US Politics: Shutbound & Down

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Home state advantages don’t matter anymore. If they did, Gore would have been president.

Gore did not carry his home state. That is why he wasn't president (along with some shenanigans in other states, but never mind). 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Let's not get crazy, they almost assuredly have not found anything of the sort.  What they have is an anonymous account from someone who lives on the border that she has "seen" prayer rugs.  But you'd think that if these rugs really existed, there would be photographs of them, or the actual rugs in storage somewhere? 

Trump isn't trying to scare you with prayer rugs.  He's trying to scare you with imaginary prayer rugs. 

If this person saw rugs they were probably Southwest Indian tribal rugs . . . .  Same thing of course, since those damned uppity First Peoples refuse to stay locked up on their reservations, object to their water sources and land being polluted by toxic fracking and gasp! even expect to vote!

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Hilarious that he uses the religious litmus test defense considering that being Christian has basically been a litmus test of its own.  Oh, and hey Pence, there are plenty of Christians who have no issue with LGBTQ people being treated like people.  Don't hide your bigotry behind your faith.

 

Source required.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's not that having a Midwesterner on the ticket is important, but rather that the nominee has Midwestern appeal.  Obviously to find a Midwesterner candidate you gotta go all the way down to Brown and Klobuchar.  Who has midwestern appeal among the top tier?  We'll see.  Honestly, other than Biden, I have a hard time even coming up with a prior for Harris/Beto/Booker/Gillibrand.  

Keep in mind, the Midwest is far from monolithic. Wisconsin is very different from Nebraska, etc. I think there are pockets where Harris, Beto and Booker could have success. Gillibrand is the one among who you listed that I think will have no chance out here, but then again I don’t think she’ll be the nominee or on the ticket.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

41 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Gore did not carry his home state. That is why he wasn't president (along with some shenanigans in other states, but never mind). 

I know, that was the point I was making. And since Gore’s defeat, neither party has really cared if a hypothetical candidate could deliver a certain state, which used to be a common theme in politics.  

[Jace, Extat]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I know, that was the point I was making. And since Gore’s defeat, neither party has really cared if a hypothetical candidate could deliver a certain state, which used to be a common theme in politics.  

There is still a value to be assigned home states I think, but certainly mass mendacious spurred polarization has diminished the expected returns. I have no issues with picking a popular VEEP from a swing (or even Red!) state. It's an irrelevant job to which the public irrationally ascribes importance, so there's nothing lost by throwing a bone to the unclean filth who think their political pop star is a savior. 

So it's a perfect nothing job for perfect nothing people who have broad appeal... people like... wait for it... keep waiting... Beto O'Roruke! He talks good, looks good I guess (no), and people will throw money at him if he's your backup dancer. This is the way to put Texas in play without getting bogged down. Send the VEEP candidate there to hoover up donations and stay out of the way. 

If there is a hard rule for picking a VEEP, it's NO FUCKING SENATORS.

[Gertrude]

Right now this midwesterner is liking Warren. Harris I don't know much about (platform wise) but kind of gut feelings says no. She did impress me in a few hearings I saw her in because she was more about the business than the optics of it. Booker and Gillibrand seem opportunistic and grand-standy. Beto I know nothing about other than he's a really cool guy who was in a band. Warren has a good platform and credibility to me. She believes in what she's fighting for and her resume shows it. So basically 'genuine' is a key word for me, for whatever that's worth and however elusive that tag is. Interested to see what Sanders does.

I was watching an interview with Gillibrand recently (on Maddow, maybe?) That really turned me off. She was trying soooo hard to give an impassioned speech and it came off as fake to me. Who knows, it may have been real, but it felt more like a show.

As I said, I don't have a horse in this race yet because - holy shit, we have time. Can we not have a constant campaign cycle in this country and actually expect our politicians to do some fucking work? I don't blame any individual candidate for pushing it up and getting their name out there early - that's how the game is played. That's why we (the people) need to try and put some brakes on this monster. I would love legislation to limit the campaign cycles and funding, yada, yada.

