Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-19-2019, 05:49 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,463
Killing the filibuster isn't really up to the president anyways. You'll probably want to check what Schumer thinks of the idea.
  #52  
Old 03-19-2019, 06:56 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Killing the filibuster isn't really up to the president anyways. You'll probably want to check what Schumer thinks of the idea.
I'm fully aware of that. But it's gonna take some pressure for getting rid of it to make it happen. That's going to have to happen in the Presidential campaign, not in individual Senate races. And I can tell you right away that if the Dems elect a President who isn't eager to get rid of the filibuster, it stays.
  #53  
Old 03-19-2019, 06:59 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,232
Yeah, I don't get why RTFirefly has decided killing the filibuster is some important part of the presidential election.
  #54  
Old 03-19-2019, 08:28 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yeah, I don't get why RTFirefly has decided killing the filibuster is some important part of the presidential election.
What part of my explanation don't you understand?

I mean, you can say, "RTFirefly says X, Y, and Z about the importance of killing the filibuster, and why it needs to be an issue in the Presidential campaign, but I think his reasoning is all wrong on account of A, B, and C."

Or you could just say, "RTFirefly has decided killing the filibuster is some important part of the presidential election, and I haven't bothered to read his posts to find out why he thinks that, but I thought I'd jump in anyway to say I don't understand why he feels this way."

It's a free country.
  #55  
Old 03-19-2019, 10:11 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yeah, I don't get why RTFirefly has decided killing the filibuster is some important part of the presidential election.
I canít speak for RTFirefly but it needs to go if anything is to get done. Imagine a best case scenario. The Democratic nominee wins. Democrats win the competitive senate races in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, and Maine. Trump is a drag on the Republican incumbents and seats flip in very close races in North Carolina, Texas, and in a shocker even Lindsey Graham loses in South Carolina. Somehow or another Doug Jones hangs on in Alabama. Even in this scenario the Democrats would need six Republican senators to overcome a filibuster. And with the scenario I outlined that just got harder because the Republicans most likely to cross over like Susan Collins and Cory Gardner just lost. Even if somehow the 2022 midterms go really well, which is highly unlikely after a huge blue wave in 2020, itís still unlikely for Democrats to reach 60 senators. And what will happen then? Nothing will get done because of Mitch McConnell causing senate gridlock but the people will blame Democrats and we would be looking at another 1994 or 2010.
  #56  
Old 03-20-2019, 03:53 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I canít speak for RTFirefly but it needs to go if anything is to get done. Imagine a best case scenario. The Democratic nominee wins. Democrats win the competitive senate races in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, and Maine. Trump is a drag on the Republican incumbents and seats flip in very close races in North Carolina, Texas, and in a shocker even Lindsey Graham loses in South Carolina. Somehow or another Doug Jones hangs on in Alabama. Even in this scenario the Democrats would need six Republican senators to overcome a filibuster. And with the scenario I outlined that just got harder because the Republicans most likely to cross over like Susan Collins and Cory Gardner just lost. Even if somehow the 2022 midterms go really well, which is highly unlikely after a huge blue wave in 2020, itís still unlikely for Democrats to reach 60 senators. And what will happen then? Nothing will get done because of Mitch McConnell causing senate gridlock but the people will blame Democrats and we would be looking at another 1994 or 2010.
Yeppers to all this.
  #57  
Old 03-20-2019, 06:34 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
... Warren, Buttigieg, and Inslee. Those are the only ones, AFAICT, who are willing to entertain the idea of killing the filibuster....
I don't follow politics much outside the Dope. Is there serious talk of getting rid of the filibuster? Have these three spoken against it?

In the olden days, the Senate was viewed as a body of honorable men, and filibuster was an honorable tradition. It will take 51 Senators to eliminate that rule. That means almost every D Senator will need to understand that the R party has become so putrid that there is no honor left to salvage. Has it come to that?

(How do I feel about R Senators? Losing their right to filibuster would be the least of their worries were I in charge. )
  #58  
Old 03-20-2019, 09:23 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Why, do you think that Biden's the only Dem that can beat Trump?
I don't recall saying anything like that.
  #59  
Old 03-20-2019, 09:25 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I don't think that Biden's the only one who can. But it looks, at this point, like he might have the best chance. That's not a be-all, end-all, depending on what those chances are, and the chances might certainly change before the primaries, but it's certainly relevant.
I don't have serious objections to Biden compared to Trump. I think he has to fight the perception of being to old to make it through the primaries, assuming the other candidates don't spend their time attacking him.
  #60  
Old 03-20-2019, 09:27 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by customdistro View Post
yes!

i'm more likely to vote libertarian, but the worst thing trump has done in office is renew the sort of legislation that biden has actually written himself.

the wall is stupid-- hillary voted for it years before trump supported it. immigration is complicated, dems (even pm trudeau in canada) have said most of the things trump has said.
So you're just a Trump supporter. Wrong thread for you.
  #61  
Old 03-20-2019, 09:29 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
So Trump's unbeatable, except by Biden.

