Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2651  
Old 10-03-2019, 04:49 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,393
Here is Nathan Robinson explaining why it absolutely must be Bernie and not Elizabeth Warren. Robinson is an influential writer on the left and my guess is that there are a lot of people out there who think exactly like this. This explains why Bernie's support will stay hovering around 15%, and combined with the big fundraising haul, I expect that will be sufficient to convince Bernie to stay in the race to the bitter end, health problems and third-place standing in polls be damned.

Last edited by ITR champion; 10-03-2019 at 04:52 PM.
  #2652  
Old 10-03-2019, 05:51 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Was this really that long ago, before the GOP started throwing everything they have against Biden? I'm still of the opinion that Harris of Buttigieg would be better at representing the more centrist wing of the party in a general election compared to Biden. OTOH I think they should stand in solidarity with Biden against what is happening and shouldn't use this to try to benefit themselves. I still think best case scenario is Biden and Sanders step aside. If they both drop out I think it would turn into a Warren on the left vs. either Harris or Buttigieg from the center during the primaries.
Yeah, the GOP and the Kremlin are still attacking Joe and not Warren.

Mayor Pete can't win the general. A openly gay man wont play in Peoria, not in 2020. I hope and prey that America changes enough so that he can win in 2028. But not in 2020.

Harris is not a moderate and doesn't even poll well in California. She also joined Beto and Booker in advocating Gun Grabbing, so she also can't win in the general.
  #2653  
Old 10-03-2019, 11:37 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,749
I don’t know why people keep pointing to his being gay as the major problem. If he were an experienced senator or something, I think that could actually be OK. It’s the fact that he is the mayor of a small city and looks like a teenager that is much more of the problem.
  #2654  
Old 10-04-2019, 12:39 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I don’t know why people keep pointing to his being gay as the major problem. If he were an experienced senator or something, I think that could actually be OK. It’s the fact that he is the mayor of a small city and looks like a teenager that is much more of the problem.
Sure.
  #2655  
Old 10-04-2019, 01:22 AM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
If he were an experienced senator or something, I think that could actually be OK. It’s the fact that he is the mayor of a small city and looks like a teenager that is much more of the problem.
I live near South Bend and what strikes me is that in the national media, no one seems to care whether he's actually done a good job as mayor. The city has a reputation for bad government and corruption, and just reading the South Bend Tribune would give anybody plenty of material to work with if they wanted to imply that the city is badly run under Buttigieg:

Three South Bend schools 'run out of food,' students not fed at lunch

South Bend Housing Authority fired director after FBI noted 'serious' allegations against her. (Generally not a good sign when the FBI raids a government agency.)

Study finds minorities and women don't get fair share of South Bend contracts

I don't expect it will be necessary for anyone to take down his campaign by mentioning this stuff, but it's there if it's needed.
  #2656  
Old 10-04-2019, 02:21 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I don’t know why people keep pointing to his being gay as the major problem. If he were an experienced senator or something, I think that could actually be OK. It’s the fact that he is the mayor of a small city and looks like a teenager that is much more of the problem.
Yeah, never thought flamers would beat the twinks through the glass ceiling but such is the world we live in.
  #2657  
Old 10-04-2019, 03:54 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,749
I expect a bear (or wolf) will beat both of them through.
  #2658  
Old 10-04-2019, 07:56 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
A openly gay man wont play in Peoria, not in 2020.
You may be surprised. Remember that a black man named Barack Obama did "play in Peoria" over a decade ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yeah, never thought flamers would beat the twinks through the glass ceiling but such is the world we live in.
Um, what?
  #2659  
Old 10-04-2019, 08:01 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,880
Apparently he’s surprised that, if present trends continue, the first openly gay president is more likely to be quite young, rather than a more typical age for presidents.

I, too, was taken aback by the verbiage. (I think he’s using “flamer” incorrectly, anyway — AFAIK, it doesn’t imply a age range).

