US Politics: Dead Pimps Need Not Apply

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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

Because losing a Senate race - no matter how large or how close or how Republican the state is - usually isn't a springboard to winning the presidential election.  Why does 48% in Texas - against the likes of Ted Cruz - suggest so much more "cross party appeal" than Harris' 61% in California in 2016, or Gillibrand's 63% in New York in 2010 then 72% in 2012, or even Booker's 55% in 2014?

3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

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.

"VEP" or voting eligible population, doesn't have to do with the census - whereas "VAP," or voting age population, is primarily based on census statistics.  VEP accounts for those that are ineligible to vote because they're convicted felons, non-citizens, or even mentally disable.  This is important to do primarily because of the insanely high rates of incarceration in the United States and its states' tendencies to deny ex-cons the right to vote; as well as the undocumented workers that are clearly responsible for all the rampant voter fraud that's been going on since Trump came on the national scene.  Sorry I've assumed people are familiar with the differences between VAP and VEP - just been used to the differences for over a decade now - but it definitely has nothing to do with "massaging" the voting record.  Here's a primer and definition: 

Quote

Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP), which is based on Census Bureau population estimates generated using the American Community Survey.

Voting Eligible Population (VEP), which is calculated by removing felons (according to state law), non-citizens, and those judged mentally incapacitated.

 

3 hours ago, mormont said:

So why am I reading lots about Beto for President and not so much about Gillum or Abrams?

To be fair I think Beto has both Gillum and Abrams pretty decidedly beat on the "charisma" factor.  He'd be a far better candidate from the bully pulpit aspect of the campaign, no need to insinuate racial bias.

[Jace, Extat]

Jesus H Chryst, Che was right. Liberals really do love their fucking losers don't they?

 

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

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

Then you need to take another look at where the star power is in the DNC these days. In another decade or so I could see Ocasio-Cortez being like a young, brown, female JFK.

[polishgenius]

11 minutes ago, mormont said:

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

I mean, to some for sure, but I don't really think that's necessarily a fair way to characterise the general demeanour of the Democratic party. I mean, their last two nominees were Hilary and Obama. And out of the new crop of politicians of these elections probably the one that's generated the most excitement is Ocasio-Cortez and she's only not being talked about for President because (1)  she's too fresh, and (2) America's Overton Window is gonna need a good hard hard kicking to the left before she becomes a viable national candidate.

[denstorebog]

5 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Jesus H Chryst, Che was right. Liberals really do love their fucking losers don't they?

 

I don't know what that means, but if it's somehow a suggestion that Beto is a losing proposition going forward, your political savvy borders on zero.

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

3 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I mean, to some for sure, but I don't really think that's necessarily a fair way to characterise the general demeanour of the Democratic party. I mean, their last two nominees were Hilary and Obama. And out of the new crop of politicians of these elections probably the one that's generated the most excitement is Ocasio-Cortez and she's only not being talked about for President because (1)  she's too fresh, and (2) America's Overton Window is gonna need a good hard hard kicking to the left before she becomes a viable national candidate.

Oprah too, Kamala Harris, Andrew Gillum. This is a whole new Democratic party coming up.

[denstorebog]

12 minutes ago, mormont said:

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.

Well, simple indicators like his national grassroots fundraising numbers and SoMe followers support my argument pretty well.

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Jesus H Chryst, Che was right. Liberals really do love their fucking losers don't they?

I think a lot of it has to do with the "shiny new toy" factor.

[Jace, Extat]

8 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

I don't know what that means, but if it's somehow a suggestion that Beto is a losing proposition going forward, your political savvy borders on zero.

I'm not dismissing the guy, lots of politicians have lost. But by god there are winners! Look at some of the people who actually won. Those are the folks you need to hinge your hopes on.

[polishgenius]

13 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

But by god there are winners! Look at some of the people who actually won. Those are the folks you need to hinge your hopes on.

Yeah, but they, especially the new ones, would immediately make themselves a less desirable candidate if they abandoned the voters that made them and ran for President in 2020. Longer term, sure.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Oprah too, Kamala Harris, Andrew Gillum. This is a whole new Democratic party coming up.

Yeah.

Though Kamala Harris may have just given us an indicator that she's not gonna be a of wind of change for how the DNC runs itself if this is true, though I'm not saying that automatically makes her either a bad candidate or a bad person/politician or anything.

[denstorebog]

16 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I'm not dismissing the guy, lots of politicians have lost. But by god there are winners! Look at some of the people who actually won. Those are the folks you need to hinge your hopes on.

Again, I can't figure out if you're taking the piss or not. By this logic, a Dem who lost an R+40 state by 1 point is a loser, but a Dem who won a D+40 by 1 point is a winner, hence we should bet on the latter person.

You don't look at incomparable win conditions for something like this. You look at who overperformed, and most important of all in this day and age, who generated excitement. No one came close to what Beto did, and he is the clear pick for 2020 if he is down with it.

[denstorebog]

Also, anecdotally, I put $200 on Kamala for 2020 president back in April of 2017. The odds were sky high since no one had started talking about her at that point. I would love for her to win, since it would make me rich. But now, 1½ years later, I realize that it was the wrong choice. Kamala is a woman, she's sharp, she's overqualified in terms of experience ... but she doesn't create excitement as a person, unless she has a hidden side we haven't seen yet.

By this standard, I'd vote for Oprah over Harris at this point. Because excitement and personal charisma are the two main factors to bet on, going up against Trump. And it's why almost any established Dem politician will lose, be it Harris or Booker or whoever.

And it's why Beto is the pick. Because he gets the excitement bonus and is actually a politician.

[Guest]

Jesus Christ, can people seriously not be excited about Beto without there being an insinuation of racial bias?

