AM.
  #2727  
Old 11-14-2019, 11:51 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 246
Yes let's nominate the Bain Capital guy. Maybe Mitt Romney can switch parties and run too. The more the merrier.

He is running to cut into Warren's and Bernie's leads in New Hampshire in an attempt to block their momentums. That's it. This is not a stupid man- he knows he can't win this late in the game. He can, however, possibly hobble two of the front runners that the millionare donor class is terrified of. Maybe if Patrick pulls enough votes in NH by virtue of name recognition alone, Biden can stumble his way into 1st or 2nd there with less than 20% of the vote. He is currently on track to land in 3rd or 4th there and in Iowa.

The Democratic establishmemt fossils have learned nothing from 2016.
  #2728  
Old 11-14-2019, 12:46 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 287
How can somebody who is not a recognised name, who does not have deep pockets to fund his own campaign, who will not make the debate stage at least until the turn of the year by which time the next half of debates will coincide with voting, suddenly propel himself to the top? Seems to be a vanity run. The game is not played the same way as 1992 when Clinton jumped in fairly late. These election cycles are longer and candidates who have been doing the work on the ground still can't break past 1% but this guy thinks he can?
  #2729  
Old 11-14-2019, 02:25 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,535
Some people are just stuck in this idea that a winning Presidential candidate has to be a moderate Governor or Senator between the ages of about 45 and 60, and are panicked because none of the frontrunners fit this profile. Many of these people are also very concerned about nominating someone other than a straight white male.

Clearly, most Democratic voters don't feel that way, since they have rejected or seem to be in the process of rejecting multiple candidates who do fit that mold in Inslee, Hickenlooper, Booker, Klobuchar, etc. And polls show that the vast majority of Democrats are excited about at least one of the candidates already in the race. But that view is pretty widespread among party elites and big money donors (who also see their personal economic interests threatened by the Sanders/Warren wing). So I think there's at least some chance that he could attract enough funding to become a presence in the race. But basically, he doesn't offer anything that say, Booker or Harris don't, and I don't see any reason why he would catch on when none of the other "traditional" candidates did.

Writing checks to Patrick offers the Democratic establishment one more way to remain temporarily in denial about the fact that the voters don't want the same sort of candidate they do.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 11-14-2019 at 02:25 PM.
  #2730  
Old 11-14-2019, 02:29 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
Yes let's nominate the Bain Capital guy. Maybe Mitt Romney can switch parties and run too. The more the merrier.

He is running to cut into Warren's and Bernie's leads in New Hampshire in an attempt to block their momentums. That's it. This is not a stupid man- he knows he can't win this late in the game. He can, however, possibly hobble two of the front runners that the millionare donor class is terrified of. Maybe if Patrick pulls enough votes in NH by virtue of name recognition alone, Biden can stumble his way into 1st or 2nd there with less than 20% of the vote. He is currently on track to land in 3rd or 4th there and in Iowa.

The Democratic establishmemt fossils have learned nothing from 2016.
Other than the last sentence, that doesn't make much sense. Patrick's Wall Street-friendly "centrism" isn't going to pull any voters away from Bernie or Warren. If he attracts any significant support, it will be at the expense of Biden, Harris and Buttigieg, thus actually making it more likely that a progressive wins the nomination.
  #2731  
Old 11-14-2019, 02:40 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Other than the last sentence, that doesn't make much sense. Patrick's Wall Street-friendly "centrism" isn't going to pull any voters away from Bernie or Warren. If he attracts any significant support, it will be at the expense of Biden, Harris and Buttigieg, thus actually making it more likely that a progressive wins the nomination.
The average voter is stupid and operate largely on name recognition. Patrick was governor of a neighboring state in the same media market as New Hampshire- that's enough to make him competitive there.

As for who he would pull voters from- remember that the 2nd or 3rd choice among most Bernie supporters is Biden, and vice versa. Outside of political junkies, activists and media elites, the electorate does't understand the ideological differences between candidates at all.
  #2732  
Old 11-14-2019, 02:44 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 86,572
Patrick's got to win the expectations game in N.H., which could be hard for him. I remember it was when I was working on Mike Dukakis's campaign there in 1987-88.

I'm also not at all sure he's going to be able to break through the scrum in Iowa.
  #2733  
Old 11-14-2019, 03:08 PM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,469
This could get ugly:

Quote:
...The rigors of a presidential campaign could also reopen a painful chapter involving Patrick's sister.