Last edited by JKellyMap; 10-04-2019 at 08:03 AM.
  #2660  
Old 10-04-2019, 02:55 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,912
Quote:
“I think that, uh, the behavior of this administration has awakened, uh, a whole new generation to get engaged in ways that they may not have gotten before,” ... referring to President Donald Trump and the current tumult. “Just like in my generation, when I got out of school that, uh, when Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King had been assassinated in the ’70s, uh, late seven—when I got engaged, um, you know, up to that time, remember the, none of you women will know this, but a couple men may remember, that was a time in the early, late ’60s, and the early ’60s and ’60s, where it was drop out and go to Haight-Ashbury, don’t get engaged, don’t trust anybody over 30. I mean, for real. What happened to them, by the, by the early ’70s, the late ’60s, there was a whole generation that said, ‘Enough.’ The war in Vietnam was underway, and it was—a lot of you served in that war—and, uh, we were fighting like the devil to make sure that there was something dealing with cleaning up the environment, which was only beginning. We were in a position where the women’s movement was just beginning to move. We should have, by now, long before, passed the ERA amendment, but that was another issue …”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/am...mpaign-229093?

Last edited by JohnT; 10-04-2019 at 02:56 PM.
  #2661  
Old 10-04-2019, 04:41 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yeah, the GOP and the Kremlin are still attacking Joe and not Warren.

Mayor Pete can't win the general. A openly gay man wont play in Peoria, not in 2020. I hope and prey that America changes enough so that he can win in 2028. But not in 2020.

Harris is not a moderate and doesn't even poll well in California. She also joined Beto and Booker in advocating Gun Grabbing, so she also can't win in the general.
This all makes sense. The fact that Mayor Pete has the 5% chance just shows how weak the field is.

IF Biden can hold them off — go on TV early on and show up Trump for the lying scoundrel he is — then Welcome, President Biden. If he wants to show me something he should do it soon. And if he CAN'T do that then, by elimination, it's
Liz Warren for President Liz Warren for President Liz Warren for President!
Last I looked BetFair showed her as favorite face-to-face against Trump IIRC. I hope they're right.
  #2662  
Old 10-04-2019, 04:45 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I don’t know why people keep pointing to his being gay as the major problem. If he were an experienced senator or something, I think that could actually be OK. It’s the fact that he is the mayor of a small city and looks like a teenager that is much more of the problem.
I don't think the issue is so much that Buttigieg is gay, as it is that he claims to be gay and Christian, and claims that Christianity affirms his sexuality. That's what will rankle many Christian voters, and harden those who might be on the fences, to go over to Trump. (Sure, there are Christian liberals, but they'd go for Buttigieg no matter what)


It's like how Muslim voters have no problem voting for a non-Muslim candidate who eats pork - after all, it's what non-Muslims do. But if you had a candidate who claimed to be Muslim, yet ate pork openly and claimed that the Quran praises pork-eating, that would anger much of the Islamic vote. (Supposing, hypothetically, that America were a 40% Muslim nation)

Last edited by Velocity; 10-04-2019 at 04:47 PM.
  #2663  
Old 10-05-2019, 02:54 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,984
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/el...20_nomination/

The RCP betting page is rather fascinating. It has Warren at 53% and Biden at 21% which seems about right. It's also informative because a naive observer just looking at the polls might conclude that Warren and Biden are locked in a very close race whereas those numbers suggest, correctly IMO, that Warren has a substantial advantage and has had one for weeks.

Below that it gets weird though. It has Yang at 7% and most astonishingly Hillary at 6% ahead of Harris. I can almost understand Yang. At least he is in the race, raising a lot of money and making some waves and his supporters are probably the kind who are likely to place political bets. Hillary at 6% is pure craziness though; I struggle to think of any scenario however outlandish where she becomes the nominee or why anyone would be betting on her even out of misplaced enthusiasm.
  #2664  
Old 10-05-2019, 04:31 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
The RCP betting page is rather fascinating. It has Warren at 53% and Biden at 21% which seems about right. It's also informative because a naive observer just looking at the polls might conclude that Warren and Biden are locked in a very close race whereas those numbers suggest, correctly IMO, that Warren has a substantial advantage and has had one for weeks.

