Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 01-30-2019, 04:26 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Those aren't MY preferences; I want to nominate an 80 year old white guy from Vermont.
What? Your most important box was "not being too closely associated with either side of the Great Pissing Match of 2016"! You're ignoring that to feel the Bern?
  #152  
Old 01-30-2019, 06:18 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
Again, those boxes are my prediction, not my preference.

I doubt Bernie can win the nomination, but then I didn't really expect him to break 5% last time, either. And since the Dems use a rational PR system, there's no disincentive to voting for someone you don't think can win.
  #153  
Old 01-31-2019, 07:30 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
He certainly can't win the Democrats' nomination unless he joins them. Don't bet on that.
  #154  
Old 02-01-2019, 10:55 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
He certainly can't win the Democrats' nomination unless he joins them. Don't bet on that.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ders-democrat/

What are you even talking about? Last time he described himself as a democrat in his statement of candidacy, and he will do so again this time. There is no blood test or lie detector test to determine who is or isn't a democrat, and anyone can run for either party's nomination.

Considering the Democratic party's approval rating is on par with Trump's, Sanders' reluctance in embracing the label is actually an advantage anyway.

Last edited by pjacks; 02-01-2019 at 10:55 AM.
  #155  
Old 02-01-2019, 12:25 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
New rule. No, Sanders has never declared himself to be a member of the party.
  #156  
Old 02-01-2019, 01:22 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
New rule. No, Sanders has never declared himself to be a member of the party.
This roadblock is cute. What a desperate attempt to keep Sanders out. Too bad he will simply register as a democrat before the primaries, and when asked about it he will just say he was forced to and use it as an example about how awful the Democratic establishment fossils are.
  #157  
Old 02-01-2019, 01:59 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Why the hell do you think he doesn't want to be a member of the party whose support he demands?
  #158  
Old 02-01-2019, 02:30 PM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
Harris is not off to a good start.

Former Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco called her a word I won't type. It rhymes with the word rut.

In a town hall event with Jake Tapper, you said the Second Amendment has no place in society. No one this anti the 2nd amendment will get elected. Can you see that add run someday? Democrats would be wise to vote against Harris, as she has little chance of winning the general election, but might appeal to the far left just enough to become the nominee in a very crowded field.
  #159  
Old 02-01-2019, 02:38 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
In a town hall event with Jake Tapper, you said the Second Amendment has no place in society.
This isn't what she said. I'm solidly opposed to Harris's positions, but this isn't accurate. Here is the portion you are referring to:

Quote:
ďYou can be in favor of the Second Amendment and also understand that there is no reason in a civil society that we have assault weapons around communities that can kill babies and police officers,Ē she said.
At least get the quote right.
  #160  
Old 02-01-2019, 02:47 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
This roadblock is cute. What a desperate attempt to keep Sanders out. Too bad he will simply register as a democrat before the primaries, and when asked about it he will just say he was forced to and use it as an example about how awful the Democratic establishment fossils are.
It was a sop to some of the more strident Bernie haters like Elvis. And obviously trivial to overcome but as you can see made a bunch of them super happy. ISTM, the real tradeoff in the Lefty-Establishment treaty were Superdelegates not in on the first vote and mail-in votes for Caucuses.
  #161  
Old 02-01-2019, 02:48 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
This roadblock is cute. What a desperate attempt to keep Sanders out. Too bad he will simply register as a democrat before the primaries, and when asked about it he will just say he was forced to and use it as an example about how awful the Democratic establishment fossils are.
You think that Bernie would be campaigning for Trump?
  #162  
Old 02-01-2019, 03:12 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Harris is not off to a good start.

Former Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco called her a word I won't type. It rhymes with the word rut.
Interesting. In his weekly column last Sunday, Willie Brown admitted that they dated 20 years ago but he didnít say anything particularly good or bad about her. Apparently their relationship did not end well.
  #163  
Old 02-01-2019, 04:30 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You think that Bernie would be campaigning for Trump?
If he runs at all, in effect he will be.

We are all thinking that Trump will be easy to win against, but Bernie- running as a dem or as a 3rd party- will make the Dems lose.
  #164  
Old 02-02-2019, 06:13 AM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1953 View Post
Interesting. In his weekly column last Sunday, Willie Brown admitted that they dated 20 years ago but he didnít say anything particularly good or bad about her. Apparently their relationship did not end well.

