Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 12-04-2018, 11:19 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Avenatti just pulled out...

Sorry! Didn't mean to make a sex joke.

He has withdrawn...

Dammit!

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/...00911559192577

Stormy: Were you in?
  #202  
Old 12-04-2018, 11:23 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,133
He is now Basta point of no return...
  #203  
Old 12-04-2018, 11:31 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
Avenatti would have been fun in the debates

Last edited by Bijou Drains; 12-04-2018 at 11:31 AM.
  #204  
Old 12-04-2018, 09:25 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Because his message is very similar to a Vermont senator's message, and that Vermont senator did just fine in Midwestern rust belt states in the 2016 Dem primary. I don't think a candidate's home state matters as much as having a dynamic message that people connect with.
Well, I'd take issue with the statement that Sanders "did just fine in Midwestern rust belt states." There were 5 "Midwestern" states (counting PA, which everybody does for this purpose) that Obama won twice and Clinton didn't: PA, OH, IA, MI, and WI.

Of the five, Sanders won the primary pretty decisively in Wisconsin, but got beaten badly in PA and Ohio. Michigan and Iowa were essentially ties, with Sanders narrowly winning the first and losing the second.

In all, Sanders won about 48% of the vote in those states. Not bad, and several percentage points ahead of his overall 42% figure, but nothing to write home about. Based on the primary results, Sanders might have been able to win Wisconsin in a general election, which Clinton did not manage; but there's no evidence that he could have flipped Iowa or Michigan to blue, let alone Ohio or Pennsylvania.

I think you're right that having a "dynamic message that people can connect with" is more important than having a particular home state, but the primaries don't indicate that Sanders had that kind of connection with the people of these states. To say that O'Rourke might do as well as Sanders isn't really saying anything, then. If O'Rourke (or any Dem) is going to win these states in 2020, he (or she) is going to need to run a hell of a lot better there than Sanders did.
  #205  
Old 12-04-2018, 10:54 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
Well, I'd take issue with the statement that Sanders "did just fine in Midwestern rust belt states." There were 5 "Midwestern" states (counting PA, which everybody does for this purpose) that Obama won twice and Clinton didn't: PA, OH, IA, MI, and WI.

Of the five, Sanders won the primary pretty decisively in Wisconsin, but got beaten badly in PA and Ohio. Michigan and Iowa were essentially ties, with Sanders narrowly winning the first and losing the second.

In all, Sanders won about 48% of the vote in those states. Not bad, and several percentage points ahead of his overall 42% figure, but nothing to write home about. Based on the primary results, Sanders might have been able to win Wisconsin in a general election, which Clinton did not manage; but there's no evidence that he could have flipped Iowa or Michigan to blue, let alone Ohio or Pennsylvania.
You're probably right about all that. My only evidence comes from the union halls I was working out of in west Michigan in 2016; every electrical worker, plumber, iron worker and UAW worker I encountered was fired up for Bernie, and subsequently pissed when their unions endorsed Hillary. In my limited exposure, Bernie seemed to fire up the rank and file while Hillary...didn't. I probably projected Bernie's rust belt popularity a bit.

Regardless, I stand by my larger point of needing a candidate that can create massive amounts of buzz, and not just look impressive with his/her resume.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 12-04-2018 at 10:57 PM.
  #206  
Old 12-05-2018, 09:48 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,707
You really can't extrapolate general election results from primaries.
  #207  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:10 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
I would like to make a prediction: if Biden and Sanders are both in, it's a two person race by South Carolina. You can talk all you want about 20-30 candidates who are possibly viable, but if those two big guns are in, they start out with a huge following and name recognition. Biden has the Obama coalition and the establishment and Sanders has his constituency. I see no way for anyone else to break in between them.

Of course, Joe Biden can never make up his freakin' mind.
  #208  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:27 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
You really can't extrapolate general election results from primaries.
Sure, I probably got a little ahead of myself when I said that Sanders might've won WI based on his good showing there vs. Clinton. Too many other confounding variables...But his victory in the primary is certainly one of the best pieces of evidence we have about what might have happened had he been the nominee. I mean, we can also look at demographics, past voting behavior, and so on, but here's an actual election in which Sanders defeated Clinton, and that's a suggestion of what could have been the result in a Sanders-Trump matchup. Dispositive? Hardly. An indication? Absolutely. If pressed, I'd say Sanders doesn't win Wisconsin, but I admit the possibility, based partly on the 2016 primary.