Below that it gets weird though. It has Yang at 7% and most astonishingly Hillary at 6% ahead of Harris....
The 'predictions' on Yang and Hillary may be too high, but these dark horses have a chance because the Democratic field is so weak. Hillary was (and perhaps would be again) a much better candidate than anyone on the Democratic debate stage today.

The first primaries are months away, and focus is on just two names. And both Biden and Warren are flawed. Already we can predict low-information voters troubled by "Biden's Ukraine corruption;" plus serious gaffes or health lapse is a likelihood. Many moderates at SDMB have announced they'd vote Trump rather than the "woman who would take away their insurance." If either Biden or Warren falter, we're down to a single candidate for the election still a year away. Harris and Beto will soon be soon as losers rather than viable alternatives.

It's hard to imagine the exact scenario where Yang, let alone Clinton, becomes the nominee, but there may be some surprises ahead.
  #2665  
Old 10-05-2019, 02:46 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yeah, never thought flamers would beat the twinks through the glass ceiling but such is the world we live in.
These words don't mean what you think they mean, and twinks and flamers are usually one and the same. BTW, I have not heard the latter word since high school, how retro.

Anyway, Pete is not either. Maybe his husband is, but Pete is probably on otter judging by the beard he sported in college. Although who knows how much body hair he has these days.
  #2666  
Old 10-05-2019, 02:55 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,835
If Trump's approval ratings truly crater and he appears doomed, and Biden vs. Warren duking it out appears to weak, then Hillary might be able to make a run. She would surely salivate inwardly at the thought of dealing Trump a landslide defeat in November 2020, an ultimate redemption story.


Besides, what could she really have to lose? If she loses in 2020 in the primaries, so what? She's already lost one before, so what bad would happen if she lost again? Best case for her is that she becomes POTUS, and she doesn't get to live this life twice, so nothing to lose.

Last edited by Velocity; 10-05-2019 at 02:56 PM.
  #2667  
Old 10-05-2019, 03:49 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I don't think the issue is so much that Buttigieg is gay, as it is that he claims to be gay and Christian, and claims that Christianity affirms his sexuality. That's what will rankle many Christian voters, and harden those who might be on the fences, to go over to Trump. ....

Only a few Christian churches hate gays. Mostly some Baptist churches. Gay & Christian isn't a contradiction at all.


United Church of Christ ,Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (since 2010) and the Presbyterian Church (USA) The Episcopal Church in the United States, and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) all have openly gay ministers.
  #2668  
Old 10-05-2019, 04:54 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
These words don't mean what you think they mean, and twinks and flamers are usually one and the same. BTW, I have not heard the latter word since high school, how retro.

Anyway, Pete is not either. Maybe his husband is, but Pete is probably on otter judging by the beard he sported in college. Although who knows how much body hair he has these days.
I know what the words mean, it was just a poorly formed joke that needed some work and I accidentally posted rather than back buttoned out of like I thought.
  #2669  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:00 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,952
In terms of the serious idea behind it it makes sense. Older gay politicians have either been closeted or very liberal. A politician who has always been out but is centrist enough to appeal in a general is going to be of a more recent vintage.
  #2670  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:29 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If Trump's approval ratings truly crater and he appears doomed, and Biden vs. Warren duking it out appears to weak, then Hillary might be able to make a run.
No goddamn way in hell, dude. What that number shows is that the bettings markets numbers don't mean much.
  #2671  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:53 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 299
Why Elizabeth Warren is getting such good press

Quote:
It seems like every day a new story breaks about how Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) is climbing in the polls, releasing a new policy proposal, “winning” a primary debate or taking some other step toward becoming the Democratic presidential nominee. The volume and general positivity of Warren coverage has led some to believe that the media has collectively decided she should be the nominee and is doing everything we can to make it so.