Being politically aligned, you have to wonder why he's speaking out now. Also, once a cheater, always a cheater so they say. Who else has Harris slept with, and what other skeletons are waiting to fall out of her closet?

The Media likes to focus on this. As I said she's probably the most vocal anti 2nd amendment person int the race, which hurts her chances in a general election. I suspect the DNC and forces behind the scene will work to take her out of the race if she's close to the front runner or the front runner before its too late.
  #165  
Old 02-02-2019, 06:28 AM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Democrats would be wise to vote against Harris, as she has little chance of winning the general election, but might appeal to the far left just enough to become the nominee in a very crowded field.
I'm on the far left. My lefty Californian friends and I universally loathe Harris.
  #166  
Old 02-02-2019, 06:32 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Being politically aligned, you have to wonder why he's speaking out now. Also, once a cheater, always a cheater so they say. Who else has Harris slept with, and what other skeletons are waiting to fall out of her closet?
Who said anything about cheating?
  #167  
Old 02-02-2019, 06:50 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It was a sop to some of the more strident Bernie haters like Elvis.


I didn't even know about it until after they did it, ftr. So you know.

Quote:
And obviously trivial to overcome
Only for people willing to support the party whose support they want.
  #168  
Old 02-02-2019, 07:48 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Who said anything about cheating?
The Right Wing media. Willie Brown while for many years separated was still officially married when they dated.

Yup the fans of Trump, serial cheater and pussy-grabber, are pearl clutching that a woman may have slept with men, other than her husband, in her past.

Rest assured. She slept with men in her past. And there are creeps like Willie Brown who want to brag about who they had slept with to anyone who will listen: "I was a stud! This thing worked back then!"
  #169  
Old 02-02-2019, 08:09 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,776
So far, this is sounding like it reflects poorly on Willie Brown. Is he running for President? If not, then I'm not sure any of it is relevant.
  #170  
Old 02-02-2019, 09:10 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The Right Wing media. Willie Brown while for many years separated was still officially married when they dated.

Yup the fans of Trump, serial cheater and pussy-grabber, are pearl clutching that a woman may have slept with men, other than her husband, in her past.

Rest assured. She slept with men in her past. And there are creeps like Willie Brown who want to brag about who they had slept with to anyone who will listen: "I was a stud! This thing worked back then!"
Oh, so now itís a knock on Harris for having a relationship with a man who is separated from his wife?

This is not even a little problematic for either side of the relationship. We donít expect married but separated people to be off limits for romantic relationships.

Of course women and minorities and Democrats must meet standards that Republicans couldnít even dream of imposing on their own candidates.
  #171  
Old 02-02-2019, 09:21 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post

... Of course women and minorities and Democrats must meet standards that Republicans couldnít even dream of imposing on their own candidates.
Well to be fair, they might impose them on a female or minority candidate of their own.
__________________
Oy.
  #172  
Old 02-03-2019, 10:49 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Why the hell do you think he doesn't want to be a member of the party whose support he demands?
Because in it's current state it is a sad excuse for a political party, but hitching your wagon to it is still one of only two possible routes to the White House

Anyway, go ahead and nominate a bland centrist who mews softly about civility and bipartisanship. They might even win against a Trump- but then what? Democratic presidents are just do-nothing seat-warmers in between progressively more awful Republican presidents. Reagan was worse than Nixon, the Bushes were worse than Reagan, and Trump is on his way to being worse than all of them. Imagine who will follow Trump, if you can stomach it.

This game isn't working anymore. We need to move to Overton window so far to the left that an unfathomably massive chasm forms between both parties.
  #173  
Old 02-03-2019, 10:53 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You think that Bernie would be campaigning for Trump?
Trump spent almost the entirety of the Republican primary condemning Republicans as well as the entire party establishment, and it won him the nomination. Sanders- or any democrat- could do the same in the Democratic primary, to cheers and applause.
  #174  
Old 02-03-2019, 11:10 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
I'm on the far left. My lefty Californian friends and I universally loathe Harris.
Any particular reason? Was it her time as AG?

She comes across as just pretending to be leftist (to me), so I don't know if she'd actually try to enact any of the stuff she talks about.

We need UHC, anti-trust enforcement, progressive taxes, action on climate change, etc. I'm not sure how much she would do on those fronts. Not that the congress would do much either.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #175  
Old 02-05-2019, 08:47 PM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Any particular reason? Was it her time as AG?

