Okay. Polling that supports my contention.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/2431166002
Now the GOP as a whole doesn’t need to flip over into a bipartisan mode. Just a few seeing that as required to keep winning in their states is enough and necessary to get things accomplished.
Republican Representatives and Senators who are seen as not ideologically pure enough have been consistently defeated in their state* primaries* at least since the rise of the Tea Party movement about 10 years ago.
There is little possibility that a “bipartisan” Republican will even make it to the November 2020 ballot.
Biptartisanship is fine if you can get it with intelligent and responsible people who care about whats best for the nation.
But ignoring reality because it is unpleasant is not fine. The GOP are openly engaged in gerrymandering and voter suppression to keep their majority, in places like Wisconsin the GOP only won 44% of the vote but won 2/3 of the state assembly seats due to massive cheating via gerrymandering. half the GOP base believe Trump should be able to postpone elections, shut down media operations, he was appointed by god, think the media is the enemy of the people, think millions voted illegally in 2016, etc.
Facts don’t stop being facts because they are unpleasant. If someone in the 1940s was naive enough to think whites in the south would cooperate out of good conscience on expanding voter rights to blacks, they’d be rightly called naive and people would question if they are competent to lead if they believe such pollyannaish things.
Kent Clark making something large doesn’t make it more true. There are only politicians. They do what gets them re-elected and what they think is right which may be what I think is wrong.
For the last decade GOP hard line positioning has sold well. After a Trump loss, preferably a big one? The voices that had been saying that they need to reach beyond the base might get louder and more likely to win.
The ten years are facts. What happens in the next four is speculation and assuming no change as facts change is often groundless.
In any case trying to work together sells better and is more likely to accomplish something than not trying to
If I were running, the stance I would take is that we desperately need bipartisanship… and with the current crop of Republicans, we’re not going to get it. We need to get rid of the current Republicans to make way for a new conservative party that’s actually conservative.
I have to confess that I wrote off Warren too early, and I’m probably not alone. I’ve never really thought of myself as much of a Warren fan but she’s starting to grow on me a little. I like her toughness. I’m not sure that all of her ideas would necessarily sell to the broad cross section of the nation, but I never thought Bernie Sanders would be even remotely competitive in his contest with Hillary Clinton, either. We live in interesting times.
Two separate, almost unrelated, questions are (1) Who would do a better job as President? (2) Who is most likely to win a General Election? Among the front-runners I’m afraid I give the nod to Biden on both questions.
I’m afraid Sanders would be a travesty as Potus. I have huge respect for the razor-sharp Warren but am far from sure going toe-to-toe with Kim, Putin, etc. is the best use of her talents.
Biden would be my top choice EXCEPT that he’s already showing signs of old age. I think there’s a strong chance his health or mental agility will slip over the next 16 months. If he’s the nominee he’d better have a running-mate of great talent and charisma.
I agree with Kent Clark:
On Warren:
Maybe; polls suggest she’ll have trouble outside the “liberal fringe.”
But I don’t think “Pocahontas Scam” is fatal. She just needs to say:
*I was curious about our family lore, so took the DNA test. It showed me at the lower end of the Native genes expected from our family lore.
But on a more serious note, are we as Americans going to be swayed by this clown’s outrageous buffoonery? Is the question of whether I am one-part-in-32 Native or just one-part-in-64 more important than Trump and his ilk transferring trillions in wealth from ordinary Americans to the super-rich? Is coming up with sophomoric insults like “Pocahontas” what we look for in a Commander-in-Chief?
I’m proud of my family lore, even though it appears I’m 1% or 2% Native instead of the 3% I thought. The buffoon doesn’t share American values, even on family. He insults Don Junior. And he couldn’t remember whether his own father was born in New York or Germany.
I challenge the Buffoon to an IQ test.
Won’t work.
“I just took an IQ test, and I got a perfect 3,000! The doc said that it was the highest IQ hed ever seen, probably the highest in history. Nobody is snatrer than me, especially not thar dumb Injun woman!”
This came out 2 days ago but Warren is now in 2nd place in California; Harris is now in 4th.