Patrick's former brother-in-law, Bernard Sigh, was sentenced in June to more than six years in prison after he was convicted of several charges, including the kidnapping and rape of Patrick's sister.

Patrick in 2014 removed the top two officials at the state's Sex Offender Registry Board in part because they had tried to force his brother-in-law to register as a sex offender for an earlier conviction in California of raping Patrick's sister....
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #2734  
Old 11-14-2019, 04:09 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,026
My model has always been how people handle choices between small-to-large numbers of alternatives generally. As your choices go up from 1 to 2 to 3 and beyond, up to a point you consider all your alternatives, then most, then you hit a point where the number of choices overwhelms you and you just want to pick one and walk away.

This is why few people are even considering the Klobuchars and Bookers and Castros and Bennets and Bullocks of the field, and why they're not going to pay much attention to Patrick or Bloomberg. They will have little if any effect on the race. My WAG is that people won't even pick up on the implicit message that Biden sucks as a candidate, so his support is likely to be unaffected.
  #2735  
Old 11-14-2019, 05:44 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
The common attack I'm seeing is he is a poll tested candidate whose positions have changed with the wind. I think it's not a bad strategy to have shifted from trying to be progressive-left to vying for the Biden alternative spot...but the problem is authenticity. He's the guy on record supporting Medicare For All in 2018 but in 2019 attacks it.
Actually, as recently as April 2019 - this spring - he was describing M4A as the compromise position: "Single-payer, which is very much a compromise position between nationalized medicine and fully private payer and provider...that's the middle ground" and describing Obamacare as a "conservative tweak to our health care system...cooked up in the Heritage Foundation and piloted by a Republican governor."

So support of single-payer was his position for years, right up to April of this year, and by September he wasn't just going, "I've changed my mind," but going on the attack against other candidates who supported it.

So he now thinks his long-held position, which he was arguing for just eight months ago, is now not merely less than the best choice, but rather it's unreasonable. Other people shouldn't hold this position that was his for so long and until so recently.

That's quite a swing in a short time.

Completely aside from the perfectly reasonable suspicion that all that health-care lobby money caused him to change his mind, one must ask what other positions he might abandon, and turn around and attack, that he appears to be solidly behind at the moment.

I'm not a big fan of Biden, but I at least know what he's about. I can't say the same about Mayor Pete.
  #2736  
Old 11-14-2019, 05:50 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,026
Can't remember where I saw it, but there will be a new Des Moines Register poll of Iowa out on Saturday night.
  #2737  
Old 11-14-2019, 06:07 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,265
I could get behind a Patrick-Buttigieg ticket. I seriously like the idea of Deval Patrick, I just don't know if it's too late for him at this point.
  #2738  
Old 11-14-2019, 06:25 PM
jaycat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
I really wish Patrick had jumped in a year back because he is the kind of candidate the Democrats need. It's probably too late now though.
Could you explain exactly what it is about Deval that is so appealing? I worked for the Commonwealth of Mass. the entire time he was governor, and his strong points elude me.
  #2739  
Old 11-14-2019, 06:37 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Actually, as recently as April 2019 - this spring - he was describing M4A as the compromise position: "Single-payer, which is very much a compromise position between nationalized medicine and fully private payer and provider...that's the middle ground" and describing Obamacare as a "conservative tweak to our health care system...cooked up in the Heritage Foundation and piloted by a Republican governor." ...
What is being called MfA is not that. It is nationalized healthcare even if curiously ashamed to say so. He described actual Medicare accurately and moving towards it for all would be that compromise position.
  #2740  
Old 11-14-2019, 11:22 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
... I'm also not at all sure he's going to be able to break through the scrum in Iowa.
I'm not sure he's even going to try to.

Skip Iowa and there are no expectations of your performance there. His (unlikely) path depends on his New Hampshire performance in the face of a possible Biden bomb.

He's depending on, well, voters like me. Voters who care most about electability.

Biden's underwhelming debate performance had me moving to the candidate I had as back-up quarterback in my list - Warren - who I concluded was also electable with a different appeal. But her all in on MfA is to voters like me very bad in many ways, inclusive of making her much less electable. She has driven voters like me away. So I doubled back to hoping that Biden gets his shit together. If he totally crumps then we'd be looking at Klochbuchar but she is short on charisma. So we are still looking for a back-up quarterback. Buttigieg too young, too untested and no particular good theory supporting why he'd be electable. The ONLY demographic that really likes him is college educated whites, and electability is contingent on hitting more than one of other important groups, be it Obama level Black turnout, or appeal to NCEW voters enough to undercut GOP margins there, or driving young voter and/or Hispanic turnout to unprecedented levels ...