The media isn’t organized enough to coordinate behind a candidate even if we wanted to (which, to be extremely clear, we don’t). But beyond Warren’s genuinely newsworthy rise in the polls and her status as the clearest alternative to Joe Biden, it’s true that Warren’s campaign and candidacy are built to resonate with the “Organization Kids” who populate the national media. And many journalists either match the demographic profile of her base or live around people who do. She’s not the only candidate who fits this profile, but it’s helping her in the press. That might in turn help her win the nomination, but only if her appeal continues to expand.

Warren’s basic pitch is premised on plans: She wants to be the candidate who has both a grand vision for what American society should look like and proposals for how to make it happen. Unlike Biden, the case for her candidacy isn’t that she’s the most electable Democrat. And she isn’t trying to win the nomination on sheer force of personality. Rather, Warren is trying to combine the insider experience of regulator and senator with the anti-corruption, anti-corporate style of an outsider.

Journalists love covering a campaign based on policy ideas, rather than issues such as electability and style that they see as lesser or maybe even distasteful. Voters often don’t take this view of politics: Especially since faced with the prospect of a second Trump term, Democratic primary voters have clearly said they care about electability. And voters don’t just divide on clean, ideological lines — cultural attitudes, demographics and other non-policy factors shape each candidates’ coalition. But Warren’s view of politics closely matches the prevailing media view of what politics “should” be.

And, as CNN analyst Harry Enten astutely pointed out, many journalists live near people who fit into what has become Warren’s key demographic — generally upscale, white liberal Democrats — or have some of those attributes themselves. Enten correctly noted that that dynamic could lead the national press to overestimate South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a veteran and Rhodes scholar. With Buttigieg lagging in the polls and Warren gaining ground, Warren is getting the benefit of these demographic headwinds among reporters.
I think this is a very insightful piece. About a month or so ago I posted here of a response by Dave Weigel of the Washington Post who did a Q&A on Twitter with one question about the somewhat light media scrutiny Warren was receiving. His answer then ties in with this article released a couple of days ago that Warren is the closest to a media darling candidate in this field.

She's running an impressive campaign no question but for a top tier candidate she has got away with some very softball questions. For example it was Stephen Colbert who pressed her harder on whether middle class taxes would go up on his late night show! The late night bookings are supposed to be the light-hearted fluff of the campaign trail!

Her "wealth tax" is just a more sophisticated way of saying the "millionaires and billionaires" will pay for it all as Bernie does.

Then there was an issue at the LGBTQ Forum people picked up when Kamala Harris (whose track record with respect to that community is much more good than bad over her career in CA) was questioned in a much more critical manner than Warren who doesn't have much of a record with that community.

https://twitter.com/josecanyousee/st...43596577964033

The moderator picked up two past actions both now regret and "evolved" yet Harris was asked "how can we trust you" whereas Warren was told "you've changed your position and that's great". Subtle difference but very noticeable. And for the record the moderator also went after Joe Biden despite the fact that when he was Vice President of the United States it was he who came out in favour of gay marriage really moving the scale.

I am not anti-Warren. On the contrary I've praised her and think she's far more viable as a progressive candidate than Sanders. That said now the gap between her and Biden is closing it's time she was properly challenged. It's not good for a candidate to have the media acting as a mouthpiece. "I have a plan" is becoming a gimmick. How is she going to accomplish these plans? How is she going to get Congress to approve them? Both her and Sanders like to re-frame questions delving into the viability of Medicare For All as "Republican talking points" but that's such a lame cop-out. This is not how you prepare for a general election.

Last edited by Boycott; 10-05-2019 at 05:55 PM.
  #2672  
Old 10-05-2019, 06:05 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,880
Good points, Boycott. I’m sure she will be scrutinized more seriously in the next few weeks in various forums, and I look forward to hearing her reactions, both in substance and style. I like her, but she needs to be truly prepared to answer concerns about her health insurance plan, and to a lesser degree her tax plan.

And, she needs to do a few things that make her look presidential and have nothing to do with domestic economics. Maybe something foreign-policy related.