Maybe you missed November 2018.
Again, said nothing like that. Replace Biden's name with any Democratic candidate. Do you want one of them, whichever one wins the nomination to win, or would you prefer Trump to win?
  #62  
Old 03-20-2019, 09:30 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneRhino View Post
The problem with this attitude is that it's not playing to win, it's playing to not lose. This gets you the Hillary, Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis campaigns.
Winning is not losing. I have no idea what you are talking about but you cite candidates that did not play to win.
  #63  
Old 03-20-2019, 09:49 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I don't follow politics much outside the Dope. Is there serious talk of getting rid of the filibuster? Have these three spoken against it?
Inslee and Buttigieg have both said it needs to go, IIRC. Warren's stance is that if Mitch blocks everything, all options are on the table.
Quote:
In the olden days, the Senate was viewed as a body of honorable men, and filibuster was an honorable tradition.
And in those olden days, the filibuster was used selectively, not across the board, as it has been since the beginning of 2007.
Quote:
It will take 51 Senators to eliminate that rule. That means almost every D Senator will need to understand that the R party has become so putrid that there is no honor left to salvage. Has it come to that?
Well, the GOP has become so putrid that it has no honor left to salvage. But has it come to the point that Dem Senators are all willing to acknowledge that?

Judging by those on the campaign trail, the answer is NO. Bernie wants to keep the filibuster. Booker wants to keep it. Gillibrand wants to keep it. When someone asked Kamala Harris about the filibuster, she said something like, "can we change the subject?"

So it's gonna take a fair amount of pressure to move Senators on this subject. It's not going to just happen by itself. And if none of that is coming from the Dem Presidential candidate, it's hard to see it happening.
  #64  
Old 03-20-2019, 09:59 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
So better that Trump wins than Biden becomes the candidate, or even stays in the race? What are these things that disqualify Democrats from running? Who is the pristine candidate?
The whole point of the primary election is to figure out who best represents the party.

You don't want dems being "mean" to Joe Biden? Then he either should have a pristine history, or he shouldn't run, because I guarantee that Donald Trump will not play nice with him. Or what, you think the RNC can't do basic opposition research? You think any of the shit Nathan J. Robinson brings up in this excellent article excoriating Biden was a hard lift, research-wise? You could probably pull half this shit from his Wikipedia page!

The whole point of the primary is to decide what direction the party should go. Biden is better than Trump and better than any republican currently in office, and that's the absolute nicest thing I can say about him at the moment. I do not think he would be a good president, I do not think he is a good direction to lead the party, and I will vote for him grudgingly, not enthusiastically. I certainly don't share your belief that he's somehow uniquely well-suited to combat Trump - indeed, he's very ill-suited, as Robinson points out:
But beyond the question of whether it is right to be this way, it is doubtful whether it is even pragmatic. Perhaps in 1992 this would have been good Democratic politics. But in 2020, Democratic primary decisions need to be made on the basis of whether they will help defeat Donald Trump. Trump is a man who wonít hesitate to run to a candidateís left when convenient: he will have no trouble criticizing Bidenís Iraq war vote, ties to banks, and tough on crime posturing. And Biden will have a difficult time responding, because these charges are true. Trump won in part because people really hate D.C. insiders, and nobody better embodies the term than Joe Biden. He came to the Senate during the Nixon administration, and his hands are all over every bad and off-putting Democratic compromise of the last 40 years. Inevitably, Biden will run as the pragmatic candidate, but in practice, against Trump, he may be disastrous.
This is exactly the kind of thing a primary exists to hash out. And having a competitive primary means that we get to have these discussions, and learn things about candidates we didn't know before we're locked in to voting for them or Trump. Did you know Joe Biden held a heartfelt eulogy for an avowed white supremacist a mere decade and a half ago? I didn't! And of course, as usual, Matt Lubchansky is just great.