Patrick being a fairly "moderate Governor or Senator between the ages of about 45 and 60" ... or close enough (he's 63) is certainly a plus. More so he has the charisma that Klobuchar lacks.
  #2741  
Old 11-15-2019, 12:07 AM
zoog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 807
I'd like to see Patrick do well, maybe even get the nomination. Not so much because of any particular liking I have for him (though I think he'd be a fine choice). But the reason I'd like to see him pull it off is to put an end to this notion that you have to start a campaign 10-12 months out from the first actual votes being cast in an actual primary or risk being left behind. These things drag on too long, it's like Christmas - it starts earlier every fucking year.
  #2742  
Old 11-15-2019, 12:51 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
What is being called MfA is not that. It is nationalized healthcare even if curiously ashamed to say so. He described actual Medicare accurately and moving towards it for all would be that compromise position.
Yes, I would get behind a real MfA plan. Sanders plan is unrealistic and goes too far- and I hate that he called it MfA, since it ain't.
  #2743  
Old 11-15-2019, 02:31 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,647
I don't understand this at all. Deval Patrick has no name recognition, he doesn't have some stellar achievement that will wow people, he won't be included in any debates, and he spent the last five years cashing in at Mitt Romney's company.

I've seen some conspiracy theorizing about how this is a plot by [insert enemy] to hurt [favorite candidate], but that also makes zero sense. Is it just some scam cooked up by a consultant? Someone blew smoke up his ass telling him he'd be a great candidate, thinking all of the Bain bros would give him money that could be skimmed?

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 11-15-2019 at 02:35 AM.
  #2744  
Old 11-15-2019, 10:01 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
What is being called MfA is not that. It is nationalized healthcare even if curiously ashamed to say so.
AYFKM?!

Who's advocating for nationalized health care under the rubric of Medicare for All? AFAICT, nobody of note is saying the government should own the hospitals and employ the doctors directly.

Hell, few public figures are even pointing out that hospital conglomerates have become big and extremely profitable private businesses, and right now are the low-hanging fruit for cutting health care-related costs.
Quote:
He described actual Medicare accurately and moving towards it for all would be that compromise position.
So he's attacking other candidates for...what? Moving towards it faster than he'd like??

Sorry, but fuck that shit.
  #2745  
Old 11-15-2019, 10:20 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,895
Feel free to fuck whatever shit gives you consent. MfA has nothing to do with Medicare. It eliminates Medicare.

Some care about that shit and want more than a fuck only relationship with it.
  #2746  
Old 11-15-2019, 11:20 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 246
This healthcare debate that the candidates are mired in is bizarre. None of these distinctions matter. They might as well be debating how many angels can dance on top of the head of a pin (It would be more entertaining at least). Whether it's Biden's plan or Bernie's plan, none of them are getting past Cocaine Mitch. If by some miracle the Democrats take back the Senate, the fillibuster and the Joe Manchins of the world will serve as the roadblocks instead.
  #2747  
Old 11-15-2019, 11:27 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 246
Someone, anyone, needs to stand on that debate stage and explain how they are getting all this wonderful shit through the Senate. No, "I will bring back bipartisanship to DC" is not an answer, it is a delusion. "I will somehow crowd source a revolution" is not an answer either. Neither is "I will use executive orders to being forth a new Utopia."
  #2748  
Old 11-15-2019, 11:31 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,762
Give us an example of what would be a real answer.
  #2749  
Old 11-15-2019, 11:41 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Give us an example of what would be a real answer.
The bare minimum is getting rid of the filibuster.

I mean, obviously the best thing to do is to use every ounce of political capital to give DC and Puerto Rico statehood at the very least. If there were some US territory with a bunch of Republican voters somewhere, it would've been made a state years ago.

More radically, tie the amount of senators a state gets to the population it has.

If these aren't realistic solutions, then they shouldn't bother discussing the nuances of their various plans at all. They should try writing fanfic for the next season of the West Wing instead, because these "plans" are just as farfetched.

Last edited by pjacks; 11-15-2019 at 11:42 AM.
  #2750  
Old 11-15-2019, 12:17 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,762
Is this your first Presidential election? Candidates always promise things that require legislation. And your inability to even give a realistic example on the how, shows why they don't explain it. Not a single one of your examples falls under the president's power.

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-15-2019 at 12:18 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017