She comes across as just pretending to be leftist (to me), so I don't know if she'd actually try to enact any of the stuff she talks about.

We need UHC, anti-trust enforcement, progressive taxes, action on climate change, etc. I'm not sure how much she would do on those fronts. Not that the congress would do much either.
Her role in shutting down Backpage, and her support of SESTA/FOSTA. Her record as a prosecutor and as AG. My friends have either been directly affected by her, or are "never trust a cop" types. If it's a choice between Trump and Harris, they'll vote third party. Now, if California goes red, the Dems have bigger problems than trying to appeal to us, so I don't see the problem of a protest vote in our situation.
  #176  
Old 02-05-2019, 09:05 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
...her support of SESTA/FOSTA. ....
I brought this up (or maybe never did, but was planning to) in a thread where someone was arguing against Amy Klobuchar on account of her support of SESTA. While it's true that Harris (and Klobuchar) voted for the bill, I'm uncertain why this is something that matters to you and your friends given that 97 of 99 senators voted the same way as Harris did...a list that includes Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Klobuchar and Harris, among likely or announced Presidential candidates.

I mean, if Ron Wyden were running, or if you could convince Rand Paul to become a Democrat, slamming Harris (or Klobuchar) for supporting the bill would make sense. But AFAIK these things aren't happening...so it seems strange to blame Harris for something that everybody else in the race is doing too.

Or are your concerns applicable more broadly to everyone else in the race as well? I'm not getting that sense but maybe I'm wrong--would these folks also be voting third party if it were Booker or Sanders or someone else with the nomination? If not, why not?
  #177  
Old 02-05-2019, 09:34 PM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
I brought this up (or maybe never did, but was planning to) in a thread where someone was arguing against Amy Klobuchar on account of her support of SESTA. While it's true that Harris (and Klobuchar) voted for the bill, I'm uncertain why this is something that matters to you and your friends given that 97 of 99 senators voted the same way as Harris did...a list that includes Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Klobuchar and Harris, among likely or announced Presidential candidates.

I mean, if Ron Wyden were running, or if you could convince Rand Paul to become a Democrat, slamming Harris (or Klobuchar) for supporting the bill would make sense. But AFAIK these things aren't happening...so it seems strange to blame Harris for something that everybody else in the race is doing too.

Or are your concerns applicable more broadly to everyone else in the race as well? I'm not getting that sense but maybe I'm wrong--would these folks also be voting third party if it were Booker or Sanders or someone else with the nomination? If not, why not?
Most of the D candidates didn't just vote for the bill, but cosponsored it, so yes, our concerns are broadly applicable. I imagine many of my friends would vote for Sanders, but I personally am not ride-or-die for him, either. With regard to Harris, it really is a collection of concerns rather than a single vote. We as Californians have been aware of her far longer than the rest of the nation has. We're almost all way left of the general electorate, and it's wild for me to come here to the SDMB and see people claim that Harris is too progressive (and the occasional Pit thread about how the board is a leftist echo chamber! WTF?)
  #178  
Old 02-06-2019, 05:55 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,157
There will probably be at least 41 Republican Senators in 2021. Does a progressive agenda have chance of becoming law?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
I'm on the far left. My lefty Californian friends and I universally loathe Harris.
Are there Republicans you loathe less than Harris? If she becomes the nominee will you vote for her? If you lived in a swing state with Harris as nominee, would you campaign for her enthusiastically?
  #179  
Old 02-06-2019, 06:34 AM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
There will probably be at least 41 Republican Senators in 2021. Does a progressive agenda have chance of becoming law?