(Honestly - how much of Biden's advantage comes from people who know very little about him, beyond his likeable "Uncle Joe" persona? How much do you expect that support to dry up when people hear the more damning details of his personal and legislative record?)
  #65  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:03 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Again, said nothing like that. Replace Biden's name with any Democratic candidate. Do you want one of them, whichever one wins the nomination to win, or would you prefer Trump to win?
Like I said earlier:
Quote:
There's three possibilities in 2020 and 2021:

1) Trump wins, and we do nothing about global warming.
2) A Dem wins, but we don't do much about global warming.
3) A Dem wins, and we go big in addressing global warming.

AFAIAC, #1 and #2 don't differ by enough to matter. Time is running out.
And if we can't get shit done and improve people's lives in 2021-22 because Mitch & Co. filibuster everything that moves, 2022 will look like 2010 and 1994, and we don't get another chance to get shit done until 2029 at the soonest. Almost certainly too late to save the world.

But if Trump wins, we've got a shot at picking up more Senate seats in 2022 with a good map, winning the White House in 2024, and getting shit done in 2025. Also probably too late to save the world, but maybe there's a chance.

So #2 is the worst of all futures for this world, even worse than #1. So it's #3 or bust, AFAIAC.
  #66  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:05 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I don't recall saying anything like that.
Given your reaction to my strident criticism of Biden, it sure seemed like you were equating shooting him down with killing the Dems' chances in 2020. I think you need to make yourself more clear.
  #67  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:08 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Like, take a look at this. These are quotes from Biden's eulogy for Strom Thurmond.

https://twitter.com/curaffairs/statu...76826063183873

Do you want to vote for that guy? I don't! I will, if it's him against Trump, but I can imagine a slightly more cynical person, or a person who cares a little less about separating families and locking children in cages by the thousands might stay home based on just seeing something like that. Speaking of cynical, I wonder if there's some overlap between "highly cynical about politicians not serving their needs", "overwhelmingly likely to vote democrat", "important for democratic victory", and "extremely likely to be pissed as hell over a glowing eulogy for a segregationist white supremacist"... Gimme a minute, I'm sure it'll come to me...

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 03-20-2019 at 10:09 AM.
  #68  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:13 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
The whole point of the primary election is to figure out who best represents the party.
The point of the primaries is for the voters to select the candidate they want to run for president. They may not pick the candidate with the best chance of winning, but they oughta, otherwise whatever anyone thinks the party is about doesn't matter much because a Republican will be president and keep sowing discontent and division, packing the court, destroying our alliances around the world, and keep aiding our enemies.
  #69  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:22 AM
TriPolar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post

Do you want to vote for that guy? I don't! I will, if it's him against Trump...
Yet you would give Trump the ammunition to take down the eventual Democratic candidate. I don't like this situation, but that's what it is and I won't make it worse. The candidate that wins by simply surviving the primary isn't going to beat Trump, but that's who it will be if the infighting continues.
  #70  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:24 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
The point of the primaries is for the voters to select the candidate they want to run for president. They may not pick the candidate with the best chance of winning, but they oughta, otherwise whatever anyone thinks the party is about doesn't matter much because a Republican will be president and keep sowing discontent and division, packing the court, destroying our alliances around the world, and keep aiding our enemies.
Okay - who exactly doesn't have that in mind during the primary? Who here is saying, "I really like (let's just pull a name out of a hat here and say) Beto O'Rourke - he doesn't have a chance against Trump, but I'm going to support him in the primary anyways"? Who do you think is doing that? I like Warren and Sanders, and I think both of them are very well-positioned to beat Trump (Sanders especially, even if I like Warren's legislative record more). I don't like Biden in part because I think he's exactly the kind of candidate Trump wants to campaign against.

What possible benefit is there for candidates to use kid gloves in the primary when it comes to substance?
  #71  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:24 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,503
[QUOTE=Akaj;21545873]I'm not Trump" should have been enough for Hillary, and we saw how well that worked./QUOTE]


True, but at that time the full horror of a trump presidency was conjectural rather than actual.

Look. There are enough votes to elect a Democratic president. (Bill) Clinton and Obama proved that. But we need to get all of them. As 2000 and 2016 proved, we not only need to get more votes, we need to get more more votes. If the centrists go "R", we lose. If the lefties go Green, we lose. If there is low turnout in the urban areas (politese for"if the blacks stay home"), we lose.

As has been pointed out upthread, this might just be the last shot before the buzzer. We'd better not lose. And vicious infighting makes it likelier that we will. I'm all for "spirited debate", but keep the focus where it belongs, OK.
  #72  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:33 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Yet you would give Trump the ammunition to take down the eventual Democratic candidate. I don't like this situation, but that's what it is and I won't make it worse. The candidate that wins by simply surviving the primary isn't going to beat Trump, but that's who it will be if the infighting continues.
"Give Trump the ammunition"? You think a opposition research by relative allies during the primary is going to turn up a bunch of dirt that will somehow stay hidden in the general election to a far more motivated group of political enemies? The things people are attacking each other here are not dark secrets or fishy smears. They're matters of the public record. Laws people voted for, donations they received, speeches they gave. The Week has another good piece on this: Joe Biden is about to ruin his reputation.

