Jump to content

US Politics: Dead Pimps Need Not Apply


aceluby

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Triskele said:

As much as there's some truth in this there's also some truth in that the Dems probably won some disctricts in Texas thanks to Beto.  That is no joke.

And he easily will win the Dem nomination if he runs.  Everyone else is an absolute joke and afterthought instantly.  Holder or Beto?  Gillibrand or Beto?  

Can you imagine the margin in Texas if Gillibrand or or Holder was the candidate?  Ted Cruz, the most hated man alive, might have won by 20% instead of 2%.

Not going to bother with links, but I have seen a couple of 'Federalist' articles over the past few weeks expressing their near panic at the prospect of Texas turning blue.  To them, this is something that WILL happen in the next couple of elections (Beto is just the forerunner) unless the Texas branch of the GOP is whipped into shape, and even then they seemed unsure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Triskele said:

And he easily will win the Dem nomination if he runs.  Everyone else is an absolute joke and afterthought instantly.

Um, strongly disagree there.  If he won, maybe, but he lost.  Texas ain't there yet, so don't see why this would be this case.  Acting like Beto is the only one that can galvanize Dems in 2020 is fairly absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

But who do you think will get the votes?  Consider O'Malley's 2016 to this year's Beto.  

And dude, with all due respect...we're fighting the next war where the rules are different.  That means any Beto criticism you might have fucking dwarfed by what he brings to the table. 

I think there are plenty of candidates that can generate enthusiasm as much as Beto.  Honestly don't get why you think he's so special.  As for the rules being different, so?  How does that increase Beto's chances?  You haven't provided any reasoning for this.

Also, the O'Malley-Beto comparison is perplexing on so many levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Triskele said:

He's special because he can be an Obama-like figure who can win because he mobilizes voters.

How do you know he will mobilize voters any better than certain other candidates?  Because of his loss in Texas?  How strong will he be in the midwest?  How much will he be able to stand up to scrutiny?  I don't know how you know all this.  Could Beto be the guy?  Sure.  And if he proves it I'll be all for him.  But I do not see any reason to think he's intrinsically better than the Harris, Gillibrand, Booker group* of candidates simply based on the fact he got pretty close in Texas in a wave year.

* I do see how he's intrinsically better than the over 70 crowd of Biden, Sanders, and Warren, but that's just cuz I'm ageist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

As much as there's some truth in this there's also some truth in that the Dems probably won some disctricts in Texas thanks to Beto.  That is no joke.

And he easily will win the Dem nomination if he runs.  Everyone else is an absolute joke and afterthought instantly.  Holder or Beto?  Gillibrand or Beto?  

Can you imagine the margin in Texas if Gillibrand or or Holder was the candidate?  Ted Cruz, the most hated man alive, might have won by 20% instead of 2%.

Yeah, Beto has a wider appeal. I like Gillibrand but she should not run. And neither should Holder. A lot of these potential candidates have too much history--Gillibrand will be labeled a "sexist" man hater, and Holder did something, I'm sure. Emails all over again. What is it the right hates about Holder? I think he's "anti-police" or something. I think it's great if he is. In fact, I think more leaders should stand up to the police, but when you're running for President, that's a pretty powerful demographic to take on. 

Warren may be my favorite right now, but I think Trump will use the Native American narrative to really divide people. I hate that he can do that. It speaks volumes about the lack of character of Americans, but it will still work.

I think Beto is a good choice. I want to add to this--I don't think a white man is the only shot (I've heard this said). I like Cory Booker a lot. Kamala Harris seems an interesting prospect too. I might say Bernie, but I don't know if the Hillary supporters can get over the fact he issued a challenge to her. Honestly, it does seem like most the big options right now are white men.

You know who it will likely be? Joe Biden. I remember when Joe Biden couldn't get through the primaries without saying something really dumb. Those moments seem rather cute now. I think he has appeal with the voters lost to Trump. People like Biden. And when Trump starts his nonsense, Biden could dish it right back. I'm not advocating for Biden, but I think he's the one. Beto will be his VP. I just took a Lunesta. I'm getting gambly here. Biden may be a Me Too waiting to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I like Gillibrand but she should not run. And neither should Holder. A lot of these potential candidates have too much history--Gillibrand will be labeled a "sexist" man hater

That seems a silly reason not to run.  I think Gillibrand has problems, but this one just seems like the worry for any female candidate.  As for Holder, I don't think he'll be a legitimate candidate.  Maybe he's angling for VP or something?  Not only does he have little idea how to run a campaign, the necessity of non-stop speeches would be cringe-worthy.  Patrick has a better shot than Holder.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

I might say Bernie, but I don't know if the Hillary supporters can get over the fact he issued a challenge to her.

