Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 01-03-2019, 09:25 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
Uh, Martin? Nobody cares. Just thought you ought to know.
  #252  
Old 01-03-2019, 10:51 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetTrekker View Post
My personal favorite.
Re: Andrew Yang.

He probably has no chance to win the election, but if he can draw attention to the issues he's talking about, then that would be a victory for the progressive cause. I tend to think that too much of the focus is on Medicare-for-All and the Fight for $15, which isn't to say I'm outright opposed to these measures, but I think they somewhat miss the bigger problems we're facing.
  #253  
Old 01-03-2019, 10:57 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Uh, Martin? Nobody cares. Just thought you ought to know.
I care, damn you!
  #254  
Old 01-03-2019, 11:44 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,763
I'm having a hard time seeing "Let's pay people something that's totally just money but I'm not going to call it that for some reason, to solve problems" as a serious policy suggestion. Well, yes, of course we're going to pay people money to solve problems. If you're not already taking that for granted, you need some remedial classes before you can run for office.
  #255  
Old 01-03-2019, 11:58 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I'm having a hard time seeing "Let's pay people something that's totally just money but I'm not going to call it that for some reason, to solve problems" as a serious policy suggestion. Well, yes, of course we're going to pay people money to solve problems. If you're not already taking that for granted, you need some remedial classes before you can run for office.
No kidding. Plus Universal Basic Income is an interesting concept that may be useful in the future but no way is it something that should be part of a major party's political agenda at the moment.
  #256  
Old 01-03-2019, 12:22 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
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.
So...supporters of one candidate are being critical of another candidate? Horrors!

And I know you've been told this over and over and over again, and insist on continuing to repeat falsehoods, but one more time:

About 90% of Sanders voters supported Clinton in the general election, which is exactly in line with what supporters of the primary loser usually do. Sanders himself endorsed Clinton and campaigned actively for her throughout the general election campaign. The number of voters supporting Jill Stein was just about exactly the same as it had been in 2012, so clearly Bernie's campaign didn't help her.

In short, there is no reason whatsoever to blame the 2016 election loss on Sanders or his supporters. If you voted for Hillary in the primary and want someone to blame for Trump, look in the mirror.
  #257  
Old 01-03-2019, 01:53 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I'm having a hard time seeing "Let's pay people something that's totally just money but I'm not going to call it that for some reason, to solve problems" as a serious policy suggestion. Well, yes, of course we're going to pay people money to solve problems. If you're not already taking that for granted, you need some remedial classes before you can run for office.
I don't know whether Yang takes himself seriously, but Bernie Sanders demonstrated the value of campaigning on crazy ideas that may not be that crazy after all. I can't speak for Yang, but based on the limited amount about him that I've read, he seems to be a brainstorm candidate. The price of intellectual energy is that some ideas end up being not so practical, but it's good that someone is bringing attention to the challenges of a displaced workforce and talking about what solutions to this problem might look like.
  #258  
Old 01-03-2019, 02:14 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
No kidding. Plus Universal Basic Income is an interesting concept that may be useful in the future but no way is it something that should be part of a major party's political agenda at the moment.
I don't see it as part of the party's platform currently; he's simply putting it out there in the marketplace of ideas, which isn't really a problem, IMO.
  #259  
Old 01-03-2019, 02:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
So...supporters of one candidate are being critical of another candidate? Horrors!

And I know you've been told this over and over and over again, and insist on continuing to repeat falsehoods, but one more time:

About 90% of Sanders voters supported Clinton in the general election, which is exactly in line with what supporters of the primary loser usually do. Sanders himself endorsed Clinton and campaigned actively for her throughout the general election campaign. The number of voters supporting Jill Stein was just about exactly the same as it had been in 2012, so clearly Bernie's campaign didn't help her.

In short, there is no reason whatsoever to blame the 2016 election loss on Sanders or his supporters. If you voted for Hillary in the primary and want someone to blame for Trump, look in the mirror.
They shouldnt be, if they are in the same party. Look, talk up your candidate all you want. Compare him to others, even. But dont make up lies and shit just to ruin a fellow dems chances.