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Right now this midwesterner is liking Warren. Harris I don't know much about (platform wise) but kind of gut feelings says no. She did impress me in a few hearings I saw her in because she was more about the business than the optics of it. Booker and Gillibrand seem opportunistic and grand-standy. Beto I know nothing about other than he's a really cool guy who was in a band. Warren has a good platform and credibility to me. She believes in what she's fighting for and her resume shows it. So basically 'genuine' is a key word for me, for whatever that's worth and however elusive that tag is. Interested to see what Sanders does.

I was watching an interview with Gillibrand recently (on Maddow, maybe?) That really turned me off. She was trying soooo hard to give an impassioned speech and it came off as fake to me. Who knows, it may have been real, but it felt more like a show.

As I said, I don't have a horse in this race yet because - holy shit, we have time. Can we not have a constant campaign cycle in this country and actually expect our politicians to do some fucking work? I don't blame any individual candidate for pushing it up and getting their name out there early - that's how the game is played. That's why we (the people) need to try and put some brakes on this monster. I would love legislation to limit the campaign cycles and funding, yada, yada.

In Japan their cycle is like 3 weeks. 

3 WEEKS!!!

I'd donate my legs to science right now to get that one on the books here.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I know, that was the point I was making. And since Gore’s defeat, neither party has really cared if a hypothetical candidate could deliver a certain state, which used to be a common theme in politics.  

Wasn't Paul Ryan supposed to deliver Wisconsin, before he got schooled Biden style on national television?

 

[Zorral]

36 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I know, that was the point I was making. And since Gore’s defeat, neither party has really cared if a hypothetical candidate could deliver a certain state, which used to be a common theme in politics.  

I disagree here since if Gore had carried Tennessee he may well have been potus.

[lokisnow]

17 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I disagree here since if Gore had carried Tennessee he may well have been potus.

If gore had carried new hamphshire (down by 7000 votes) he’d have won, but instead, 22,000 new hamphshire voters thought they would really get an awesome outcome in line with their goals by voting with all their hearts for Ralph Nader insuring everything they valued would be systematically attacked and destroyed, but hey, they probably felt really good about my myself and I while they did it.

[Larry of the Lawn]

8 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

If gore had carried new hamphshire (down by 7000 votes) he’d have won, but instead, 22,000 new hamphshire voters thought they would really get an awesome outcome in line with their goals by voting with all their hearts for Ralph Nader insuring everything they valued would be systematically attacked and destroyed, but hey, they probably felt really good about my myself and I while they did it.

Live free or die, mofo

[James Arryn]

Trump is making a major announcement about the Humanitarian Crises that are stealing our jobs at 3pm tomorrow. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

There is still a value to be assigned home states I think, but certainly mass mendacious spurred polarization has diminished the expected returns. I have no issues with picking a popular VEEP from a swing (or even Red!) state. It's an irrelevant job to which the public irrationally ascribes importance, so there's nothing lost by throwing a bone to the unclean filth who think their political pop star is a savior. 

So it's a perfect nothing job for perfect nothing people who have broad appeal... people like... wait for it... keep waiting... Beto O'Roruke! He talks good, looks good I guess (no), and people will throw money at him if he's your backup dancer. This is the way to put Texas in play without getting bogged down. Send the VEEP candidate there to hoover up donations and stay out of the way. 

If there is a hard rule for picking a VEEP, it's NO FUCKING SENATORS.

First, don't you roar at me Jace!

Second, while I have never been on board with Beto as the nominee, he does make a lot of sense as the VP. He would do well in the debate, raise a ton of money, possibly help in some red states and if the Dems lose they aren't giving anything up with him. 

[S John]

I just hope the Dem nominee is on the youngish side of things.  Looking forward to seeing a debate between someone in their prime and Donald ‘old man yells at cloud’ Trump.  