@mormont, you've heard as much about Gillum and Abrams because you pay close attention.to politics. Beto is much more of a household name among those who don't pay as much attention to politics than Abrams or Gillum.

Harris and Gillibrand will most likely never make it through the primary becuase Gillibrand used to be a blue dog Dem and Harris a hard-nosed prosecutor. Booker might and has the charisma factor, but he's been in bed with corporations for a long time. Klobuchar has like zero name recognition and will probably have trouble fundraising.

Someone mentioned Ocasio-Cortez. She's not being mentioned because she won't be eligible for President for 6 more years.

Then you have the Bernie, Warren and Biden factor, who are, I'm sorry, just too fucking old. I hope they spend 2020 stumping for the nominee instead of running.

[DanteGabriel]

On 11/10/2018 at 9:02 AM, Fez said:

I didn't think I'd ever gain a tiny bit of respect of Martha McSally, but apparently I have; though only because of how much worse other Republicans are being... [My bolding]

I can't wait to see what happens if Trump does lose in 2020.

To be fair, there's a legit reason McSally doesn't have to sweat this recount too much. She's likely to get appointed to take McCain's seat if she doesn't get elected to Flake's seat.

Quote

It is widely assumed that if McSally loses to Sinema she will be appointed to John McCain’s seat. (Former and now again-current Senator Jon Kyl is just there as a placeholder.) In other words, McSally will almost certainly be in the Senate next year regardless of the outcome of this race.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/mcsallys-ace-in-the-hole

[felice]

34 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Though Kamala Harris may have just given us an indicator that she's not gonna be a of wind of change for how the DNC runs itself if this is true

It's a decidedly biased presentation of the facts. The "your donation will be split" isn't in the fine print, it's a highly visible note directly above where you select the amount to donate. I find it hard to see how anyone could miss it. And Stacey Abrams is certainly getting a lot more out of it than if Harris hadn't posted anything. As scandals go, it's pretty insubstantial.

[Ormond]

Well, at the moment I am personally a fan of Steve Bullock, the governor of Montana, mostly because I thought of him as a potential candidate for the Democrats all on my own about the time Trump was inaugurated and am amazed that he actually does seem like he is considering a run for it.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/26/iowa-elections-2018-vote-montana-gov-steve-bullock-iowa-president-trump-caucuses-rob-sand-cindy-axne/1774812002/

I don't get the idea that here in November 2018 that we know O'Rourke is uniquely charismatic for 2020. If Bullock or Kamala Harris or Amy Klobuchar or probably any one of several other people who aren't on anyone's radar screens right now manage to do fairly well in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the initial debates of 2020, I see no reason why they couldn't generate just as much enthusiasm as Beto. 

I do personally agree strongly that Biden, Sanders, and Warren are all too old, and at 67 I am way closer to their age than almost everyone else who parts here regularly.

[denstorebog]

2 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I don't get the idea that here in November 2018 that we know O'Rourke is uniquely charismatic for 2020.

Look, the math is pretty simple.

Republicans want a candidate who can

• bring them batshit crazy Supreme Court Justices
• own the libs

Trump's a lock for that.

Democrats, on the other hand, want a candidate who

• comes off as real and honest
• can ride a fucking skateboard to their inauguration

Now tell me how many qualifies for that.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Oprah too, Kamala Harris, Andrew Gillum. This is a whole new Democratic party coming up.

So much of what is positive for Dems, liberals, progressives that happened last week happened BECAUSE WOMEN, PARTICULARLY BLACK WOMEN AND OTHER WOMEN OF COLOR STARTED ORGANIZING AND ACTING AND RUNNING CAMPAIGNS AND RAISING MONEY TO FIGHT THIS TIDE EVEN BEFORE THE INAUGURATION OF 2016. Capesh?????  Why do you think they just want to turn it over to some old white guy who wants things to stay the same, i.e. keep him and his kind complacent and comfy?  And why would anyone who voted for these women's candidates vote for these old white guys?

 

[polishgenius]

58 minutes ago, felice said:

It's a decidedly biased presentation of the facts. The "your donation will be split" isn't in the fine print, it's a highly visible note directly above where you select the amount to donate. I find it hard to see how anyone could miss it. And Stacey Abrams is certainly getting a lot more out of it than if Harris hadn't posted anything. As scandals go, it's pretty insubstantial.

Yeah, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a scandal, it's just a bit weird that she felt the need to do it like that if Abrams did genuinely have one already on the go. Sure, the sign is visible and all that, but I imagine there'll be a fair portion of people who won't even consider why they might change it.

 

[lokisnow]

6 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'?

Several reasons, within the young democrat social media bubble abrams gets zero shares, Gillum gets like 2%, Bernie gets 10%, the obamas get about 15% and Beto gets ALL of the remaining amount  of social media awareness and shares. Literally everyone politically active in the young democrat social media bubble knows who he is and loves him.

the second reason is that he would have  a strong base in the democrat establishment, because the kennedys have already tacitly gone public with their support of Beto. That’s a huge blow to warren, and it’s also the same establishment beginning Obama had when putting together his vault to the presidential race.

And the third reason is we are currently enduring the worst and most divisive president since Franklin pierce, Pierce was denied a second term by a candidate with the following resume: one time congressman, failed senate campaign, presidential campaign. Betos resume: one time congressman, failed senate campaign, ???

 

;-)

 

***

as for Kamala Harris she’s great, but vulnerable, she BARELY won her first statewide campaign in California,( in California she barely won—running against a republican!) and that is probably a better indication of her future national performance than her next race, which was her coronation in her first senate race, which had the nor cal state apparatus putting its finger on the scale and skewing the results badly.