Yes, Sanders did. But he didnt call off his dogs. And he didnt concede until well after the decision was mathematically over.

Indeed there is- Bernie bros continued to spread GOP and Kremlin Fake news about Hillary, even after Sanders endorsed her.
  #260  
Old 01-03-2019, 02:29 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,763
Sanders didn't have the ability to call off Putin's dogs.

And asahi, I can appreciate a good crazy idea. Suggesting a crazy idea might not actually get it implemented, but it can still get people thinking in different ways, and maybe coming up with variants that aren't so crazy and which actually can get implemented, and maybe you even eventually end up with something very much like the crazy idea in place. But "let's pay people money to solve problems" isn't a crazy idea. It'd the exact opposite of a crazy idea. It's an idea that's so sane that everyone, in both parties even, already does it. Suggesting it doesn't make any progress; it just brands you as being completely clueless about how the world already works.
  #261  
Old 01-03-2019, 02:30 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Sanders didn't have the ability to call off Putin's dogs.
How about his own dogs? And don't the dogs bear the responsibility anyway?

I heard as much foolish (and ungrounded) Hillary-hate from the Sanders side as the Trump side; how about you?
  #262  
Old 01-03-2019, 02:35 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
I continue to hear a whole lot of foolish and ungrounded Bernie-hate from the Clinton side.
  #263  
Old 01-03-2019, 02:39 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
Which of it is foolish and ungrounded? Or even hate, for that matter?
  #264  
Old 01-03-2019, 03:14 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
I continue to hear a whole lot of foolish and ungrounded Bernie-hate from the Clinton side.
Any hate you hear is likely well-grounded.

Bernie didn't win in 2016. He won't win in 2020. There will be more primaries in 2020 than caucuses, and, in addition, Bernie has to register with, publicly identify as, and comply to, the Democratic Party and its decisions to even think about running for President as a Democrat. The cite I give is one you may agree with - these people are shocked, SHOCKED, to find that you must be an actual Democrat to run as a Democrat, a concept 99% of adults can't find fault with.

Last edited by JohnT; 01-03-2019 at 03:14 PM.
  #265  
Old 01-03-2019, 03:33 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
Wait, so the 13 million Americans who voted for Sanders in the primaries constitute no more than 1% of the voting age population?

This sort of irrational name calling is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.
  #266  
Old 01-03-2019, 03:40 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,192
You mean, statements like "there's a lot of foolish and ungrounded Bernie-hate from the Clinton side"?
  #267  
Old 01-03-2019, 03:45 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
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.
Well, here's the first two examples I found in this particular thread.
  #268  
Old 01-03-2019, 04:04 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
I mean, I'm sure you could find some comparable examples from the other side, but I bet it would take you more than, like, 30 seconds.
  #269  
Old 01-03-2019, 05:41 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
So...supporters of one candidate are being critical of another candidate? Horrors!

And I know you've been told this over and over and over again, and insist on continuing to repeat falsehoods, but one more time:

About 90% of Sanders voters supported Clinton in the general election, which is exactly in line with what supporters of the primary loser usually do. Sanders himself endorsed Clinton and campaigned actively for her throughout the general election campaign. The number of voters supporting Jill Stein was just about exactly the same as it had been in 2012, so clearly Bernie's campaign didn't help her.

In short, there is no reason whatsoever to blame the 2016 election loss on Sanders or his supporters. If you voted for Hillary in the primary and want someone to blame for Trump, look in the mirror.
Bolding mine.

I'm curious about where you got this information. According to the Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.84a0b8c11bb8, three groups carried out surveys of folks who voted for Sanders in the 2016 primaries and then also voted in the general election.

Two of the surveys, gathering information via different methods, determined that 12% of Sanders voters pulled the lever for Trump in the general election. The surveys didn't ask about people who stayed home or voted for Johnson or Stein or a write-in, but if 12% voted for the opposition candidate it seems...unrealistic...to say that "about 90%" of Sanders voters picked Clinton in the general election.

