Greatoneshere Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said: where does cnn find these people People love superficialities. Buttigieg's "pretty words" somehow more important than actual past political experiences or policy positions. Media really loves to create its own idols. Their biases are so obvious it's sad they don't have the self awareness to even see it, they're so blind. Buttigieg's inauthenticity alone should disqualify him. We learned this lesson before with Obama, do we want to make the same mistake again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted November 2, 2019 Author Share Posted November 2, 2019 Warren suggests Biden is "running in the wrong presidential primary." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 Larry Hogan and Joe Biden are the exact same, prove me wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said: People love superficialities. Buttigieg's "pretty words" somehow more important than actual past political experiences or policy positions. Media really loves to create its own idols. Their biases are so obvious it's sad they don't have the self awareness to even see it, they're so blind. Buttigieg's inauthenticity alone should disqualify him. We learned this lesson before with Obama, do we want to make the same mistake again? Obama turned out to be a pretty ok president though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 30 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Obama turned out to be a pretty ok president though. Agreed, but he promised a lot more during his campaigns and that's where my issue with him lies. That and I think we should demand more than "just okay" from the theoretical leader of the free world. And he could have done a lot more too like he had said he would but then didn't. He was ultimately much more ineffectual than he had led many people to believe. So I consider a second Obama (in Buttigieg) an utter failure of a choice, especially since there are clearly more authentic people to choose from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 25 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said: Agreed, but he promised a lot more during his campaigns and that's where my issue with him lies. That and I think we should demand more than "just okay" from the theoretical leader of the free world. And he could have done a lot more too like he had said he would but then didn't. He was ultimately much more ineffectual than he had led many people to believe. So I consider a second Obama (in Buttigieg) an utter failure of a choice, especially since there are clearly more authentic people to choose from. Then you may have even bigger issues with Warren or Sanders. I speculate that all the idealistic policies they stand for in their primary campaign are going to be watered down quite a bit by the time they get through the process. Don't be shocked if that happens, assuming one of them wins. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted November 2, 2019 Author Share Posted November 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, Massdriver said: Then you may have even bigger issues with Warren or Sanders. I speculate that all the idealistic policies they stand for in their primary campaign are going to be watered down quite a bit by the time they get through the process. Don't be shocked if that happens, assuming one of them wins. I'd rather their ideas are watered down than preemptively watering down something like the public option and then pretending it's the end-all be-all of health care proposals after a limp-dicked try the first time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 Booti gonna be Obama circa 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 32 minutes ago, Massdriver said: Then you may have even bigger issues with Warren or Sanders. I speculate that all the idealistic policies they stand for in their primary campaign are going to be watered down quite a bit by the time they get through the process. Don't be shocked if that happens, assuming one of them wins. Except . . . 23 minutes ago, SaysWho? said: I'd rather their ideas are watered down than preemptively watering down something like the public option and then pretending it's the end-all be-all of health care proposals after a limp-dicked try the first time. Exactly. It's a basic negotiating tactic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 18 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said: Except . . . Exactly. It's a basic negotiating tactic. If you see it as a negotiating tactic, that’s good. Your previous post made it sound like if the candidate doesn’t deliver everything, you’ll be disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted November 2, 2019 Share Posted November 2, 2019 Just now, Massdriver said: If you see it as a negotiating tactic, that’s good. Your previous post made it sound like if the candidate doesn’t deliver everything, you’ll be disappointed. I will be but I'm expecting some disappointment. Thank you for your measured response, you're the best. And they might surprise you bru. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 One candidate may campaign on ideas they have no intention of even trying to accomplish. Another may campaign on ideas they'll fight for while expecting that they won't be able to land them all and may even only make progress on some of them. The former should be condemned, while the latter is realistic and still ultimately useful. Not saying Obama was the former, but I do think Warren is likely to be the latter. I can't say I feel the same way about Pete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 "Left" nationalism is somehow dumber than right wing nationalism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 39 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: "Left" nationalism is somehow dumber than right wing nationalism It's hard to believe, but it is. Of course Buttigieg takes the worst values from his time in the military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewhyteboar Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 2 hours ago, RedSoxFan9 said: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 Holy shit that last question what the fuck (click on the tweet image) "Which candidate has the sharpest mental ability" and Biden is fucking second what the fuck I quit this party Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema- Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 5 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Holy shit that last question what the fuck (click on the tweet image) "Which candidate has the sharpest mental ability" and Biden is fucking second what the fuck I quit this party Kind of puts the whole "electability" argument into sharp relief doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 3 hours ago, Anathema- said: Kind of puts the whole "electability" argument into sharp relief doesn't it? What if I told you "electability" had nothing to do with an election, but had everything to do with keeping progressive ideas out of the public discourse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewhyteboar Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 "Electability" means shitty, boring, supported-by-banks white guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: What if I told you "electability" had nothing to do with an election, but had everything to do with keeping progressive ideas out of the public discourse? 5 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said: "Electability" means shitty, boring, supported-by-banks white guy. Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatGamble Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 16 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said: "Electability" means shitty, boring, supported-by-banks white guy. It also means appealing to centrist democrats. But yes, it also means that. It's pretty hard to expect the donors and lobbyists to support a candidate who is openly touting things like wealth taxes. And don't get me wrong, I completely support a wealth tax, I think it's decades overdue. But I also understand what Pelosi means when she says that far left progressive policy is popular in places like California and New York, but isn't going to be a vote getter in the midwest and more centrist areas. Even though they are the exact people who may actually benefit from things like public health care. And if Bernie does somehow get the nomination, and pushes the Green New Deal, it would be easier to just cancel the election and give Trump four more years. (I'm being facetious about cancelling the election, obviously). Too many poor states see this as a direct attack on their livelihoods. Thats why Trump fighting against things like solar and wind power, and touting things like "Clean" coal (wtf? All these years later and still nobody knows what that is) and promising de-regulation went over so well in a lot of places. I know people want to believe it was only racism that got Trump elected, and want to ignore or deny that economic anxiety was a part of the problem, but it's a very real thing (which is often coupled with racism, I completely agree that racism still played a major part in this mess). People are not going to vote against what they see as their best interest, even if it hurts other people whom they believe they have nothing in common with. The last three years of democrats claiming everyone who voted for Trump is racist has probably done nothing but increase the racist tendacies of people who voted for him. And the constant attacks and "call out culture" hasn't won the left very many new voters. I think the best hope democrats have is a 2008 kind of turnout, where democrats who don't usually vote come out in force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted November 3, 2019 Author Share Posted November 3, 2019 The idea that the progressive policies don't work in the midwest -- places where progressive ideas have long histories -- shows me that people need to beef up on the histories behind places like Wisconsin, Minnesota and Kansas. If you think Democrats haven't gained new voters, their 10 million vote margin and wins in ruby red areas the past two years would like a word with you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 How to say nothing in a whole paragraph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 This is overall bleak. Polls this far aout aren't the best, but if even Biden is within the MoE let's just nominate him and lose everything so progressive policies and candidates aren't blamed for hilldawging 2020. (It is important to note that all but 2 state/candidate matchups are within the margin of error) Though I do submit that if ideology was a driving favor in the divide, Warren would be running better than Sanders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Man if Trump wins 2020 while losing the popular vote by 8%...the US is fucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 lol, if Dems win PA and AZ but lose WI, MI, and NC, Florida will be the state that determines the president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 That is extremely unlikely to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 12 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: Man if Trump wins 2020 while losing the popular vote by 8%...the US is fucked. I know its possible but if the vote swing that much nationally, its really unlikely that it doesn't swing enough to override the 70k votes that put him in the WH from PA, MI, and WI. Especially since Wolf just won in PA in 2018 by 18%. I expect WI and MI to still be close, though MI, MN, and WI are seeing an uptick in unemployment as the manufacturing sector takes a beating from the trade war. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/04/unemployment-is-climbing-key-swing-states-including-michigan-wisconsin/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Emerson has Warren up 8 over Trump in Michigan, whereas NYT has Trump up by 7. Both new polls. These polls are worthless right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 I've heard the Emerson poll methodology was particularly bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 Regarding that NYT poll: I think the lesson here is NOT that polls a year beforehand are trash. The lessons are: 1. Dems need to start appealing to a base through more leftist politics and policies 2. The NYT's narratives are junk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted November 4, 2019 Share Posted November 4, 2019 26 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: I've heard the Emerson poll methodology was particularly bad Explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.