Are there Republicans you loathe less than Harris? If she becomes the nominee will you vote for her? If you lived in a swing state with Harris as nominee, would you campaign for her enthusiastically?
Harris is better than every Republican, but that's a very low bar for me. If Harris is the nominee, I won't vote for her because I live in California. I'll still turn up to vote for local/state things. If I lived in a swing state and she won the primary, I'd probably vote for her, but I'd be an ineffective campaigner since my only heartfelt argument would be that Trump is far worse. Maybe I wouldn't. If I ever move, I'll give it some thought.
  #180  
Old 02-06-2019, 06:37 AM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 153
I don't really know what y'all are expecting me to say. I'm just responding to Ancient Erudite's claim that Harris might appeal to the far left. Nuh uh.
  #181  
Old 02-06-2019, 06:41 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
I don't really know what y'all are expecting me to say. I'm just responding to Ancient Erudite's claim that Harris might appeal to the far left. Nuh uh.
I think we (or at least I) want everyone on the left or left-leaning in America to say that they can't wait to vote for whomever the Democrats nominate to oppose Trump, since he is doing so much harm to America and Americans, and that while you may prefer certain Democratic candidates and not be terribly fond of others, you still recognize that all of them are nigh-infinitely better than Trump, and thus you'll be excited to vote for them (or against Trump, however you'd prefer to view it).
  #182  
Old 02-06-2019, 10:55 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
Harris is better than every Republican, but that's a very low bar for me. If Harris is the nominee, I won't vote for her because I live in California. I'll still turn up to vote for local/state things. If I lived in a swing state and she won the primary, I'd probably vote for her, but I'd be an ineffective campaigner since my only heartfelt argument would be that Trump is far worse. Maybe I wouldn't. If I ever move, I'll give it some thought.


Will you feel extra pure? Make sure you announce it on social media as well.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #183  
Old 02-06-2019, 11:59 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
Harris is better than every Republican, but that's a very low bar for me. If Harris is the nominee, I won't vote for her because I live in California. I'll still turn up to vote for local/state things. If I lived in a swing state and she won the primary, I'd probably vote for her, but I'd be an ineffective campaigner since my only heartfelt argument would be that Trump is far worse. Maybe I wouldn't. If I ever move, I'll give it some thought.
You don't understand. It's very important that you vote for her to get the all important popular vote so when Trump wins the Dems can say he didn't really win.

  #184  
Old 02-06-2019, 01:08 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You don't understand. It's very important that you vote for her to get the all important popular vote so when Trump wins the Dems can say he didn't really win.

No, it really isn't.

There is quite a bit to be said for having a mandate, and having the support of the people, but it would take quite a willful and deliberate misrepresentation of that to imply that anyone said he didn't really win.

You guys like to use sports analogies, so here's one for you. World Series, team A scores 32 runs over 7 games, team B scores only 15 runs, but due to the way those scores come out, team B wins 4 of those games, and A only wins 3.

Team B is crowned the winner and goes to disneyland. Yay. But then, fans of Team B claim that Team B is better at hitting and getting on base than Team A, which is clearly false. When this falsity is pointed out, the Team B fans reply that their team won, therefore it is better, and that any talk about which team is better at hitting the ball or getting on base is just to say that team B didn't really win.

It is only in the face of Team B's false bragging that Team A points out that their brags are without merit. And it is starting to appear as though Team B only brings up this falsity from time to time because they know that Team A will correct their inaccuracy, which gives Team B fans another chance to brag about their win.

I get it, as Team B dumped the fans as soon as they got on the bus to Disney, so all the fans of Team B have left is the chance to further taunt and troll Team A. It's not much, and it's certainly not enough, but it is all they have.




Besides, we have all those illegal voters to cover that.
  #185  
Old 02-06-2019, 01:29 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
If he runs at all, in effect he will be.

We are all thinking that Trump will be easy to win against, but Bernie- running as a dem or as a 3rd party- will make the Dems lose.
As opposed to one of the most popular politicians in the country being seen as somehow prevented from running?

Y'all need his supporters, and they already don't trust you. You may wish he didn't run, but you need him.
  #186  
Old 02-06-2019, 02:18 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
As opposed to one of the most popular politicians in the country being seen as somehow prevented from running?
....
He is popular simply as he suits what the GOP and the Kremlin wants- a person with lots of strident supporters who will fiercely attack the other Dem frontrunners, thus allowing Trump to win. If Sanders ever became the actual candidate they would roll out the portfolios of hate & negative news they have collected and ruin his popularity in a matter of hours.

Just like Hillary went from quite popular to hated in a few months.
  #187  
Old 02-06-2019, 04:03 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
New rule. No, Sanders has never declared himself to be a member of the party.
Check pjacks' link in the post directly above yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Sanders, Feb 3, 2016
Of course I am a Democrat and running for the Democratic nomination.
This pretty clearly satisfies the requirement of the DNC rule.
  #188  
Old 02-06-2019, 04:08 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,024
but yet he ran against Dems in many races - and not in the Dem primaries. What was his issue with not running as a Dem?
  #189  
Old 02-06-2019, 04:10 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
This roadblock is cute. What a desperate attempt to keep Sanders out. Too bad he will simply register as a democrat before the primaries, and when asked about it he will just say he was forced to and use it as an example about how awful the Democratic establishment fossils are.
Technically he can't register as a Democrat, because he's a resident of a State that doesn't have partisan registration.