Last edited by JKellyMap; 10-05-2019 at 06:06 PM.
  #2673  
Old 10-05-2019, 06:12 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
... The moderator picked up two past actions both now regret and "evolved" yet Harris was asked "how can we trust you" whereas Warren was told "you've changed your position and that's great". ...
Thank you for your insightful post, from which I've excerpted just one representative sentence.

The media have huge influence today. I might feel better about this if I thought the news media were led by the proverbial "cigar-smoking wise men."
  #2674  
Old 10-05-2019, 06:56 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,749
Boycott, great post. It’s very frustrating to me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
These words don't mean what you think they mean, and twinks and flamers are usually one and the same. BTW, I have not heard the latter word since high school, how retro.

Anyway, Pete is not either. Maybe his husband is, but Pete is probably on otter judging by the beard he sported in college. Although who knows how much body hair he has these days.

A full, thick beard? Hard to imagine. In any case, in politician terms he’s definitely a twink now.
  #2675  
Old 10-05-2019, 09:20 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
It's not good for a candidate to have the media acting as a mouthpiece.
...they aren't acting as her mouthpiece though. Thats a narrative. Even if true though its out of her control. This isn't a critique of her or her campaign.

And it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that Colbert would be capable of holding a politician to account. He's been doing that for years. He knows his stuff: as do Seth Meyers an even to an extent Jimmy Kimmel. If it came as a surprise to you then maybe you haven't been paying attention.

Quote:
"I have a plan" is becoming a gimmick. How is she going to accomplish these plans? How is she going to get Congress to approve them?
The Trump administration has effectively broken the Federal government. Agencies have been hollowed out. Experienced, qualified people have been removed or marginalised and have been replaced by Trump party hacks. The Department of Justice is at Trumps beck-and-call, the State Department has effectively been sidelined, the Whitehouse twitter feed is basically broadcasting propaganda 24 hours a day. Nothing works the way its supposed to work any more.

I said a couple of years ago that if the Democrats do manage to defeat Trump at the next election (and I'm not convinced that they will) then it will take years, if not decades to be able to fix this. The next administration will effectively have to be rebuilding American institutions. It will be like entering a disaster zone. Departments will have to be rebuilt. The Trump regime on their way out will be deleting emails and destroying servers and visitor logs will be burned and they will be removing all the "k's" from the keyboards.

This will not be a normal transition.

And I argued a couple of years ago that you can't do this without a plan. So I am entirely pleased that there is at least one person running for President who is preparing for the shit-show that will face them (if they are able to firstly win the nomination and then win the presidency. )

So no, this isn't a gimmick. Its a recognition of reality. I would be less worried about "how she would deal with congress with a plan" than I would be if she "planned to deal with congress without a plan." How would she accomplish those plans? The same way the rest of the world does it. I'm wondering: how do you accomplish something if you don't have a plan? That would be the bigger question, wouldn't it?

Quote:
Both her and Sanders like to re-frame questions delving into the viability of Medicare For All as "Republican talking points" but that's such a lame cop-out.
Its not a lame cop-out. It the truth. There are literal talking points printed out by Republican think-tanks that are distributed to Trump spox and to the media outlets that say these things.

Quote:
This is not how you prepare for a general election.
Being prepared is a great way to be prepared for a general election.
  #2676  
Old 10-06-2019, 01:15 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
A full, thick beard? Hard to imagine. In any case, in politician terms he’s definitely a twink now.
There is a picture of him floating around on the internet from his college rowing days where he has a full beard. He looked about ten years older than he does now. If he had really smart people working on his campaign, they'd tell him to grow that thing back right quick.
  #2677  
Old 10-06-2019, 01:24 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 246
I agree that the boyish features and shortness are his biggest liabilities. He doesn't look at all presidential, which is a shame because he is probably the only person running who has a genius-level IQ. Someone like Brian Sims or even Jared Polis are more likely to be the first gay president, simply by virtue of seeming more "manly."
  #2678  
Old 10-06-2019, 05:10 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Its not a lame cop-out. It the truth. There are literal talking points printed out by Republican think-tanks that are distributed to Trump spox and to the media outlets that say these things.