If candidates were digging deep and pulling up fishy or dishonest smears, then sure, that would be something to worry about. That would be something we could call "giving Trump ammunition". But simply arguing about policy, history, and each other's public records? That's not giving Trump ammunition. That's ammunition Trump gets for free anyways. Better burn through it here and now rather than wait until the general election to remember, "Oh right, Joe Biden really fucking sucks".

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 03-20-2019 at 10:34 AM.
  #73  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:38 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Yet you would give Trump the ammunition to take down the eventual Democratic candidate.
How's a vigorous policy debate among Democrats going to do that? They're all going to be well to the left of Trump, and other than stuff (like guns) that all the Dems will be demonized over, the policy particulars are largely going to be things that even a healthy number of Republicans like.

Sure, it can all be demonized as socialism, oogabooga look at Venezuela, but that's already being done in the absence of particulars.
  #74  
Old 03-20-2019, 11:10 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
"Give Trump the ammunition"? You think a opposition research by relative allies during the primary is going to turn up a bunch of dirt that will somehow stay hidden in the general election to a far more motivated group of political enemies? The things people are attacking each other here are not dark secrets or fishy smears. They're matters of the public record. Laws people voted for, donations they received, speeches they gave. The Week has another good piece on this: Joe Biden is about to ruin his reputation.

If candidates were digging deep and pulling up fishy or dishonest smears, then sure, that would be something to worry about. That would be something we could call "giving Trump ammunition". But simply arguing about policy, history, and each other's public records? That's not giving Trump ammunition. That's ammunition Trump gets for free anyways. Better burn through it here and now rather than wait until the general election to remember, "Oh right, Joe Biden really fucking sucks".
But there is a difference between Trump saying that Joe Biden is unfit to be president, and say Elizabeth Warren saying the Joe Biden is unfit to be president. People who beleive Trump and hang on his every word were never going to vote for Biden in any case. But If Warren comes out says that Biden is a racist dotard who harasses women, its going to be hard for her to do a 180 degree turn around to rally her base in favor of Biden after the convention.

I think it is key that in the first debate and going forward that all of the Democratic candidates get together and declare unequivocally, that any one of them would be a suitable choice for president, and that they largely agree on most of the issues. Then they can go on argue over out the few areas where there is disagreement, and to argue why they would be the best of the many good options.
  #75  
Old 03-20-2019, 02:15 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I see nothing in terms of Democratic discussions, debates, and disagreements that hasn't happened during nearly every single 4 year cycle for an open Democratic presidential primary. This is entirely normal.
Nope, it is being enhanced by attacks from the kremlin, in support of Trump.

Yes, I agree with the OP. No "Purity tests".

I dont care where any Dem candidate gets his/her contributions from- as long as they get enough to WIN, dammit.

Let's only attack on basis of stances, on what they have done politically. Not on basis of age or some faux pas they made two decades ago.

Fellow dems, let's take the pledge- no personal attacks. No spreading Fake news or Krap from the Kremlin. Issues only.
  #76  
Old 03-20-2019, 02:19 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I didn't say the candidates have to agree on everything, or anything. You're supposed to be a political party, you're supposed to have a common political philosophy that sets you apart from the other party. If you can't state what your personal approach to that is without criticizing others in your party then you don't have a case to state. This is not the time to decide what the Democratic Party is or should be. You should have been doing that for the last two years. This is the time to oust the worst president in our history. Don't do what the GOP expects you to do and divide your party.
Right. It's OK to mention that (for example) Harris's stance on Gun control is too radical and might not fly in the rust belt. Issues.

Keep it clean, keep it issue oriented, stop with the fucking purity tests.