I don't get why people have such a problem with Bernie being an independent in Vermont and a Democrat on the national level. The Democrats have been giving him committee spots since 1994, his Congressional votes have followed the Democratic Party line much more closely than the average Democratic Congressperson's, and the Vermont Democratic Party hasn't run a candidate against him since 1992. What exactly is the problem here?
  #190  
Old 02-06-2019, 04:11 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,710
Let's unpack "popular." Hillary is quite beloved by many, and at least seen as competent by a majority of Democrats. But that doesn't change the fact that most Americans range from unimpressed by her to actively disliking her & Bill. I don't think her popularity changed that much except that a lot of us were disappointed that she was still trying to get back into the White House. [I admit that some of us who were cool to her ended up hating her. But I don't remember that the approval numbers changed that much.] Rather, fervor on the part of the base ran into distrust & animosity from everyone else.

Could Bernie have the same problem? Yeah, easily. But like Hillary, he has a huge following.

Why do you think I've been talking about Elizabeth Warren as the nominee? She, or Sherrod Brown, might be able to draw on both camps. It's not clear who else besides those two can. And Kamala is a rerun of Obama, so she has an uphill battle for credibility with more populist voters who came to see him as an opportunistic liar.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 02-06-2019 at 04:13 PM.
  #191  
Old 02-06-2019, 04:14 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
but yet he ran against Dems in many races - and not in the Dem primaries. What was his issue with not running as a Dem?
He prefers to be an independent, and he was able to make that work in Vermont. To run seriously for President, you need a national Party apparatus.

As I said above, the Vermont Dems haven't run candidates against him in many years. In the early years of his career, when he did run against Democrats, he was more progressive than they were, so it's a good thing that he did beat them. At least if you value principle and policy over personality and partisanship.
  #192  
Old 02-06-2019, 04:20 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
I don't consider myself a Democrat either, I'm an independent socialist who votes for the Democratic candidate 100% of the time. I'm just not a "joiner", and I see no need to go out of my way to join a club that includes the likes of Joe Manchin and Rahm Emanuel. If my State required me to register Democrat in order to vote in their primary, I would do so, but it doesn't, so why bother? To me, a political party is an instrument to be used for winning elections and enacting policies. The idea that people consider their party identification to be some core part of their personal identity, like it was a religion or football team or something, is just bizarre to me. It's not so much an ideological as a characterological thing.
  #193  
Old 02-06-2019, 04:58 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Let's unpack "popular." Hillary is quite beloved by many, and at least seen as competent by a majority of Democrats. But that doesn't change the fact that most Americans range from unimpressed by her to actively disliking her & Bill. I don't think her popularity changed that much except that a lot of us were disappointed that she was still trying to get back into the White House. [I admit that some of us who were cool to her ended up hating her. But I don't remember that the approval numbers changed that much.] ...
Hillary's approval ratings were running around 66% until she announced her second run for President. Then after much Negative crap spread by the Kremlin, the GOP and Bernie bros, it went down to 36%. That's a huge decline. Comey didnt help either, of course.

Bernie Sanders had a quite low national rating*- until he announced his run- then it went to 53 % or 56%. In other words, before the election, Hillary was regarded way more favorably than Bernie. Even so, his rating never got as high as hers before she announced.

*likely mostly due to the fact that few outside Vermont had heard of him.
  #194  
Old 02-07-2019, 03:14 AM
Ronald Raygun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Will you feel extra pure? Make sure you announce it on social media as well.
I'm sorry. I was asked a question about my political opinions, and I answered it respectfully and honestly. I don't understand what warranted this comment.

Since Harris has been a prosecutor, she's pushed hard to shut down platforms such as Backpage. She is also eager to tout this given the opportunity. Harris has directly jeopardized the income and physical safety of several of my friends. Concern over the basic needs of the people I care about is not purity politics. In a state such as California, slavish devotion to a political party that often fails to represent my interests is.