This isn't even in the top ten reasons why Bernie shouldn't be the candidate. And that's a long list of reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DMC said:

Um, strongly disagree there.  If he won, maybe, but he lost.  Texas ain't there yet, so don't see why this would be this case.  Acting like Beto is the only one that can galvanize Dems in 2020 is fairly absurd.

Why?  He lost by small margins in Texas.  He has cross party appeal.  He needs that to beat Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Triskele said:

That is a whole other issue, and I sure hope that Texas turns blue.

But what I'm ranting on is that a lot of people are preposterously out of their minds on who should be the next Dem candidate.   I could and almost did write 20 minutes worth of stuff on this subject.  Why?  How in a million years could you ever generate the enthusiasm that Beto will have with any other candidate?  You cannot.  Every decent American needs to focus like a laser on Beto taking down Trump in 2020.  If you disagree, you'd better make a very compelling argument as to why.   

What about Amy Klobuchar? 

I feel like the Beto worship is Bernie all over again. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I may be speaking out of line because I know less about these candidates. But... from this side of the pond, there were three Dem candidates in the mid-terms that appeared to be getting a lot of coverage for doing better than expected largely because of personal appeal to voters.

So why am I reading lots about Beto for President and not so much about Gillum or Abrams? And can anyone explain that to me without using the words 'white' or 'male'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DMC said:

Again, there are small but significant difference once you correct from VAP to VEP (voting eligible population).  For VEP, those numbers look like 2004:  60.1%;  2008:  61.6%;  2012:  58.6%;  2016:  60.1%.

Wait - you mean the US Census does not ask a citizenship question? So someone has to make guesses about the size of the eligible voting population? And thise estimates then leave out Americans living abroad?

Being fairly cynical I’d say they numbers were massaged to make the voting record look better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

So why am I reading lots about Beto for President and not so much about Gillum or Abrams? And can anyone explain that to me without using the words 'white' or 'male'? 



Well, the first reason is surely that Beto has definitely lost and is therefore available. If Gillum wins or Abrams gets her win acknowledged then they can't very well immediately abandon their post to run for President.

If once everything settles it's still all about Beto that'll be another thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mormont said:

Now, I may be speaking out of line because I know less about these candidates. But... from this side of the pond, there were three Dem candidates in the mid-terms that appeared to be getting a lot of coverage for doing better than expected largely because of personal appeal to voters.

So why am I reading lots about Beto for President and not so much about Gillum or Abrams? And can anyone explain that to me without using the words 'white' or 'male'?

Of the three, Beto over-performed the most compared to how Democrats usually do in the respective state (though Abrams had a nice improvement as well). Democrats have won Florida in the past though, so Gillum's loss in Florida is the least impressive of the three. At least that's the case at the surface level, its too early/impossible to know how exactly circumstances on the ground in those states have changed. I.e. maybe any Democrat would've done as well as Beto because Texas is souring on Cruz, maybe another Democrat would've done far worse than Gillum, etc. 

However, the person Democrats should be most excited about based on 2018 election over-performance is Amy Klobuchar. She won Minnesota with 60% of the vote last Tuesday, whereas all the Democrats running statewide in Minnesota this election won with around 53%. She got a fairly significant amount of crossover support from Republicans who were otherwise voting for their party candidates, despite being as a liberal Democrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Now, I may be speaking out of line because I know less about these candidates. But... from this side of the pond, there were three Dem candidates in the mid-terms that appeared to be getting a lot of coverage for doing better than expected largely because of personal appeal to voters.

So why am I reading lots about Beto for President and not so much about Gillum or Abrams? And can anyone explain that to me without using the words 'white' or 'male'?

Because Beto has managed to build a brand and recognition that extends well beyond the borders of the state he competed in. He is already a nationwide celebrity, whereas Gillum and Abrams aren't quite there yet. And that's going by name recognition alone; the number of people who have gotten a personal impression of Beto (seen a speech, an interview, the famous NFL clip, one of his live streams, etc.) compared to Gillum / Abrams is vast. Hell, I've been pretty into the midterms for a year now, and I've only seen one viral clip of a Gillum debate moment and nothing whatsoever of Abrams.

Personally, I think Beto is by far the best shot the Dems have at 2020 right now. If he wants to go for it, and they play it right, he could be the second coming of Obama at the time when the nation needs it the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Well, the first reason is surely that Beto has definitely lost and is therefore available.

I do wonder, to be frank, if a minority who lost would be 'available' or whether they might be 'unelectable'.

44 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Because Beto has managed to build a brand and recognition that extends well beyond the borders of the state he competed in.

Hmm. You may be right that Beto has more name recognition, but I've heard as much about Gillum and Abrams as I have about him: so even if he does have more, he isn't on the completely different level you're suggesting and would need him to be for this to be the killer argument.

Plus, there's a legitimate question about whether it's easier for someone like him to get that name recognition, you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...