And in the case of Ohio I think the primary results are even more telling. Sanders supporters were nothing if not enthusiastic--all those rallies, all those stories about the "enthusiasm gap" between him and Clinton. Sure, the electorate in a primary is different from the electorate in the general, but that ought to benefit the candidate with the enthusiastic supporters where the primaries are concerned. I think the primary results in OH demonstrate that people didn't find Sanders compelling, given that he lost to Clinton by about fourteen points. Again, there's other factors we could look at; but based solely on the primary results I'm quite comfortable saying "If Clinton couldn't win Ohio, no way Sanders could have done it."

(I agree that for a lot of states the primary winner doesn't have much to do with the general election winner. Sanders beat Clinton easily in HI, WA, and RI, for instance, but Clinton won those states against Trump...easily. Clinton beat Sanders easily in states like DE, CA, and NY, but it seems likely that Sanders would have won them against Trump too. Clinton won Georgia, Mississippi, South Dakota and didn't win the general, and Sanders's easy victories over Clinton wouldn't have translated into general election wins in Idaho or Kansas or West Virginia. But that's a function of having 35+ states where the outcome of the presidential election is pretty much decided even before we know who the candidates are. In the remaining states, where the identity of candidates might matter, primary results do give an insight into what voters are thinking. Of course, we'll never know how accurate any of it is...)
  #209  
Old 12-07-2018, 04:19 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Of course, Joe Biden can never make up his freakin' mind.
Yes, it was terrible of Biden to not focus on his political campaign back in 2015 while his son was dying (or had just died) of brain cancer.
  #210  
Old 12-07-2018, 06:44 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Bidens' inability to make a decision on running wasn't just limited to the 2016 race. It's been an ongoing thing for him and continues to the present day.
  #211  
Old 12-07-2018, 09:00 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Bidens' inability to make a decision on running wasn't just limited to the 2016 race. It's been an ongoing thing for him and continues to the present day.
Well he ran in 2008, eventually becoming the Vice Presidential candidate, then ran again as VP in 2012, then decided not to run in 2016 due to his family circumstances. Which "ongoing" races has he been waffling about in particular?
  #212  
Old 12-07-2018, 02:26 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
I would like to make a prediction: if Biden and Sanders are both in, it's a two person race by South Carolina. You can talk all you want about 20-30 candidates who are possibly viable, but if those two big guns are in, they start out with a huge following and name recognition. Biden has the Obama coalition and the establishment and Sanders has his constituency. I see no way for anyone else to break in between them.

Of course, Joe Biden can never make up his freakin' mind.
Despite the advantage in name recognition, I don't think there's any chance at all that the field winnows to Biden and Sanders that early.

First, it's extremely unlikely that two old white men are going to sweep everyone else out of the way in 2020. While there are certainly Democrats, including some on this board, who think that only a white guy can defeat Trump in the general election, there are many, many more who are agitating for a woman or a person of color. I just filled out my MoveOn Straw poll ballot--they asked about what qualifications you want to see in a candidate (check up to three) and those qualifications included "a woman" and "a person of color"; it's perhaps instructive that none of them was "a white man whose age is rapidly approaching 80." The folks that lean toward a woman or a minority aren't going away, and I have no doubt there will be enough votes cast for nonwhites and women to keep one or more candidates who fit that description in the race for a pretty good spell.

Second, there's no way that everyone else will get out of the race by the time South Carolina votes. The first three states to vote are Iowa, which is extremely white, new Hampshire, which is even whiter than that, and Nevada, which does have a large Hispanic population but is not a state that screams DIVERSITY! at you. Plus, they're small--they have 2% of the US population between them. Yeah, it could be that Biden wins Iowa, Sanders new Hampshire, and Biden Nevada, but the Bookers and Harrises in the race will say--and accurately--that these states don't truly represent America or the Democratic Party. South Carolina's a very different story where diversity is concerned, so there's absolutely no downside for Harris or Booker to staying in the race through then (and probably longer...this time around Super Tuesday includes California...)