Contrary to iiandyiiii's wishes, I cannot be excited to vote against Trump. Politics is not exciting. It is depressing. However, I vote in every election. I research local candidates in every race, and I have campaigned door-to-door for progressive city council candidates. I regularly attend city council meetings; and I'm a monthly donor to Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, and Lambda Legal despite being unemployed. I'm a bisexual trans woman of color, and most of my friends are some flavor of LGBT. I have been homeless, and I am a survivor of repeated sexual assault. My father is a refugee. My mother has relied on scrounging free insulin samples from her primary care physician to survive. But please, dalej42, tell me that my concerns are strictly about maintaining some internal sense of purity. That seems to have worked out well for the Dems in 2016.
  #195  
Old 02-07-2019, 04:54 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
I'm sorry. I was asked a question about my political opinions, and I answered it respectfully and honestly. I don't understand what warranted this comment.
I'm the one who asked the question and I apologize if the question was insensitive.

By this point I'm so disappointed that the U.S. Government has been turned over to evil, hateful, and traitorous criminals that I'd enthusiastically support Kamala Harris, Al Franken, Bozo the Clown or even David Berkowitz if they ran under the banner of the Democratic Party.
__________________
Some or all of the above statements may be intended as sarcastic.
.
andros had more faith in an American jury than I had; and he was right. I'm happy to lose a bet and hope this trend continues.
  #196  
Old 02-07-2019, 05:51 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Could Bernie have the same problem? Yeah, easily. But like Hillary, he has a huge following.

Why do you think I've been talking about Elizabeth Warren as the nominee? She, or Sherrod Brown, might be able to draw on both camps. It's not clear who else besides those two can. And Kamala is a rerun of Obama, so she has an uphill battle for credibility with more populist voters who came to see him as an opportunistic liar.
Bernie's problem is the same problem that every president has and ever will have as long as the Constitution remains in its current form: there is really never a mandate to govern in any particular form. What you call opportunistic lying is what the rest of us call pragmatism, not letting the perfect be the enemy of what's good or what's possible, and all that. I think you need to consider the fact that in between presidential elections, there is another national election, so even if a president was elected on a "mandate," that mandate can be reversed in as little as two years.

But truthfully, few presidents ever govern with a mandate to begin with - because our government was designed that way. The Constitution we're living with today is not necessarily a democratic one; its architects were fearful of the kinds of mob rule that was tearing our sometimes ally, sometimes competitor, France, apart. Thus, they created two co-equal branches of government (three counting the judiciary). Gridlock is a feature, not a bug. So the idea that someone like Bernie is going to ride in on a magic carpet and change everything needs to be thought through.

I am a progressive and I appreciate that Bernie has made progressivism great a gain. However, the brutal reality is that, even today, progressives simply haven't been all that effective in convincing the rest of the voting population that we should vote for the things that we value. Medicare for all? A $15 minimum wage? Universal income? Stronger unions? Some of these are good ideas, but it's not clear that a majority of the voting population would support even one of these in an actual vote in a major national election at the present time. And frankly, I doubt that happens until we have another Herbert Hoover moment.
  #197  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:35 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Raygun View Post
I'm sorry. I was asked a question about my political opinions, and I answered it respectfully and honestly. I don't understand what warranted this comment.

Since Harris has been a prosecutor, she's pushed hard to shut down platforms such as Backpage. She is also eager to tout this given the opportunity. Harris has directly jeopardized the income and physical safety of several of my friends. Concern over the basic needs of the people I care about is not purity politics. In a state such as California, slavish devotion to a political party that often fails to represent my interests is.

Contrary to iiandyiiii's wishes, I cannot be excited to vote against Trump. Politics is not exciting. It is depressing. However, I vote in every election. I research local candidates in every race, and I have campaigned door-to-door for progressive city council candidates. I regularly attend city council meetings; and I'm a monthly donor to Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, and Lambda Legal despite being unemployed. I'm a bisexual trans woman of color, and most of my friends are some flavor of LGBT. I have been homeless, and I am a survivor of repeated sexual assault. My father is a refugee. My mother has relied on scrounging free insulin samples from her primary care physician to survive. But please, dalej42, tell me that my concerns are strictly about maintaining some internal sense of purity. That seems to have worked out well for the Dems in 2016.
But none of that has any relevance to what he's saying. He's saying that not voting against Trump because the Dems put up the wrong candidate doesn't actually accomplish anything. It may make you feel good because you didn't hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, but it accomplishes nothing.