The third survey did have a different result: 6%. This one might possibly be in line with "about 90%," even after including those who stayed home etc., and for all I know it might be the most accurate; I will say that judging from the info given in the article, this figure was based on a much smaller sample than the others. Anyway, the article notes that it's really hard to know what the percentage actually is, so I'm wondering what source you're using.

The article notes that if you assume that these Sanders to Trump voters were evenly distributed across the states, then even the 6% figure throws the election to trump--if those voters in WI, MI, and PA had just stayed home or voted for a third party candidate, forget voting for Clinton, then Clinton would have won all three states and the election.

Now, the article is full of we-don't-knows and caveats, as it should be. But given this information, it's very reasonable to conclude that the decision of hundreds of thousands of Sanders voters to vote for Trump did indeed contribute to Clinton's loss in a significant way. Whether this is Sanders's "fault"--I don't know. The article discusses that a lot of these voters had rather anti-Democratic views on race, religion, and sexuality--they were on the whole people who thought much more highly of whites than blacks and didn't think much of Hispanics, Muslims, and gays. (And I would assume didn't think much of women too, though the article doesn't go into that.) The article suggests they were inclined to vote for a Republican anyway; I'm not clear whether their votes for Sanders were an attempt to block Clinton or a belief that Sanders was a kindred spirit where these issues were concerned. So maybe Sanders can't be "blamed" for failing to herd these voters in the direction of Clinton. But judging by these numbers it's quite fair to say that some percentage of Sanders supporters gave us Trump.

(The article, BTW, says that about 24% (!) of Clinton supporters from the 2008 primaries voted for McCain. I'm not sure how this works numbers-wise, but let me say that this is an appalling figure, and if Obama had lost it would be very reasonable to point a finger at these voters.)
  #270  
Old 01-03-2019, 06:01 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
Well, I said "about" 90%. In this context, "about" means "I pretty much pulled that number out of my butt based on vague memories of a 538 article on this topic a year or so ago".

But the relevant point, which I likewise can't point to an authoritative cite for offhand, is that it was just about typical of what we'd expect based on past elections. The mass defection of Clinton voters in 2008 was a real outlier. More Democratic primary voters voted Republican in the general than vice versa in both of Obama's elections, and he managed to overcome it.

It's a logical fallacy to blame the outcome of a close election on any small group of voters. (I believe it's called the Nader Fallacy )From memory, Trump got about 9% of the black vote, and black turnout was lower overall than in 2008 or 2012. Would it be fair to say that "some percentage of black people gave us Trump"? Sure, it would be literally accurate, but scapegoating groups for giving you "only" 90% support doesn't make logical or political sense.
  #271  
Old 01-03-2019, 06:12 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
Bolding mine.

I'm curious about where you got this information. According to the Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.84a0b8c11bb8, three groups carried out surveys of folks who voted for Sanders in the 2016 primaries and then also voted in the general election.

Two of the surveys, gathering information via different methods, determined that 12% of Sanders voters pulled the lever for Trump in the general election. The surveys didn't ask about people who stayed home or voted for Johnson or Stein or a write-in, but if 12% voted for the opposition candidate it seems...unrealistic...to say that "about 90%" of Sanders voters picked Clinton in the general election.

Also, . And given that Stein's vote barely budged from 2012, there couldn't have been that many Bernie supporters defecting to her.