Yeah, I know about funding drying up for perceived "loser" candidates, and the media attention focusing on those who win the early primaries...but it is implausible that only two candidates, and particularly only those two candidates, would be left after a single primary and a couple of caucuses, all in states with a grand total of 16 electoral votes.
  #213  
Old 12-07-2018, 10:16 PM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Here's my reasoning: both are far and away enjoying the most voter support early on. Now if this was a Joe Lieberman or Rudy Giuliani situation that lead would obviously be based entirely on name recognition. Both were ill suited ideologically for their party's nomination. But that's not the case with Biden and Sanders. They both have very real appeal to different wings of the party. Biden in particular is extremely popular and you'd be hard pressed to find a Democratic voter who won't support him should he win the nomination. Even if he's not everyone's first choice, he's universally liked in a way that previous front runners were not. Sanders of course has his large following and if he's in the race he owns the left. And almost every Democratic contender plans to run to the left, a place Sanders already occupies. So where do any of the other candidates fit in? And to the extent the non-Biden, non-Sanders candidates do fit in, how do they avoid cannibalizing each others' support? Even if half the party REALLY wants a younger or minority candidate, how do they coalesce around just one? Harris? Booker? Beto? Gillibrand?

Current polling shows Biden 1st, Sanders 2nd, and about 50-60% support for other candidates all in single digits. It'll take a heck of a debate performance or massive establishment support to get one of these younger candidates to emerge from the pack. At this point it looks like the establishment wants Beto to be the primary alternative to Biden. Can they get a House member into the White House? I doubt it.

Not to mention California and Texas are voting early. Big state primaries tend to be name recognition contests. Of course, Texas is a state Beto can definitely win, so maybe the establishment is on to something here.

Last edited by adaher; 12-07-2018 at 10:18 PM.
  #214  
Old 12-08-2018, 09:28 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,707
Quote:
Even if half the party REALLY wants a younger or minority candidate, how do they coalesce around just one?
Yeah, that's really tough-- It'd take at least a year, maybe more.

Which, hey, look, is time that we happen to have.
  #215  
Old 12-08-2018, 01:27 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,510
The first polls that matter are taken in Iowa on 2/3/2020 and in New Hampshire on 2/11/2020, and maybe the one taken in Nevada on 2/22/2020. What happens in those polls are big drivers of name recognition from there.

The only other polls that might matter some before that are the polls taken of donors whose votes are dollars and organization. But in a huge field without clear assumed leaders the odds are that many will hold those checkbooks a bit waiting to not bet on a horse that ends up with no chance. Here Sanders is at a disadvantage. The small donors who powered him last time? Many of them are moving on to newer other faces who are also speaking the progressive game.

So sure Biden and Sanders are well positioned to do well in the first of those two polls based on established name recognition and fans. But their one and two either way won't be the news. The news will be who is three and four with the others not getting any attention at all.

And those who want someone different than the flavor of previous cycles will begin to coalesce to one of those two.

Now how it goes from there depends on who those two are. Harris is of course well positioned to take CA and O'Rourke TX. (I'm hoping Beto runs for John Cornyn's seat instead.)

Of course if either of Biden or Sanders is not one or two in those first two they are toast. For anyone else third or fourth is a win, for either of them it would be disaster. Expectations are the game at that point.

There will be likely four very live prospects going into Super Tuesday and likely after.
  #216  
Old 12-08-2018, 02:36 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,463
It won't take a heck of a debate performance (although that certainly won't hurt), or intense establishment support (though likewise).