Why would those be mutually exclusive? It’s a Republican talking point and it’s a lame copout for Warren to refuse to address it on that basis. If we are supposed to believe she will be an effective nominee, she has to be able to answer the charges that have the most traction. Ignoring them won’t make them go away. And polling shows that this is a very serious public opinion weakness of the Bernie Sanders plan she has endorsed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
There is a picture of him floating around on the internet from his college rowing days where he has a full beard. He looked about ten years older than he does now. If he had really smart people working on his campaign, they’d tell him to grow that thing back right quick.

I guess the problem is that bearded presidents went out with the Gilded Age.
  #2679  
Old 10-06-2019, 05:32 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Why would those be mutually exclusive?
...because the plan is actually viable?

Quote:
It’s a Republican talking point and it’s a lame copout for Warren to refuse to address it on that basis.
Its been addressed.

Quote:
If we are supposed to believe she will be an effective nominee, she has to be able to answer the charges that have the most traction.
She has.

Quote:
Ignoring them won’t make them go away.
She hasn't.

Quote:
And polling shows that this is a very serious public opinion weakness of the Bernie Sanders plan she has endorsed.
Do you have a serious problem with the plan she has endorsed?

Then vote for and support another candidate. Problem solved.
  #2680  
Old 10-06-2019, 06:42 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,063
I have a great deal of respect for Byler as an election statistics junkie and analyst. But he's out of his area of expertise in writing a piece like this, and it shows:
Quote:
Journalists love covering a campaign based on policy ideas, rather than issues such as electability and style that they see as lesser or maybe even distasteful.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd love to move to the alternate universe where this is true. Just sayin'.

Most national journalists who cover campaigns don't bother to learn about the issues even to the extent that the average poster in this thread understands them. Instead, they ask horse-race questions ("how do you think your stance on X will play with WWC/African-American/whoever voters?") and write articles covering the race from a theater-criticism POV.

The Warren campaign's approach to the media has been to take them out of their usual narratives as much as possible. If a reporter asks a campaign rep what they think about polls showing X, the answer is invariably, "we don't look at polls." Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but it takes that whole gambit away from reporters covering them. The story they would have written if they'd had a conversation about polls just became unwriteable.

After getting their legs kicked out from under them on this and various other standard horse race/theater crit approaches to getting those standard stories, reporters are forced to ask the Warren people questions about policy, where the Warren people can describe their policies in the best possible light, and policy-ignorant reporters are in no position to ask good questions, because you have to know shit to ask good questions.

The result is the same - Warren's campaign gets positive coverage - but Byler's way off base about why this is happening. The truth is, Warren's team had a plan - for the campaign itself, including for the handling of the media, and it's working like a charm.
  #2681  
Old 10-06-2019, 07:10 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
He doesn't look at all presidential, which is a shame because he is probably the only person running who has a genius-level IQ.
I'm not sure the difference between a genius-level IQ and the level of intelligence exhibited by most of the candidates is really all that useful.

Per Byler:
Quote:
Warren and Buttigieg are the real-life images of that version of success, in which ambitious, academically accomplished, culturally refined people work extremely hard within institutions to achieve “meritocratic” recognition. Other Democrats fit the bill, too: Cory Booker was a Rhodes scholar, as well; Amy Klobuchar is a Yale- and University of Chicago-educated lawyer; and Julián Castro interned in the Clinton White House while at Stanford University.
And even the brightest among us would be reluctant to take on Kamala Harris in a battle of wits.

Sure, all other things equal, it's better to be really really smart than to be just really smart. But other things are usually not equal, and there are distinct skills and attributes that help officeholders and candidates function well in a political environment. So give me candidates like Warren or Harris or Booker or Klobuchar who are really smart and have demonstrated many of those attributes, rather than a genius-level IQ guy who still has a ways to go. He's having a good rookie season, but he's still a rookie.
  #2682  
Old 10-06-2019, 08:34 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,063
NYT: Top Biden Donors Gather Amid Storm Clouds Over Campaign
Now fourth in the Democratic money chase and under fire from President Trump, Joseph R. Biden Jr. is increasingly dependent on his top donors, many of whom met in Philadelphia.