Johnson did do unusually well for a Libertarian; I haven't seen any data but would assume that's largely from anti-Trump Republicans.
  #272  
Old 01-03-2019, 08:32 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Well, I said "about" 90%. In this context, "about" means "I pretty much pulled that number out of my butt based on vague memories of a 538 article on this topic a year or so ago".
Okay. Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
But the relevant point, which I likewise can't point to an authoritative cite for offhand, is that it was just about typical of what we'd expect based on past elections. The mass defection of Clinton voters in 2008 was a real outlier. More Democratic primary voters voted Republican in the general than vice versa in both of Obama's elections, and he managed to overcome it.
Right, but the question at hand is the degree to which Sanders voters contributed to Clinton losing the election. I agree that it's interesting to look at the situation in historical context, but it doesn't have any real bearing on that question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
It's a logical fallacy to blame the outcome of a close election on any small group of voters. (I believe it's called the Nader Fallacy )From memory, Trump got about 9% of the black vote, and black turnout was lower overall than in 2008 or 2012. Would it be fair to say that "some percentage of black people gave us Trump"? Sure, it would be literally accurate, but scapegoating groups for giving you "only" 90% support doesn't make logical or political sense.
Of course any close election has a dozen major causes for turning out the way it did. For a little while I collected pundits' "reasons why Gore lost in 2000"--if memory serves it included Gore's rather wooden personality, Gore's difficulty engaging the South, Gore's difficulty engaging African Americans, Gore's decision to distance himself from (Bill) Clinton, Gore's decision NOT to distance himself from Clinton, Gore's then-wife's crusade against nasty music lyrics, Nader's presence in the race, butterfly ballots, and we haven't even gotten to Bush's strengths yet. And they're all correct--they're all a piece of the puzzle.

Same with this election. There were lots of factors in play. I'm quite sure Clinton wishes that she had spent less time trying to win AZ and GA and more time making appearances in Madison and Milwaukee, strengthening her ground game in PA, and talking tariffs with auto workers in Michigan. I'm sure she also wishes that James Comey had kept his mouth shut in the week before the election, that the polls hadn't overestimated her shot at winning, and that Vladimir Putin hadn't decided to help the opposition. Lots of things happened to make the election a losing proposition for the Democrats, some of it attributable to Clinton's decisions and some out of her control, and the defection of a big chunk of Sanders supporters is a piece of it. Is it the whole thing? Not close. But it's a piece, and it's reasonable to talk about it.

This isn't Michael Dukakis; it didn;t matter whether Jesse Jackson supporters voted for Dukakis or not back in '88, because the Dukakis campaign had much more significant problems. This was a very, very close race, and it's perfectly legitimate to say that the actions of Sanders's supporters, and perhaps the actions of Sanders himself, were among the factors leading to Trump winning the election.

I would add one other thing, which has to do with Nader. I actually do blame Nader for Gore's loss more than almost any other factor: going from memory, Bush won FL by less than 1000 votes, and Nader got about 90,000. If just one percent of those Nader voters shifted to Gore, Gore gets elected. These were folks whose political leanings, at least in theory, were much closer to Gore's than to Bush's, and they chose to waste their vote on a third party candidate. That rankles more than the millions of votes for Bush that came from conservative Republicans--we expect them to vote that way, it's a dog bites man story. For avowed leftists to essentially elect a conservative was hard for me to swallow. --The Sanders voter defections, and the 8% of African Americans who went for Trump, affect me the same way. Sure, there are plenty of conservative misogynists out there who hate everybody who doesn't look like them; they're probably a lost cause. These other folks, though, they should have known better! So while it's not quite accurate to single them out, it's human nature to do so.
  #273  
Old 01-03-2019, 09:48 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
I would add one other thing, which has to do with Nader. I actually do blame Nader for Gore's loss more than almost any other factor: going from memory, Bush won FL by less than 1000 votes, and Nader got about 90,000. If just one percent of those Nader voters shifted to Gore, Gore gets elected.
At least one person saw this coming - this appeared on election day in 2000. And yes, a number of Nader supporters took offense, although most of them didn't understand the message and thought that Trudeau thought Nader supported those things in the first three panels. (I had my own version of this in 2016, with the last panel changed to, "Vote Clinton in the Primaries.")
  #274  
Old 01-03-2019, 11:09 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Wait, so the 13 million Americans who voted for Sanders in the primaries constitute no more than 1% of the voting age population?

This sort of irrational name calling is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.
In 2016, Bernie Sanders didn't run a real campaign; he used the democratic party as a platform for a cause. Had Sanders wanted to win a real campaign for POTUS, he would have played the game. He would have joined earlier as a democrat rather than just caucusing with them. He would have perhaps laid the groundwork in 2012 or even 2008 for a possible run. But he didn't. He didn't really have anything to say about foreign policy - didn't want to talk about it. If you're a real candidate for president, you talk about all the issues, not just Medicare for All and Fight for $15. Hell, even Trump pretended to be running a campaign in that regard.