For one thing, as Chronos points out, there's a lot of time for things to begin to shake out before the first ballots are cast. We're not going into Iowa with Biden at 30%, Sanders at 30%, and ten candidates at 4% apiece. Someone will make a stupid comment and their support will drop. Someone will make an excellent speech and their support will go up. Others will decide that the money just isn't there and drop out. With so many candidates, including so many who aren't well known, support is very fluid. I don't know anybody who's all "Kamala Harris or bust"--it's "Well, I like Harris, but I like Gillibrand and O'Rourke too for somewhat different reasons, and I could absolutely see myself voting for Warren or Brown..." Early in the race voters, politicians, and donors WILL switch from one (possibly sinking) candidate to another (whose star seems to be on the rise) quickly and easily. (And while some of that switching might go to Biden or Sanders, a lot of it will not.)

Then, as DSeid points out, somebody other than Biden & Sanders WILL do well in Iowa or NH, even if that means third place, and that person's campaign will get a boost both in terms of media and in terms of cash. Maybe we head into SC with Biden and Sanders still "in the lead," whatever that means when so few people have voted and so few delegates have been awarded, but there will certainly be another candidate or two who has separated from the pack. As the campaign goes on, those who don't like Biden and/or Sanders for any reason WILL coalesce around whoever's moving up.

Also, I doubt that Biden and Sanders are going to prove as popular as you believe. I like Biden myself; my wife probably sees him as her first choice right now. But a lot of that is nostalgia for When Things Were Good and We Had a Real President. We look at Joe through rose-colored glasses. When he's on the campaign trail, things may be different...we may find ourselves focusing on his gaffes (of which he has had many in the past), his age, or things we don't even know about at this point, and his support could drop rather suddenly. Not saying it will; just that I think his support currently has a lot of air in it which may not hold. As for Sanders, I don't think he will have a monopoly on the progressives this time around. He will not be the only progressive in the race in 2020, and I expect that a bunch of voters on the left end of the spectrum will find that they prefer somebody else for various reasons. And if that does happen, I don't think he will handle it well, and that could exacerbate his problems as the race moves forward.

It will certainly be interesting to watch.
  #217  
Old 12-13-2018, 07:04 PM
Emily Litella is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The swamps of Jersey
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
FWIW I support TPP, but Wall Street deregulation?? What bill(s) was that? Did any other top D's go over to the Dark Side on that?
Sorry, I'm a little late catching up, here you go: https://splinternews.com/78-democrat...tio-1825249063
__________________
NM
  #218  
Old 12-14-2018, 12:36 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,122
On Colbert, Joaquin Castro announced that Julian Castro will be running for president. And Julian, sitting right next to him while he said it, didn't deny it.

So while not officially in, he apparently will be.


And Sanders and Warren meet and agree: They both are probably running.

Quote:
Only the two senators were present and they stated what has become abundantly clear: that they are both seriously considering seeking the Democratic nomination in 2020. But neither Ms. Warren nor Mr. Sanders sought support from the other or tried to dissuade the other from running, said the officials familiar with the meeting.

Ms. Warren sought the sit-down and did so as a courtesy and because they have a longstanding friendship that is rooted in candor, according to one Democrat close to the Massachusetts senator. Her office declined to comment about the meeting.
But still, the official candidate count remains at two:
1. Rep. John Delaney
2. WV State Sen. Richard Ojeda
  #219  
Old 12-14-2018, 03:31 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emily Litella View Post
Sorry, I'm a little late catching up, here you go: https://splinternews.com/78-democrat...tio-1825249063
I'm a strong supporter of financial regulation in general, but I know little about the specifics; and think that some regulations have been very misguided. The particular vote in question (by Beto O'Rourke and 77 other House Democrats) seems to be
Quote:
Today, the House voted to approve the Volcker Rule Regulation Harmonization Act, an innocuous name for a not-so-innocuous bill. The bill would weaken the Volcker Rule, which prohibits banks from making speculative investments with regular people’s money (with exceptions), by exempting banks with less than $10 billion in assets. And, for reasons beyond imagination, 78 Democrats voted for it.
To make the world's Top Sixty list, a bank needs $471 billion in assets. JPMorgan Chase & Co. has $2.5 trillion. It's these too-big-to-fail banks whose egregious conduct is of greatest concern. I'm not sure that relaxing regulations on "small" banks is a bad thing.