That's just the header and sub-hed, but that pretty much says it. Dependent on the kindness of big donors.
Quote:
PHILADELPHIA — Leading donors for Joseph R. Biden Jr. convened this weekend for their first donor retreat since he announced his candidacy
"Donor retreat"?

The things we peons didn't even know were a thing.
  #2683  
Old 10-06-2019, 10:05 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,952
Well from the last quarter numbers it does seem like a good amount of donors have retreated ...
  #2684  
Old 10-07-2019, 02:17 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
These words don't mean what you think they mean, and twinks and flamers are usually one and the same. BTW, I have not heard the latter word since high school, how retro.

Anyway, Pete is not either. Maybe his husband is, but Pete is probably on otter judging by the beard he sported in college. Although who knows how much body hair he has these days.
Well we need to know. Look, these things are really just pageants anyway, why not add a swimsuit round of questioning in the debates so the citizens can be informed?
  #2685  
Old 10-07-2019, 02:18 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
NYT: Top Biden Donors Gather Amid Storm Clouds Over Campaign
Now fourth in the Democratic money chase and under fire from President Trump, Joseph R. Biden Jr. is increasingly dependent on his top donors, many of whom met in Philadelphia.


That's just the header and sub-hed, but that pretty much says it. Dependent on the kindness of big donors.
"Donor retreat"?

The things we peons didn't even know were a thing.
"It's a big club, you ain't in it."
George Carlin
  #2686  
Old 10-15-2019, 04:09 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 86,729
Is Ohio still a swing state? Hell, yes!: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/15/polit...020/index.html
  #2687  
Old 10-15-2019, 11:39 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,749
But not a tipping point state.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #2688  
Old 10-16-2019, 11:04 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,912
Joe Biden is showing a deep, fundamental misunderstanding of how health care is currently funded in this country by this idiotic tweet sent this morning arguing against M4A:

"Let’s put this in perspective: if you eliminate every single solitary soldier, tank, satellite, nuclear weapon, eliminate the Pentagon and it would only pay for 4 months of Medicare for All. 4 months.

Where do the other 8 months come from? Your paycheck. #DemDebate"

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/...753983488?s=20

Joe apparently is unaware that current health insurance premiums are funded by personal income, usually via a deduction made at work. IOW, they're funded from our "paychecks".
  #2689  
Old 10-16-2019, 11:55 AM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,719
Here's a crazy scenario that Just Might Happen:
1. Elizabeth Warren gets a plurality of the votes at the Democratic National Convention - but, in part because of a vote split with Sanders and others, she doesn't have the majority required for the nomination.
2. Even though a number of progressive candidates release their delegates, enough Superdelegates (who are allowed to vote on the second ballot) side with Biden that he ends up getting the nomination.
3. The progressives, thinking that the party has shafted them out of the White House in favor of "more of the same" again, stay home and/or write in Warren in droves in November.
4 More Years!

There is one way out of this; if it is clear that nobody has a majority, then all of the candidates besides Biden have to get together, agree on a candidate, and then the others all drop out and release their candidates - and hope that their delegates vote for this person rather than enough of them saying, "Sorry, but it's either (my candidate) or Biden."

And if Biden does get the nomination, writing in someone else (in #3) may not be such a bad idea for the progressives; it gets the voters into the voting booth, where they can vote for progressive candidates for the House and, where applicable, Senate, which is where they are really needed; the budget the President sends to Congress is not necessarily the one sent back to the President to be signed.
Note that, for example, California Elections Code Section 8650 allows a group of "write-in electors" to align themselves with a write-in candidate even without the candidate's approval. (There is a way to get put on the ballot itself as an independent, but anyone who appeared on any party's ballot in the primary is ineligible.)
  #2690  
Old 10-16-2019, 12:45 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,546
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?
  #2691  
Old 10-16-2019, 12:57 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
But not a tipping point state.
Tru dat. If the Dems win Ohio next year, the Dems will have won the election with room to spare.
  #2692  
Old 10-16-2019, 04:29 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Have you forgotten that 25% of Hillary Clinton's 2008 primary voters defected to McCain after not getting their way?
I, for one, have either forgotten that or never knew it. It's a frightening stat — but perhaps not surprising if you think about it.

