Jump to content
DMC

US Politics: Shutbound & Down

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

McGovern's failures as a candidate had absolutely nothing to do with his military record/status.

I know. The point was that McGovern's military record counted for absolutely nothing in the face of Nixon's narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Triskele said:

Per a comment on the previous page about Sherrod Brown repeating shit ad anauseum like a complete joke of a clown inside of a clown:

This is why I think that people are underrating Booker right now.  The biggest knocks I've heard on Booker are past ties to Wall Street and overall inconsitency.  Not small issues.  But he can talk like any politician, maybe better than most.  I think this that skill will matter.  A room waiting to here Brown and Booker with neutral expectations will never leave the room on Brown's side no  way no how.   

 

3 hours ago, DMC said:

My knock on Booker has nothing to do with his Wall Street "issues" (which I personally don't give a shit about), and I do agree he's demonstrably media savvy.  Actually, thinking about it, empirically he has demonstrated more ability to seize the national bully pulpit more than any other candidate, excepting perhaps Sanders (and half the time with Sanders he looks as unhinged as his policy proposals).  The problem with Booker is similar to the problem with Gillibrand (who I admittedly favor more) - do they actually have a true base for early money?  Both intersect with Harris, and I'd bet a lot of the Beto hype is costing Booker money.  I can see Gillibrand sticking it out and fighting for some attention-grabbing number in Iowa or NH.  But Booker?  Nah.  His ego ain't gonna like the fact he's gonna start on the outside looking in.

I'm not sure why you'd think Booker would be a poor fundraiser.  Yes, he'll have to compete with Beto and Harris for a certain segment of Democratic voters and donors, but in a crowded field, everybody is competing with everybody.  And I don't think he'll necessarily suffer for it.  If you were to describe Booker's appeal in a single sentence it would be "charismatic young black man with both executive and legislative experience."  That's pretty good.  I don't think he'll be hurting for donors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Democratic military service doesn't count. Just Republican military service does.

And Republican draft dodging doesn't count. Just ask Dick Cheney or Bolton.

Or -- the orange nazi sitting in the oval.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Democratic military service doesn't count. Just Republican military service does.

And Republican draft dodging doesn't count. Just ask Dick Cheney or Bolton.

Or Cadet Bone Spurs.

 

 

Edited by LongRider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DMC said:

Banking interests are going to do what they're trained to do - hedge their bets.  Even if not, let's say Booker gets elected on the back of Jamie Dimon.  What's the worst outcome that will result in?

He will push for (and get, because you're right: they do hedge their bets and thus have significant support among Republicans as well as Democrats) legislation that makes certain technical changes to the financial sector that result in JP Morgan Chase et al making substantially higher profits for the next 5-10 years... at the end of which there will be a recession that will cause people to refer to the subprime crisis as the good old days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m surprised no one is talking about Giuliani’s interview on CNN last night.

After months and months of saying there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, he denied ever saying that. All he knows is there was no collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians, and not what some campaign person did.

He also went on to say the only crime that might have been committed is helping the Russians hack the DNC. Nothing else that happened was a crime.

I wonder if some hint of what Mueller is doing has leaked to the WH. We have all talked about the signs of growing panic in the WH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I wonder if some hint of what Mueller is doing has leaked to the WH. We have all talked about the signs of growing panic in the WH.

I believe Matthew "Big Dick Toilet" Whitaker, Trump's hand-picked grifter, is still acting Attorney General, so he's presumably gotten regular briefings on what Mueller is up to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I believe Matthew "Big Dick Toilet" Whitaker, Trump's hand-picked grifter, is still acting Attorney General, so he's presumably gotten regular briefings on what Mueller is up to.

That chump was reported to be Trump’s eyes and ears in the DoJ, so probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I’m surprised no one is talking about Giuliani’s interview on CNN last night.

After months and months of saying there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, he denied ever saying that. All he knows is there was no collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians, and not what some campaign person did.

He also went on to say the only crime that might have been committed is helping the Russians hack the DNC. Nothing else that happened was a crime.

I wonder if some hint of what Mueller is doing has leaked to the WH. We have all talked about the signs of growing panic in the WH.

Deny, deny, deny -----> Suggest you have no knowledge -----> Argue that it’s not a big deal/not illegal -----> Say anyone would have done the same thing.

This has been the strategy on basically everything, and it’s desensitizing the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I'm not sure why you'd think Booker would be a poor fundraiser. 

Certainly don't think he'd be a poor fundraiser, my point was I think he'll be a step below the "top tier" of Beto, Harris, Warren, and the old white duo if they run.  And maybe even Gillibrand with that Wall Street cash.