I'd be more concerned about 11 Democratic Senators:
Quote:
In January, 11 Senate Democrats joined Republicans to cosponsor a bill to raise the threshold for extra regulatory scrutiny for banks from $50 billion to $250 billion, which would have left fewer than 10 banks in the US subject to such scrutiny.
Deregulating banks with only $249 billion in assets because they're "small"? That seems like real money to me!
  #220  
Old 12-14-2018, 06:51 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,145
George Will (!) praises Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) as the guy who may be able to beat Trump two years from now. Not sure I agree with him, but Brown is my senator and, other than his protectionism, a great guy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.eb4282bc6b45
  #221  
Old 12-14-2018, 09:26 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,747
The Sanders crowd sure has the knives out for O'Rourke. Got to the comments sections of any lefty you tube video like TYT.
  #222  
Old 12-14-2018, 09:29 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,965
I'm starting to like a Brown/Beto ticket. Or Biden/Beto. I'm fine with either.
  #223  
Old 12-14-2018, 09:53 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
The Sanders crowd sure has the knives out for O'Rourke. Got to the comments sections of any lefty you tube video like TYT.


Full disclaimer: I hate Bernie Sanders. But, if Sanders does run again in 2020, I think a lot of his fans are going to be like when you bring a guy/girl home from the bar for a one night stand and then wake up the next morning and wonder what you were thinking.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #224  
Old 12-15-2018, 11:59 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,747
I don't hate Bernie Sanders, I actually kind of like Bernie Sanders and another three or four of him in the Senate and a dozen in the House might drag the center back to, well, the center. In fact, I feel about Bernie the way A. B. Potts felt about God: "I have no problem with God - it's his fan club that scares me."
  #225  
Old 12-15-2018, 12:06 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,145
I'm not a fan of Bernie. As I've posted before, my wife's from Vermont and I've followed his career since the late Eighties. Over the course of his career he's run against Vermont Dems fourteen times and has long insisted, sometimes in insulting terms, that he's not a Democrat. For him to say that he's a Dem only when he thinks he might win the Presidency is political opportunism of the worst sort. If you want to be a Democrat, great, c'mon over and be one. But don't do it just in an election year when you think you might snag the top job the party has to offer. I see from his Senate website that he's back to describing himself as an Independent.
  #226  
Old 12-16-2018, 07:08 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,370
The first Des Moines Register poll is out. (Really? Already?!)

TL;DR version: Biden 32%, Bernie 19, Beto 11, Warren 8, Kamala 5, Booker 4, Klobuchar 3, Bloomberg 3, nobody else with more than 1%.

Full Des Moines Register story, including complete poll Q&As

For context, DMR poll, December 2006:

John Edwards 36%, Hillary 16, Obama 13, Tom Vilsack 11
  #227  
Old 12-16-2018, 01:28 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,707
Quote:
Quoth E-DUB:

The Sanders crowd sure has the knives out for O'Rourke. Got to the comments sections of any lefty you tube video like TYT.
Any evidence that the authors of those comments are actually "the Sanders crowd"? Or that they're even Americans?
  #228  
Old 12-16-2018, 02:52 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
I thought the problem with Clinton was she was too status quo which I agree with . So now people want Biden who is 76 and spent 44 years in DC? In his entire life he only spent 4 years working outside of DC.
  #229  
Old 12-16-2018, 02:55 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
I thought the problem with Clinton was she was too status quo which I agree with . So now people want Biden who is 76 and spent 44 years in DC? In his entire life he only spent 4 years working outside of DC.
It's more "authenticity" I think. Hillary didn't appear authentic. Biden does, and also--god help us--Trump.

I like Biden, and will certainly vote for him if he's nominated. He's not my first choice, though.
  #230  
Old 12-16-2018, 03:03 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
I wonder how many of the new Dem congress people for this year were not even born when Biden went to DC in 1973? I figure more than a few .

Not sure why Biden seems authentic .
  #231  
Old 12-16-2018, 03:08 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post

Not sure why Biden seems authentic .
Maybe it's just me. Many politicians sound like they've focus-grouped every word that comes out of their mouths. Biden seems to say what's on his mind.
  #232  
Old 12-17-2018, 01:13 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Maybe it's just me. Many politicians sound like they've focus-grouped every word that comes out of their mouths. Biden seems to say what's on his mind.
Yes. He is a sincere public servant, a man of the people, the guy who said of Trump "If we were in high school, I'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him."