We still have to wait for the debates to see how they look and feel on TV, but what’s becoming clear is that Warren is a good campaigner. She has a strong message, and she has apparently organized pretty well.
I don’t think that will work, and I don’t think she could withstand the “Pocahontas” attack in a general election campaign. This retort is nothing but an insult and would not overcome the basic issue behind it.
Almost every white person in the United States has “family lore” that they are descended from Indians. My grandfather told me the same thing. However most white people do not claim to be a minority and put down that they have Native American/Indian ancestry on forms to get a benefit or set aside because of it.
That won’t sit well with minorities or with whites no matter the gloss that she tries to put on it.
She’s no slouch. But yes, I think she really made a big gaff with the whole DNA stuff. I can’t see her sharing a stage with Trump. I mean, it would be great karmic justice to obliterate him on stage, but I don’t see that happening.
We’ll get a glimpse of her debate skills soon… Not that being on stage with Trump is a normal debate.
I find that hard to believe. Lots of white people are descended from immigrants who came in the 19th century from Ireland, Italy, Poland, etc. It seems unlikely that they have “family lore” regarding Indians.
“Almost every” might be an overstatement, but it’s still a lot of folks. And most of them are probably true: Whites and Indians have coexisted on this continent for long enough for there to have been plenty of mixing.
But even those probably had at least one ancestor who intermarried with a white Anglo-Western European person who had the Indian legend in the family.
And it may be true, but that’s my point. Every white person doesn’t use their miniscule Indian heritage to claim benefits and set asides like Warren did.
I don’t have any particular animosity towards Warren, but it is ignorance at best and fraud at worst. With the proliferation of Ancestry DNA and the like, people will see that they likely have as much or more Native American ancestry than Warren and wonder why they didn’t get these benefits throughout their lives.
DSeid, to use your own words, “After a Trump loss.”
I read your comment about flipping the Senate to be specifically about 2020. My response is that there will be no bipartisan Republicans running in November 2020, because they all will have lost the primaries to staunch Trumpists.
My fondest hope is that Trump and all who stand with him are utterly annihilated and the Republicans see the error of their ways. But I don’t see any Republicans who actually want to be reasonable making it through a primary until 2022, at best.
There, no shouting.
what benefits and set-asides did she claim?
Seriously, I don’t believe she got anything for it.
What benefits did she get throughout her life? She’s very explicitly not a tribal member and never has been, which is why it was a controversy. There was a press release from Harvard that’s pretty cringeworthy in retrospect, but I don’t think there’s ever been any evidence unearthed that she was a beneficiary of some kind of preferential hiring program.
And not that it mattered much the last time Trump was on the ballot. He had his clock cleaned in all three debates in 2016.
D’Anconia for the win! As an amateur genealogist I have perused many American family trees. Even claims of Native ancestry in families here for over three centuries are relatively uncommon.
Then you read incorrectly.
The comment is in reference to the idea that even hoping that enough GOP senators will be interested in doing anything in a bipartisan manner that shit might get done is hopelessly naive and beyond idiotic.
It includes the fact that there a few GOP Senators already who could be emboldened to go hard against kneejerk Trumpism after a Trump loss … not all are lock step (Romney, Lee, Sasse, Collins, Paul …) But it isn’t mostly about that.
It isn’t about flipping in 2020. If it is flipped then there is less need to see that. It is about the number of races that are GOP held now that are expected to be, and potentially might be in a changed mood environment, competitive in 2022. There are quite a few up. In those potentially competitive states that have GOP senators running for re-election the mood after a (preferably humiliating) Trump loss may very well be a move back to moving to a middle as those incumbents will likely win their primaries and cannot win on base alone.
IMHO believing that those GOP incumbents in potentially competitive states will see that some show of bipartisanship is their best chance at staying in office after midterms is less naive than appreciating politicians’ self-interests.
IF the GOP maintains a slim majority in 2020 those few being willing to break ranks to prove their worth to the middle will be enough to accomplish some things, even offsetting a Manchin or two going the other direction.