Fortunately, since you're in California, it's very unlikely to help Trump win. But your logic spreads to many places, and is a large part of how Trump won in 2016. People thought Clinton would win and thus refused to hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

I myself am doing my best to point out that this is just what democracy is. You always, always, always vote for the lesser of two evils. When you hear people pushing the idea that the lesser of two evils are bad, those are people trying to suppress the vote, and help the side that benefits most from the vote being suppressed (i.e. the one running the less exciting candidate).

So it's great you do all those other things, but I'm going to join Dale in asking you to vote for the nominee, whoever it is, and to push this idea to others. If all the people who leaned left would do this, Trump would lose by triple digits.

Why get excited? Among other things, he's already tried to make the T of LGBT no longer exist legally in our country. As in, you are legally defined by your birth gender and no state can say otherwise. I can't think of any other time someone has tried to destroy a minority like that. That's more than trans erasure: that's trans destruction.

And if that doesn't motivate you because it's so shitty, fine. But you already say you can force yourself to vote and campaign for everything else. So why not also vote against Trump and encourage others to do so?

I do not want to let them win again by convincing the left not to vote against him. So I will always fight back against the "I'm not gonna vote for president" meme. It must not spread.

Last edited by BigT; 02-07-2019 at 09:37 AM.
  #198  
Old 02-07-2019, 11:36 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
Ronald has made it clear that she will do everything realistically in her power to defeat Trump. I don't see why you need to bully her into saying that she will do so enthusiastically, or that she will make an empty, useless gesture (voting for President in a safely blue State) in order to gain your personal certificate of moral purity.

To say that someone casting a protest vote in California is going to inspire people to do so in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is like saying that I shouldn't wear shorts in the summer because people might be inspired to do so in the winter and freeze to death. The situations are so obviously different that only a fool could fail to see the distinction.
  #199  
Old 02-07-2019, 12:54 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Let's unpack "popular." Hillary is quite beloved by many, and at least seen as competent by a majority of Democrats. But that doesn't change the fact that most Americans range from unimpressed by her to actively disliking her & Bill. I don't think her popularity changed that much except that a lot of us were disappointed that she was still trying to get back into the White House. [I admit that some of us who were cool to her ended up hating her. But I don't remember that the approval numbers changed that much.] Rather, fervor on the part of the base ran into distrust & animosity from everyone else.

Could Bernie have the same problem? Yeah, easily. But like Hillary, he has a huge following.

Why do you think I've been talking about Elizabeth Warren as the nominee? She, or Sherrod Brown, might be able to draw on both camps. It's not clear who else besides those two can. And Kamala is a rerun of Obama, so she has an uphill battle for credibility with more populist voters who came to see him as an opportunistic liar.
Why do you say that Harris is a "rerun of Obama"? Other than their race, I don't see a lot of obvious similarities. They have different professional backgrounds and come from different parts of the country. Harris doesn't seem to be as universally agreed to be a good orator. Obama ran and governed as a moderate, where Harris seems to be staking out a slightly left of center position (endorsing Medicare for All, for instance).
  #200  
Old 02-07-2019, 12:57 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Ronald has made it clear that she will do everything realistically in her power to defeat Trump. I don't see why you need to bully her into saying that she will do so enthusiastically, or that she will make an empty, useless gesture (voting for President in a safely blue State) in order to gain your personal certificate of moral purity.
And voting for a third party is an even more empty useless gesture that is done in order to gain one's own personal certificate of moral purity.

Every vote is useless. Votes only matter in the aggregate. It is the very concept of voting by purity, rather than practicality, that I am against. Convince enough democrats to vote for a third party, and we may just lose California altogether.

Vote how you want, but be aware that when you announce the way that you are voting, you do have an influence on the way others vote.
Quote:
To say that someone casting a protest vote in California is going to inspire people to do so in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is like saying that I shouldn't wear shorts in the summer because people might be inspired to do so in the winter and freeze to death. The situations are so obviously different that only a fool could fail to see the distinction.
I'd say it is more like someone in Wisconsin, being used to the cold, wearing shorts in the winter, inspiring a Californian to do the same thing in a rare winter snap who ends up getting frostbite.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 02-07-2019 at 12:58 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 02:56 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017