I'm not sure Joe Biden is the smartest cookie in the jar, and I think he voted the wrong way on both of the Gulf wars, bu I love the man and he would be my very top choice ... if he weren't quite so old.

"Biden 32%, Bernie 19, Beto 11, Warren 8, Kamala 5, Booker 4, Klobuchar 3, Bloomberg 3, nobody else with more than 1%."

Beto, Warren, Booker, Kamala would all most probably lose to Trump. Bernie will seem stale by 2020. For heaven's sake, Democrats, pick someone with a chance in November, not someone to appeal to the left-wing base.

I still look with favor on Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown. If neither of them takes off, I'm instructing all my delegates to support Joe Biden whole-heartedly.
  #233  
Old 12-17-2018, 05:15 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Beto, Warren, Booker, Kamala would all most probably lose to Trump.
By what basis do you say this? I'm gobsmacked that anyone can still feel like they have any better than a wild-guess chance at predicting political outcomes this far in advance. You shouldn't feel any such confidence -- no one should. At least no one on this board. We all suck at this, and such predictions are just wild guesses that shouldn't be treated as anything better than a wild guess.
  #234  
Old 12-17-2018, 08:49 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,145
Biden in the best of times is a gaffe generator and, given his age, will probably go into gaffe overdrive when dealing with the rigors of a presidential campaign. Do we really want him as our nominee, if we want to draw a sharp contrast with the incumbent?
  #235  
Old 12-17-2018, 09:01 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,707
Quote:
Quoth septimus:

I'm not sure Joe Biden is the smartest cookie in the jar...
You don't need intelligence in a President. You need humility. Presidenting requires much more knowledge and expertise than any one human can possibly fit in their head, and so a good president is one who finds advisors who, between them, collectively possess that expertise, and then listens to them.

I think Biden can probably do that. I know that Trump can't.
  #236  
Old 12-17-2018, 09:25 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
I think it's very likely a non politician will be in the Dem race and could really shake things up. Could be someone like Schultz from Starbucks.

Now before someone jumps in and says "not another super rich guy with no experience" I don't assume this non politician person will get the nomination.
  #237  
Old 12-17-2018, 09:55 AM
Sterling Archer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,088
I think in an ideal world Elizabeth Warren would be the best candidate. But I worry she has zero appeal with rural middle America.

Beto is the best hope we have, I think, for a candidate that can make the Dems look like the party of the future.

Whether it’s legitimate or not, the Hillary debacle should demonstrate the power of baggage with conservative-leaning voters. The best counter for that is someone young and with limited political exposure.
  #238  
Old 12-17-2018, 10:28 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,122
And I know there are a lot of people here shitting their pants about Beto, but the dude's a pretty stellar campaigner. He took on an incumbent Democratic congressman in 2012 and won. Obama supported the incumbent, and Bill Clinton actively campaigned against Beto. Beto reportedly knocked on almost 20,000 houses. He ended up being the only Texan to knock out an incumbent in 2012.

And we all know about his 2018 campaign work (254 Texas counties visited, almost $80 million raised, an amazing ability to deliver a message, go viral and inspire).

Again, I'm not saying he will be the one to come out on top, but nothing he's done so far suggests he can't be the one. Fundraising prowess, inspirational, messaging, and a tenacious, unyielding and fearless drive on the trail.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 12-17-2018 at 10:30 AM.
  #239  
Old 12-17-2018, 10:56 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,370
My take on Biden is: supposing he wants to run for President, what's his platform? What does he want to be President in order to accomplish? And why hasn't he been using his influence to promote his vision of where we should be going?