I hugely admire Barack Obama — the best natural President since LBJ or Ike. However
SPOILER:
Obama was a black man(*). He was able to win election only because voters were very ready for a change, GWB having made shambles, the economy desperate, and McCain bonkers with the Palin pick. He'd have had no chance except after the dismal eight Dubya years.

Any Democrat would have won, so it was a good gamble to send in the Negro. Don't make me dig out the cite again, quantifying the several percent of votes lost automatically with the black nomination.

* - I don't recall Obama's supporters trying an "only half black" meme but the Tea Partiers were ready for it: "You either are or you aren't. And he aren't."
  #2693  
Old 10-16-2019, 08:04 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,749
It’s true.
  #2694  
Old 10-17-2019, 09:01 AM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Why are the progressives always the boogeypersons in these scenarios?
Because I don't remember any "Hillary or Home That Day" memes making the rounds in 2016 - meanwhile, "Bernie or Bust" was all over the place. Okay, maybe that could have been because the Sanders supporters are far more vocal, at least in social media.

Also note that there is a way around all of this: if, after the last primary, it is obvious that nobody has a majority, then the progressive candidates can get together and agree on a single "standardbearer" "for the good of the party and the country," then the others can withdraw their nominations and release their delegates (presumably; there is nothing in the Democratic Party Bylaws or the Call for the Convention that describes what happens to pledged delegates if their candidate withdraws, other than, "All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.") The problem with this is, this assumes there aren't enough "my candidate or Biden" delegates to hand him the nomination anyway.

Besides, even if #1 and #2 do happen somehow, the progressives should counter with:
3 - if you live in a "state in play," hold your nose and vote for Biden, but make sure you vote for the progressive for your House (and, where applicable, Senate) seat; if your state is not in play, there is no law against leaving the choice for President blank (or, you can write in someone else anyway, even if it won't be counted), but still, vote for the progressive House and Senate candidates. Remember, the budget that the President sends to Congress and the one sent back to the President to be signed are not necessarily the same thing.
  #2695  
Old 10-17-2019, 09:50 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,546
Oh, so you must just not be old enough to remember these people. Fair enough.
  #2696  
Old 10-17-2019, 09:51 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 299
Forget 2016.

Progressives were arguing in the 2000 election that Al Gore and George W Bush were the same. How'd that work Ralph Nader, Michael Moore and co?
  #2697  
Old 10-17-2019, 10:49 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,546
Some progressives made that argument. The vast majority did not. I don't recall a single Democratic member of Congress or big city mayor endorsing Nader.

But they were happy to stab the progressives in the back when the shoe was on the other foot.
  #2698  
Old 10-17-2019, 10:55 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Oh, so you must just not be old enough to remember these people. Fair enough.
Personally, I remember the acronym PUMA standing for "Party Unity, My Ass!"
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #2699  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:15 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,912
LOL, Hillary with zero fucks left to give:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillar...a=twitter_page

Quote:
Hillary Clinton appeared to claim in a podcast interview this week that Russians will support Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as a third-party presidential candidate—and called Jill Stein “a Russian asset.”

Clinton made the remark on Campaign HQ with David Plouffe. “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians,” said Clinton, apparently referring to Rep. Gabbard, who’s been accused of receiving support from Russian bots and the Russian news media. “They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.” She added: “That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. Yeah, she’s a Russian asset—I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate. So I don’t know who it’s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.”

Clinton spox Nick Merrill later clarified, when asked if Clinton was referencing Gabbard: “If the nesting doll fits.”
(Emphasis mine, JT)
  #2700  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:54 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,749
Nice!
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 04:07 AM.

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