Sanders ran an insurgency, not a campaign. All well and good, provided that people who vote for him know what the deal is. But too many voters believed that he was really running for president, and I just don't see it. I think Sanders was surprised with how popular he became and he got drunk off of his own popularity.

Now, in 2019-20, there's no "Feel the Bern" sensation. He's not juxtaposed against the victim of a 20-year smear campaign based on conspiracy theories. He has to answer all questions. He has to stand up to real scrutiny. He has to beat a Kamala Harris, a Beto O'Rourke, a Joe Biden. Let's see what happens.
  #275  
Old 01-04-2019, 07:35 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
He has to answer all questions. He has to stand up to real scrutiny. He has to beat a Kamala Harris, a Beto O'Rourke, a Joe Biden. Let's see what happens.
First, he has to join the party whose nomination he wants (and which his supporters think should have been bestowed upon him).
  #276  
Old 01-04-2019, 07:52 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,192
Yeah. As of now, Bernie is an Independent. By Democratic Party rules, he currently cannot run for President as a Democrat.
  #277  
Old 01-04-2019, 08:15 PM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
If Hillary was dumb enough to run she will go nowhere. You don't get a second chance when you lose to a moron.
Nixon?
  #278  
Old 01-04-2019, 08:20 PM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
I so want James McMillan III in the race. The Rent is to damn high! Most Democrats perform socialism over capitalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79KzZ0YqLvo
  #279  
Old 01-04-2019, 08:29 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,763
Who says we have to choose? I'd like a system where government-owned corporations and private corporations coexist and compete, and then we'd see just which functions work better under government control and which don't.
  #280  
Old 01-04-2019, 08:31 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Most Democrats perform socialism over capitalism.
He ran...or at least announced in 2016. When he withdrew he endorsed the eventual party nominee, Donald Trump. Painting him as a Democrat might be a bit of a stretch. (Wiki cite)

Last edited by DinoR; 01-04-2019 at 08:32 PM.
  #281  
Old 01-04-2019, 09:55 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
I so want James McMillan III in the race. The Rent is to damn high! Most Democrats perform socialism over capitalism.
Like JFK?

I suppose there are a few, but I have never met any.
  #282  
Old 01-05-2019, 06:46 AM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
He ran...or at least announced in 2016. When he withdrew he endorsed the eventual party nominee, Donald Trump. Painting him as a Democrat might be a bit of a stretch. (Wiki cite)


Maybe he just wanted to be part of a winner? He's a socialist at heart.

I actually think he has role to play in the early stages. This man seems to cut the tension and take out the bitterness of politics.
  #283  
Old 01-05-2019, 06:48 AM
Ancient Erudite is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Who says we have to choose? I'd like a system where government-owned corporations and private corporations coexist and compete, and then we'd see just which functions work better under government control and which don't.

100%. You have the illusion of choice. George Carlin was right. And lately is just not private corporations working with our government. Its international corporations buying out our politicians.

Foreign aid to fund our politics beyond $1,000 should be illegal! Quid pro quo.
  #284  
Old 01-06-2019, 10:41 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,128
Biden: Likely to make decision within the next two weeks. However, since he has "reportedly told those close to him that he does not feel other potential Democratic presidential contenders could beat President Trump," it would seem the actual decision has been made, and what will probably happen within the next two weeks is the announcement that the's running.