If he's going to throw his hat into the ring, I should know as much about his goals for America as I do about Warren's or Sanders'. But I really don't have the faintest idea how a Biden Presidency would be different from an Obama third term - and it would have to be different from that, if he wants to win.
  #240  
Old 12-17-2018, 11:33 AM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Beto, Warren, Booker, Kamala would all most probably lose to Trump. Bernie will seem stale by 2020. For heaven's sake, Democrats, pick someone with a chance in November, not someone to appeal to the left-wing base.
We tried that in 2016 - Hillary was the safe choice intended to appeal to the moderates.
  #241  
Old 12-17-2018, 12:08 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
and she bought the idea of her being a safe choice so she did not bother to visit her "blue wall" states such as Wisconsin and Michigan which of course she lost .
  #242  
Old 12-20-2018, 11:24 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,122
The DNC announces info on the Democratic debates. There'll be six in 2019, starting in June, and six in 2020. They haven't officially figured out the criteria who gets to be on the stage, but Tom Perez says it won't just be based on poll numbers, as the RNC did it last time.
  #243  
Old 12-20-2018, 09:50 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling Archer View Post
Beto is the best hope we have, I think, for a candidate that can make the Dems look like the party of the future.
Might we, at some point, discuss the question of what Beto's political stances are? I keep encountering articles that mention his skateboarding and guitar-playing, old DWI arrests and comments about womens' boobs. But this is the only article I've seen from a progressive source that actually tackles the question of what he's done while in Congress and what stances he took while campaign for Senate, and they are not very impressed.

Last edited by ITR champion; 12-20-2018 at 09:50 PM.
  #244  
Old 12-21-2018, 06:26 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,527
Beto O'Rourke is being called the "White Obama." But there are some differences between the two men:

* O'Rourke married the daughter of a billionaire called 'El Paso's richest man.'
* Obama married the daughter of a city pump worker.

* O'Rourke's mother was a wealthy El Paso businesswoman.
* Obama's mother earned a PhD and devoted her career to combating global poverty.

* O'Rourke went to expensive private schools and finished with a B.A. degree in English Lit.
* Obama earned a J.D. degree magna cum laude and served as a law professor.

Very similar. Especially key is that both surnames start with /O/; both have nicknames beginning with /B/.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
... But this is the only article I've seen from a progressive source that actually tackles the question of what he's done while in Congress and what stances he took while campaign for Senate, and they are not very impressed.
Here are some excerpts from the article ITR champion linked to: (I hope I've pruned it enough to conform with copyright rules.)
Quote:
What kind of Democratic politician can be so adored? Maybe one who rarely, if ever, challenged the powerful.

In his six years in Congress, O'Rourke passed three bills. ... Between 1995 and 2007, when the Republicans solidly held the House of Representatives, the lawmaker who passed the most amendments was not a far-right Republican but instead Vermont's independent democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, dubbed an 'amendment king.'

... While the Democratic base is coalescing around single-payer health care and free college, O'Rourke sponsored neither House bill. If you're not familiar with O'Rourke's district, you might chalk this all up to representing a conservative region. It's Texas, right? ... But Texas's 16th Congressional District is among the more liberal in the country.

... We can learn a lot about why O'Rourke doesn't challenge the powerful by looking at the one time he did, briefly.... O'Rourke was one of eight Members of Congress to oppose the Iron Dome funding [free military aid for Israel], a group that was equally split along bipartisan lines.... But that bravery did not last long. Pro-Israel activists, including one of O'Rourke's top donors, denounced him in the local press.... He enthusiastically voted for all future aid to Israel ... ... He didn't even co-sponsor meager legislation introduced by a handful of progressive House Democrats that would bar aid to Israeli units who abuse children.

... Obama's upbringing included many trials of overcoming personal adversity, and his inspiring life story -- told in two bestselling books -- formed a major part of the case for his candidacy. O'Rourke's nature as a privileged son-in-law may make him a far less sympathetic candidate.

O'Rourke's Senate candidacy was the ultimate psychological elephant. He was well-spoken, optimistic, good-looking, and he was quick to endorse cultural memes important to the national liberal base. His eloquent defense of kneeling NFL players was an instance of him diving headfirst into a symbolic culture war controversy, ticking off all the boxes contemporary liberals look for: embrace of diversity, condemnation of racism, and describing the sins of the nation. It's wasn't surprising that Ted Cruz quickly took O'Rourke's position and used it to motivate his own base....