We gotta win this one.
  #77  
Old 03-20-2019, 02:21 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
I keep hearing this on these boards. Itís so odd, because I am personally acquainted with several Bernie people (all of them white men btw) who did sit out the general election or voted for Jill Stein. This is not some kind of a Manufactured by Russia deal. Itís real, and it could be a real problem, and those of us who wish to defeat Trump should not be pretending otherwise.
Two of them already started attacks on the various front runners, and I saw many in my FB feed. They exist. Some few of them are indeed fake, they are Russian trolls, and a few more gleefully pass along the fake news from the Kremlin. But they exist. Not entirely Bernie's fault, of course.
  #78  
Old 03-20-2019, 02:36 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Nope, it is being enhanced by attacks from the kremlin, in support of Trump.
That doesn't really take place in the categories I stated -- Democratic debates, discussions, and disagreements. That's definitely bad, but in terms of what the Democratic candidates are doing and saying about each other, I see nothing unusual or out of the ordinary.
  #79  
Old 03-21-2019, 09:37 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 15,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Do you think the candidates believe beating Trump is more important than self-promotion and one-upsmanship?
I think each candidate believes he/she has the best chance of beating Trump.
  #80  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:11 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,706
I would be really surprised if dislike of any of the current Dem candidates pushes likely Dem voters to vote third party or for Trump the way the last candidate did. The '20 election is a referendum on Donald Trump and he will receive fewer votes than the Dem nominee, whoever it may be. I just don't know if that will be enough.
  #81  
Old 03-23-2019, 09:49 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,025
I don’t mind the squabbling now as only the political nerds are paying attention. We do need make damn sure we don’t have the endless conspiracy theories that really hurt in 2016. I don’t think that’s likely to happen this time around with such a large field of candidates.

I remain optimistic that 3rd parties won’t be an issue for 2020. Nader had no effect in 2004 after being a spoiler in 2000. While Hillary may not be an asset on the campaign trail, she can do a job by attacking the nuttiness of Jill Stein or whatever 3rd party loons run.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #82  
Old 03-25-2019, 01:58 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,388
I am late to the party, but I just want to voice my disagreement with the premise of this thread. Yes, we gotta win this one, but I don't want to live in a world where I can't call Biden a corporate whore.

Sorry, but the wrong nominee is only so much help.
  #83  
Old 03-25-2019, 03:00 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
I am late to the party, but I just want to voice my disagreement with the premise of this thread. Yes, we gotta win this one, but I don't want to live in a world where I can't call Biden a corporate whore.

.
This is exactly what will get trump re-elected in 2020.
  #84  
Old 03-25-2019, 03:52 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,388
I disagree. We don't want another Dem leader who is little more than Republican lite. Biden is too cozy with the wealthy to do what is required, is too cozy with Thurmond types, and overall Delaware is not IMHO a model for the rest of the nation.

We would do far, far better with Hickenlooper if you want a moderate. He is not perfect but also hardly damnable, and CO has done very well under him.

This "don't fight it out!" approach is going to leave the D's in a place where they suffer from one if Hillary's biggest weaknesses: lack of authenticity. No thanks.
  #85  
Old 03-28-2019, 12:07 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
I disagree. We don't want another Dem leader who is little more than Republican lite. Biden is too cozy with the wealthy to do what is required, is too cozy with Thurmond types, and overall Delaware is not IMHO a model for the rest of the nation.....
This "don't fight it out!" approach is going to leave the D's in a place where they suffer from one if Hillary's biggest weaknesses: lack of authenticity. No thanks.
I know, Biden takes campaign contributions from corps, thus he is a "corporate whore". Let me explain. In order to win, you need money. You have two sources- individuals and corporations (Pacs are funded by one or the other).

Now the GOP gleefully takes money from both. But if we have a "purity test' that the Dem candidate has to cut off half the source of donations- he/she will lose. Period. It is impossible to win without that money. Now, that's both sad and bad- but it is the way it is.


No one is saying "don't fight it out": we want some solid hard hitting debates- on the issues



Not on who said nice things about a fellow senator when the man died- because you know- that just what you do if you are a gentleman. Not on who took money from the "big banks"- because if you dont- you lose. No "purity tests" because the only person who could possibly pass all of those things is can't possibly win the genral election.

On the issues. No negative campaigning, no attack ads. Tell us why your stance on the issues is better than the other candidates- and why you are more electable.

I am not ruling anyone out. Sure, I dont like Harris's stance on a couple things, but even that being said- i said she'd be nice to balance out someone like Biden.
  #86  
Old 03-28-2019, 05:26 AM
phantom lamb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 395
The democrats do all the heavy lifting when it comes to helping the republicans win with this stupid bickering. He will get re-elected in no small part thanks to the democrats' fetish of tearing each other down.

And no, I'm not saying don't criticize/discuss issues but I mean REAL ISSUES AND POLICIES, those are fair game and should be debated. Democrats feeling forced to apologize for stupid jokes is only hurting the image of the entire party which desperately needs those independent votes.
  #87  
Old 03-28-2019, 06:34 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantom lamb View Post
The democrats do all the heavy lifting when it comes to helping the republicans win with this stupid bickering. He will get re-elected in no small part thanks to the democrats' fetish of tearing each other down.