Brown: His wife Connie Schultz says they will make a decision on whether or not to run in the next two months. Well, duh. I reckon anyone that wants a chance, or thinks they have a chance, will make a decision in the next two months. He needs to have better headlines than this; he needs to make some news if he wants to make a name in this race.
  #285  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:11 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,220
If Sherrod Brown doesn't run, my choice is clear: https://thedudesdesigns.com/collecti...-20-unisex-tee
  #286  
Old 01-07-2019, 09:59 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient Erudite View Post
Nixon?
Nixon lost to a moron? News to me. I do recall he didn't immediately jump back into the next presidential race, but spent years re-building his political cred...and, of course, for the political winds to shift.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #287  
Old 01-07-2019, 10:51 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,220
1968 was a political eternity ago. I really doubt, in this era of the 24/7 news cycle, that anyone can win a major party's presidential nomination, lose the general election, and then come back to win the nomination AND the Presidency in another election cycle. We see, learn and know so much about our candidates these days that we tend to be pretty sick of them by the time the election actually rolls around.
  #288  
Old 01-09-2019, 03:37 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
Billionaire hedge fund guy Tom Styer is not running.
  #289  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:26 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Billionaire hedge fund guy Tom Styer is not running.
I think I speak for the vast majority of Americans here when I say: who?
  #290  
Old 01-10-2019, 08:51 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
had a typo in his name , it's Steyer

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

his main focus now is trying to get Trump impeached
  #291  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:24 PM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,246
Nate Silver has started his primary model The 5 Key Constituencies Of The 2020 Democratic Primary. He divides the Democratic electorate into five groups: Party Loyalists, The Left, Millennials and Friends, Black voters, Hispanic voters (sometimes in combination with Asian voters). And then rates ten candidates on their appeal to each group. He posits that the winner must build a coalition of at least three of the constituencies.
  #292  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:19 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,128
Sherrod Brown plans trip to Iowa. But jeez Louise, Sherrod, I feel like you're half-assing your way into this. No name recognition, no campaign infrastructure as-of-yet, basically no money in the kitty, and the only headlines these days are about you not being sure if you want to run or not. I feel like he needs to make a decision before the bigger names get in the race. He's gonna be competing for the same people as Biden and playing catch-up if he's too cautious. He may be well-known to people in Ohio and political nerds, but he's got a lot of ground to make up. Debates start in June!
  #293  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:33 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,682
Gillibrand has been chatting to Wall Street, which has pissed off the left-wing of the party. But then again, she's not the only one - Harris and Booker have been spotted doing the same, for two.
  #294  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:06 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Sherrod Brown plans trip to Iowa. But jeez Louise, Sherrod, I feel like you're half-assing your way into this. No name recognition, no campaign infrastructure as-of-yet, basically no money in the kitty, and the only headlines these days are about you not being sure if you want to run or not. I feel like he needs to make a decision before the bigger names get in the race. He's gonna be competing for the same people as Biden and playing catch-up if he's too cautious. He may be well-known to people in Ohio and political nerds, but he's got a lot of ground to make up. Debates start in June!
I think a number of prospective candidates are waiting to see what Biden does. If Biden jumps in, I expect to see quite a few fade quietly out of the picture. Brown may be such a one.
  #295  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:09 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I think a number of prospective candidates are waiting to see what Biden does. If Biden jumps in, I expect to see quite a few fade quietly out of the picture. Brown may be such a one.
That might be, and if true, I think it'll make the field weaker. I'd much rather see Brown than Biden in this race, but if Biden's the one scaring people away, it runs the risk of being Hillary/2016 all over again. No one person should clear the field because of some supposed inevitability or strength.
  #296  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:26 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
That might be, and if true, I think it'll make the field weaker. I'd much rather see Brown than Biden in this race, but if Biden's the one scaring people away, it runs the risk of being Hillary/2016 all over again. No one person should clear the field because of some supposed inevitability or strength.
Oh, I agree with you. But the more folks in the field, the fewer pots of money needed to run (thanks to hideous campaign finance laws) will be available to lesser-known candidates. I'm sure you've noticed Sherrod Brown suffers from a serious lack of name recognition, and this will be a high bar to surmount if you're competing against a Biden.
  #297  
Old 01-11-2019, 07:05 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,128
Tulsi Gabbard is in.
  #298  
Old 01-12-2019, 10:17 AM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I don't trust her one bit.
  #299  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:46 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,220
Any Democratic officeholder who endorsed Bernie, only an occasional Democrat purely out of political expediency, has a strike against her in my book.
  #300  
Old 01-12-2019, 12:22 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,340
Castro's in.
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 01:15 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