By the time we got to the General in ‘16 it was dueling geriatrics and I would like to see Trump juxtaposed with someone younger, maybe get a Kennedy/ Nixon effect.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Wasn't Paul Ryan supposed to deliver Wisconsin, before he got schooled Biden style on national television?

 

I mean you did here people say that, but I feel like it was very secondary. Ryan was extremely popular among Republicans back then and he and Mitt were actually a natural fit. That said, watching Paul Ryan's fall from grace has been a delight. One of my best friends in the political world used to be a staffer for him (and yes, he really did give out copies of Atlas Shrugged). I asked how he felt about Ryan early on in 2017. He basically said he was a capitulating coward and he had lost all respect for the man (my buddy was a early and loud anti-Trumper).

41 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I disagree here since if Gore had carried Tennessee he may well have been potus.

I know, but he didn't By the logic you're using, Brown should be the clear front runner because he's the only candidate that can deliver a state that's not locked up.

[Darzin]

10 minutes ago, S John said:

I just hope the Dem nominee is on the youngish side of things.  Looking forward to seeing a debate between someone in their prime and Donald ‘old man yells at cloud’ Trump.  

By the time we got to the General in ‘16 it was dueling geriatrics and I would like to see Trump juxtaposed with someone younger, maybe get a Kennedy/ Nixon effect.

I think this is essential, and why even though on policy I probably agree with Bernie and Warren the most I probably won't support either in the primary. Bernie is too old and Warren while she looks younger is still old and frankly I don't think she has what it takes to stand up to Trump. I agree the that the contrast of young put together democrat vs old ranting Trump will make great optics.

So Beto, Gillibrand, Castro, Harris we will see how the campaign goes but those are who I'm looking at. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Another reason to want a younger candidate is practical: tech. It's cringe inducing watching septuagenarians and octogenarians ask questions in these hearings with the top people in the tech industry. You need people in charge who have some degree of tech savviness, not, say, a 72 year old man who doesn't use computers.....

[Larry of the Lawn]

17 minutes ago, Darzin said:

I think this is essential, and why even though on policy I probably agree with Bernie and Warren the most I probably won't support either in the primary. Bernie is too old and Warren while she looks younger is still old and frankly I don't think she has what it takes to stand up to Trump. I agree the that the contrast of young put together democrat vs old ranting Trump will make great optics.

So Beto, Gillibrand, Castro, Harris we will see how the campaign goes but those are who I'm looking at. 

Just wanted to say that on voting record, Gillibrand is probably right there with Sanders and Warren, and currently probably sits to the left of both of them.  She took a lot of flak for her comments on Franken, but out of the entire field, she's my favorite right now.  I don't think she's very 'electable' but I think policy-wise she's a cut above the rest in substance and stance.

I like Harris but the fact that she's kind of a cop freaks me out a little bit.  

Beto I think would be vulnerable on his DUI he tried to run away from but apparently it's not much of an issue.  Policy wise he is way to centrist for me, but I'd vote for anyone you listed.  I like Booker and that he isn't afraid to actually take a stand on shit bit I'm kind of nervous about his big pharma $.  Agree that Warren and Sanders are too old.  

If the Dems wanna win in 2020 they need to turn out the under 30 vote.  If they could get 75% of college students to vote they'd probably be unstoppable.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Keep in mind, the Midwest is far from monolithic. Wisconsin is very different from Nebraska, etc.

When I say "Midwest," I basically specifically mean how the candidate is doing in MI/PA/WI (and I guess maybe Iowa and Ohio, but Ohio looks gone and Iowa's less likely to be decisive).  The three are similar enough that a candidate's performance in one of these states is an indicator for how she's doing in the other two.

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Gillibrand is the one among who you listed that I think will have no chance out here, but then again I don’t think she’ll be the nominee or on the ticket.

Gillibrand actually is the only one of the four mentioned with anything on her resume that suggests she could do well - starting out in upstate New York, which is fairly similar to non-Philly PA.  Of course, she's taken a huge left turn in the 10 years since being appointed Senator (which is one of her main problems in and of itself), so who knows.