And no, I'm not saying don't criticize/discuss issues but I mean REAL ISSUES AND POLICIES, those are fair game and should be debated. Democrats feeling forced to apologize for stupid jokes is only hurting the image of the entire party which desperately needs those independent votes.
So even if this were true (I'll get that in a second), I still don't understand this logic. How does this work, exactly? Is there some non-trivial demographic who won't care about republican attack ads, will care about far milder democratic in-fighting, and isn't 100% in the tank against Trump already? How does that work, exactly? Because all the stuff that would come up in the primary is almost certainly going to come up in the general election. And if any of it is, in fact, harmful for a candidate, then it should be out in the open before our options are "that candidate or Trump".

But I really don't think it's true. What we're looking at isn't mean-spirited sniping over jokes or unfair smears. We're mostly dealing with people's records. Kamala Harris was a cop who hurt a lot of vulnerable people and doesn't seem to care. Beto O'Rourke is a charismatic empty shell with no policy proposals and a fairly conservative legislative record (plus he's taken a fair bit of money from oil companies, which is kind of a big fucking problem). Joe Biden is an unapologetic centrist corporatist with an abominable record on banking and civil rights who accepted ten times more than I make in a year to stump for a republican in 2018. These aren't unfair or unreasonable things to criticize when talking about who's going to lead the party going forward. We need someone inspirational, who can win a fight with a great deal of systematic disadvantages (the electoral college, voter disenfranchisement, the media's obsession with both-sidesism, the fox news propaganda campaign, etc.).

Let's just say, hypothetically, we don't have all these fights. Joe Biden coasts through the primary on the back of his charming "Ol' Uncle Joe" persona. Nobody calls him on his past. He gets the nomination. Then, in the general election, we find out that he can't really call Trump out as a plutocrat because... oh, wait, Biden is in deep with the banks. And he can't really call Trump out as a racist, because not two decades ago, Biden gave a loving eulogy to Strom Frickin' Thurmond. And he can't call Trump out as a misogynist, because, well... He can't really call Trump out for warmongering because he voted for Iraq. How do you think that election goes?

These fights are important and necessary to prevent that kind of nightmare scenario.
  #88  
Old 03-28-2019, 08:11 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,388
DrDeth- I appreciate the comments about the realities of campaign finance, but that isn't what I was getting at.

Delaware is sort of the Cayman Islands of the mainland. 50% of all US corporations are "headquartered" there, for tax shelter reasons. Not sure what to do about it, but it is not a model for the country.

Joe supported ending Glass-Steagal. I don't want to destroy banks and businesses yanno, but that was an awful idea, helped set us up for the financial crisis, you know the story.

Joe was big on the anti crime policies that led to the mass incarceration of minorities. Sure, punish crime, but a racist justice system is a fucking abomination that makes me want to puke tears.

The candidates are all flawed, and they always will be. I think Joe's are worse than many others', and not because of campaign money.
  #89  
Old 03-28-2019, 08:57 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 41,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
I keep hearing this on these boards. Itís so odd, because I am personally acquainted with several Bernie people (all of them white men btw) who did sit out the general election or voted for Jill Stein. This is not some kind of a Manufactured by Russia deal. Itís real, and it could be a real problem, and those of us who wish to defeat Trump should not be pretending otherwise.
I don't know who Jill Stein is, but I suspect anybody who voted for a person named Jill Stein might barf at the thought of voting for Trump.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #90  
Old 03-28-2019, 10:06 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
So even if this were true (I'll get that in a second), I still don't understand this logic. How does this work, exactly? Is there some non-trivial demographic who won't care about republican attack ads, will care about far milder democratic in-fighting, and isn't 100% in the tank against Trump already? How does that work, exactly? Because all the stuff that would come up in the primary is almost certainly going to come up in the general election. And if any of it is, in fact, harmful for a candidate, then it should be out in the open before our options are "that candidate or Trump".

But I really don't think it's true. What we're looking at isn't mean-spirited sniping over jokes or unfair smears. We're mostly dealing with people's records. Kamala Harris was a cop who hurt a lot of vulnerable people and doesn't seem to care. Beto O'Rourke is a charismatic empty shell with no policy proposals and a fairly conservative legislative record (plus he's taken a fair bit of money from oil companies, which is kind of a big fucking problem). Joe Biden is an unapologetic centrist corporatist with an abominable record on banking and civil rights who accepted ten times more than I make in a year to stump for a republican in 2018. These aren't unfair or unreasonable things to criticize when talking about who's going to lead the party going forward. We need someone inspirational, who can win a fight with a great deal of systematic disadvantages (the electoral college, voter disenfranchisement, the media's obsession with both-sidesism, the fox news propaganda campaign, etc.).