Which perhaps is the best analogy for O'Rourke's sudden popularity. He has ticked the right emotional boxes for liberals, and they feel like by supporting him they are projecting an image of a younger, more optimistic, and more progressive America. But nothing in O'Rourke's short and uneventful political career suggests that he suddenly has the qualifications to oversee a nuclear arsenal, conduct diplomacy with friends and enemies, appoint the next head of the U.S. Treasury, or manage the disaster response of a national emergency.
__________________
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.

Last edited by septimus; 12-21-2018 at 06:27 AM.
  #245  
Old 12-23-2018, 04:24 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
So now, the Bernie-Bros, fesh after having elected Trump due to their relentless attacks upon Hillary, then too many voting 3rd party- now have their sights set on Beto:'

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...cTBBqS6W_rjgS0
Forces loyal to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders are waging an increasingly public war against Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, the new darling of Democratic activists, as the two men weigh whether to seek the party's presidential nomination in 2020...."A supporter of Bernie Sanders attacking a Democrat," tweeted Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress and a former aide to both Hillary Clinton and Obama. "This is seriously dangerous."

Honestly the bernie-bros couldn't be better campaign workers for Trump if they had KGB badges.

Last edited by DrDeth; 12-23-2018 at 04:24 PM.
  #246  
Old 12-23-2018, 06:42 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,707
Is there any evidence that any of these "Bernie bros" are actual fans of Sanders? Or that they're even Americans?
  #247  
Old 12-23-2018, 07:13 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Is there any evidence that any of these "Bernie bros" are actual fans of Sanders? Or that they're even Americans?


Nomiki Konst, a progressive activist and 2016 Sanders supporter who is now running for public advocate in New York City,....

It started with David Sirota, a liberal activist and journalist who worked for Sanders many years ago.


David Sirota posted on Facebook that voting for Beto O'Rourke : "...will mean death and pain for millions of people."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sirota

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/26/...cate-election/
"She gained a national profile as a Bernie Sanders surrogate during the 2016 campaign, and then as his representative on the Democratic National Committee’s Unity Reform Commission. "
  #248  
Old 12-31-2018, 08:48 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,122
Elizabeth Warren has formed exploratory committee ahead of a likely run.

Basically, she's in.
  #249  
Old 12-31-2018, 10:53 AM
NetTrekker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 587
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
No one in this thread has mentioned Andrew Yang yet. Granted that his odds of getting the nomination are about equal to the chances that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers will win the Super Bowl, it would be to the Democrats' benefit if he at least made the debates so that his ideas could get some air time. He is focused on the problem of job losses to technology and proposes a three-pronged solution:
  • Universal health care.
  • Universal basic income.
  • "Digital Social Currencry"

In the interview that I linked to, he explains the last one as follows:
Digital social currency, in its simplest form, would be that the federal government goes into a particular region—let’s call it Mississippi—and then says, there are some social problems here, Mississippi, that we might be able to help address. Like, maybe child obesity…or educational outcomes… Then, the government comes in and says, organizations that are doing work in those areas, we’re now going to put the equivalent of the financial incentive in place for people and companies who help meet certain goals. And here’s how you can help measure their work and participation.

So, if someone were to…spend lots of time tutoring kids—that might help with educational outcomes—then, if they document what they were doing, and there’s a local nonprofit that says, yes, they did tutor these kids for X hours, then they could get this social credit that they could then exchange for dollars if they chose. But there would be other ways for them to get rewarded that didn’t involve just running to the bank to cash [the social credits] in for dollars. You could use your social credits to get experiences or discounts at certain vendors or trade them with others.

Then, let’s imagine that that’s successful and then over time that improves educational outcomes in Mississippi, then you put social credits to work for other various goals. And then, over time, you end up building a fairly robust set of opportunities for people.
My personal favorite.
  #250  
Old 01-03-2019, 09:20 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,122
Martin O'Malley makes it official: He's not running in 2020. But interestingly, throws his support behind the still-undeclared Beto O'Rourke.
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 07:51 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