Let's just say, hypothetically, we don't have all these fights. Joe Biden coasts through the primary on the back of his charming "Ol' Uncle Joe" persona. Nobody calls him on his past. He gets the nomination. Then, in the general election, we find out that he can't really call Trump out as a plutocrat because... oh, wait, Biden is in deep with the banks. And he can't really call Trump out as a racist, because not two decades ago, Biden gave a loving eulogy to Strom Frickin' Thurmond. And he can't call Trump out as a misogynist, because, well... He can't really call Trump out for warmongering because he voted for Iraq. How do you think that election goes?

These fights are important and necessary to prevent that kind of nightmare scenario.
Here's my solution to the underlined:

Uncle Joe doesn't call out Trump as a plutocrat. He calls out Trump as a corrupt, incompetent, misogynist, dissembling schmuck. Then it doesn't matter if Joe took money from Acme, Inc.

Ta da.

[ETA: No, I don't necessarily support Biden. I'm just saying, let's not fight the wrong battles.]
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)

Last edited by CaptMurdock; 03-28-2019 at 10:08 AM.
  #91  
Old 03-28-2019, 04:13 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
.... Kamala Harris was a cop who hurt a lot of vulnerable people and doesn't seem to care. ...
Beto O'Rourke is a charismatic empty shell with no policy proposals and a fairly conservative legislative record (plus he's taken a fair bit of money from oil companies, which is kind of a big fucking problem). ....

Joe Biden is an unapologetic centrist corporatist with an abominable record on banking and civil rights who accepted ten times more than I make in a year to stump for a republican in 2018. ....

Then, in the general election, we find out that he can't really call Trump out as a plutocrat because... oh, wait, Biden is in deep with the banks. And he can't really call Trump out as a racist, because not two decades ago, Biden gave a loving eulogy to Strom Frickin' Thurmond. And he can't call Trump out as a misogynist, because, well... He can't really call Trump out for warmongering because he voted for Iraq. How do you think that election goes?

These fights are important and necessary to prevent that kind of nightmare scenario.
Harris- that is issues, ok.

Beto- no the fact that he took money from oil companies is NOT a big fucking problem. It can even be a good thing. Oil companies are part of America, they rule our cars, heat our homes and give lots of people jobs. They are not evil. This is a fucking purity test. And saying that no one can take donations from corps means the Dems will lose. Period.

Biden= purity tests.

No, Biden gave a eulogy to a coworker who he had worked for for years. You dont say bad things about a man in a eulogy. By no means does this mean Biden cant attack anyone on racism, because Biden has a clean record on racism.

wow, and a GOP hit youtube - that's the reason he can't call Trump out as a misogynist? Nope.

Voted for iraq? So did everyone else but Bernie. That doesnt make him a warmonger.

Purity tests. No one will pass them, thus everyone will lose.
  #92  
Old 03-28-2019, 04:18 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
...

Delaware is sort of the Cayman Islands of the mainland. 50% of all US corporations are "headquartered" there, for tax shelter reasons. Not sure what to do about it, but it is not a model for the country.

Joe supported ending Glass-Steagal. I...

Joe was big on the anti crime policies that led to the mass incarceration of minorities. Sure, punish crime, but a racist justice system is a fucking abomination that makes me want to puke tears....
No, that's not how Delaware works. Not tax shelters.

Yes, he did, along with nearly everyone else. And Joe now regrets that vote.

And everyone voted for that. "Tough on crime" is something everyone wants be be seen as.

More 'purity tests".
  #93  
Old 03-28-2019, 07:03 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,200
Incidentally here's the real story behind Bidens Eulogy: he is almost always asked and walsays says something nice.https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ef_137965.html

Biden also stressed Thurmond's opinion changes, how that ancient man came to change his racist ways, his support for extending the Voting Rights Act, establishing a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and Thurmondís work with reading programs for black students.

Thurmond was indeed a racist- but he mellowed and changed in his last years.

But you know, who really cares about a eulogy? Well, the Russians trolls and GOP hate spewers dug it it in the hopes- clearly met here on these pages- that Dems would spread it around.

Biden is the leader in the polls. Expect to see lots of shit tossed at him. But YOU can control how much of the Kremlin Krap and GOP hate you spread.

If Biden falls from #1, trust me, they will turn on whoever is next. We have to be vigilant and not spread their shit.
  #94  
Old 03-29-2019, 09:53 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
I disagree. We don't want another Dem leader who is little more than Republican lite. Biden is too cozy with the wealthy to do what is required, is too cozy with Thurmond types, and overall Delaware is not IMHO a model for the rest of the nation.

We would do far, far better with Hickenlooper if you want a moderate. He is not perfect but also hardly damnable, and CO has done very well under him.

This "don't fight it out!" approach is going to leave the D's in a place where they suffer from one if Hillary's biggest weaknesses: lack of authenticity. No thanks.
It's okay to be authentic, but I'm not convinced that the rust belt states that Hillary lost are going to vote for Bernie Sanders or even Kamala Harris. Most of the swing states are moderate at best, and even moderate right.

I can see how someone who votes with Trump only 30-35% of the time (Beto O'Rourke) wins over the political center, but I don't see how someone who votes with Trump only 14-15% of the time (Sanders, Harris, Booker, Warren) does that. I think Harris and Booker have enough political instincts to shift their rhetoric and tone a bit, but Bernie's already proven that he'll die on his own sword. If the economy remains relatively strong, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Trump blow-out if Bernie wins.

The problem is, voting with Trump 14-15% of the time seems to be how you win the Democratic party over, and that could be a problem in the general.

Last edited by asahi; 03-29-2019 at 09:55 AM.
  #95  
Old 03-29-2019, 01:57 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,388
I don't think I m applying a purity test (more a best candidate test), and I don't think I am being unpragmatic, either.

Check out this anti-Joe article: https://harpers.org/archive/2019/03/joe-biden-record/

They paint him as a "champion of the sordid compromises of the past." Some of it maybe doesn't stick- he voted for NAFTA, and is therefore responsible for the loss of manufacturing jobs? But taken altogether, one can't help questioning if Biden is the best candidate or would make the best leader.

Talking about these things is not going to collapse the Democratic effort, and not talking about these things will never, ever keep them secret. There is a fight on for the immense power that goes with the office of POTUS, and we are all invested in it. To call for "no fighting" in this instance strikes me as, frankly, ridiculous. To beat Trump we are going to need someone who can win a fight, because that is what they are going to get.

Also, I promote ignoring any argument in the form of, " Don't go too far left!" Who cares how "left" or "right" a policy is? It is for Fox News derpaholics to oversimplify things to the point that more "right" = best, without even chewing on the details. What matters is if a policy solves a problem and is practical in the context of everything else. So, Medicare for all, maybe with a modest deductible? Gotta admit, it gets healthcare to everybody. If it can be done, "left" is of exactly zero concern. Now, how about socializing the means of production? The problem isn't that it is "left", but that it is a terrible idea for a host of reasons. Same with arguments like, "the government always has to shrink!" The country is always growing, and the government needs to be big enough to address the problems it faces Let's not be dumb. Let's leave the derp to the propagandists.

So far I think probably every Dem candidate can beat Trump. Let's let them duke it out and see who comes out on top.
  #96  
Old 03-29-2019, 02:13 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
I don't think I m applying a purity test (more a best candidate test), and I don't think I am being unpragmatic, either.

Check out this anti-Joe article: ....

....

So far I think probably every Dem candidate can beat Trump. Let's let them duke it out and see who comes out on top.

And why are all these anti-biden articles coming out now? Because he's the tops in the polls.

It's gonna be harder than you think. Trump has a rock solid bases and a huge war chest. Not to mention he doesnt have to worry about mud slinging from his own party.

Why do trump's campaign job for them? Leave the mudslinging to the GOP (and the Kremlin).
  #97  
Old 03-29-2019, 04:36 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,093
Trump thrives on mud. Throw mud on him and he just kind of absorbs it. And he can blast mud in all directions. Kind of like a comic book character.

Whichever dem wins is going to have to deal with that. I DO think that, proportionately, more mud is already baked in to Joe Biden than anybody else. Mud that, if slung by Trump, will look hysterically hypocritical and open to instant retort. Has Trump ever plagiarized? I think so! Trump can't criticism Biden on ANYTHING related to money, women, creepiness, or being unfair to blacks and other minorities. His surrogates can try that, but not Trump himself. That means Trump can only focus on eccentric stuff, like Beto eating dirt or writing about killing children as a teen. Pocahontas. Etc. He's VERY effective at that too.

Throw mud on any of the relative no-names, and it's going to show up, big-time.
  #98  
Old 03-29-2019, 05:45 PM
Fuzzy_wuzzy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,109
Now the #MeToo movement comes for Biden. This was always going to happen.
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 06:21 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017