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

He will push for (and get, because you're right: they do hedge their bets and thus have significant support among Republicans as well as Democrats) legislation that makes certain technical changes to the financial sector that result in JP Morgan Chase et al making substantially higher profits for the next 5-10 years... at the end of which there will be a recession that will cause people to refer to the subprime crisis as the good old days.

So, he'd basically be like every president we've had since before I was born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DMC said:

Certainly don't think he'd be a poor fundraiser, my point was I think he'll be a step below the "top tier" of Beto, Harris, Warren, and the old white duo if they run.  And maybe even Gillibrand with that Wall Street cash.

Some of the Democratic frontrunners are going to turn into a pumpkin one way or another and just fall apart.  That is, IMO, the most important way of gauging who is "electable", is who can handle the heat of a national campaign and continue to push their message.

If I were picking the candidates that I think are most "electable", I'm not judging who I like the most, but who I think other people will like the most.  But I'm only an authority on who I actually like.  That's the funny thing about electability arguments.  Nonetheless, I still consider electability to be the most important factor in my decision.  In my totally biased opinion, I'd rate it the following:

More electable:  Harris, Klobuchar, Booker, Beto, Bullock

Less electable:  Biden, Sanders, Warren, Gillibrand, Brown, Inslee, 

I don't know enough about them:  Castro, Hickenlooper, lots of others

Edited by Maithanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Some of the Democratic frontrunners are going to turn into a pumpkin one way or another and just fall apart.  That is, IMO, the most important way of gauging who is "electable", is who can handle the heat of a national campaign and continue to push their message.

Right.  I'm saying of the big names, I think Booker is the most likely candidate to turn into a pumpkin - or rather will probably be the first big name candidate to turn into a pumpkin.  If Sanders runs, Warren would be very close behind (as is Gillibrand).

16 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

If I were picking the candidates that I think are most "electable", I'm not judging who I like the most, but who I think other people will like the most.  But I'm only an authority on who I actually like.  That's the funny thing about electability arguments.  Nonetheless, I still consider electability to be the most important factor in my decision.  In my totally biased opinion, I'd rate it the following:

You're definitely right that as of now any handicapping is solely based on one's personal feelings - there's not even data to justify them!  I enjoyed Silver's run down of the 17 "long shot" candidates (many of which probably won't run), particularly the way he grouped them.  He grouped Inslee, Bullock, and Hickenlooper together in a "great western hope" category.  I think at best one of those guys breaks into the first tier.  Also, you mentioned Castro who I like and feel like I'm giving short shrift.  Just feels like he's not ready yet, but he certainly could confound my expectations.

Gotta admit, one heuristic I've been using to organize the primary field is the way the GOP split up debates into an A and B group of candidates in 2016 because there were so many.  That will almost definitely happen for the Dems, and my opinions of the field are structured/informed by who I think will be in that A group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a f’ing scandal!!!:  

Quote

WASHINGTON — Thousands more immigrant children were separated from their parents under the Trump administration than previously reported and whether they have been reunified is unknown, according to a report released Thursday by the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services.

The report found a spike in immigrant family separations beginning in the summer of 2017, a year prior to the "zero tolerance" policy that prosecuted immigrant parents who crossed the border illegally while holding their children separately in HHS custody. The families separated under zero tolerance were represented in a class action lawsuit, where a federal judge ordered that the government reunify them.

However, the government had no such order to reunify children separated prior to "zero tolerance." Some may have been released to family or nonrelative sponsors, but it is not known how many have been reunified.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/thousands-more-migrant-kids-separated-parents-under-trump-previously-reported-n959791

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Gotta admit, one heuristic I've been using to organize the primary field is the way the GOP split up debates into an A and B group of candidates in 2016 because there were so many.  That will almost definitely happen for the Dems, and my opinions of the field are structured/informed by who I think will be in that A group.

I thought the DNC said that they explicitly weren't doing that, and would instead randomly split candidates into A and B groups for two debates which will happen on consecutive days.  Presumably they'd do a reshuffling after each pair of debates, and maybe they'll do an A/B tier later on once polling is a little better. 

Bullock struck me as the best of the western governors, since he won reelection in a very red state, he's young, reasonably handsome, and in the little bit I've heard him speak, he sounds like a decent speaker/person.   Obviously he's a long shot since virtually nobody has heard of him, but if he can increase his profile enough that he's taken seriously (is he charismatic enough to do that?), I think there's a lot to like about him as a candidate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maithanet said:

I thought the DNC said that they explicitly weren't doing that, and would instead randomly split candidates into A and B groups for two debates which will happen on consecutive days.

They did?  Huh, didn't know that.  That's a good solution.

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

Bullock struck me as the best of the western governors, since he won reelection in a very red state, he's young, reasonably handsome, and in the little bit I've heard him speak, he sounds like a decent speaker/person.

I think Inslee has the best shot of the three because of his leftist credentials.  Really don't expect any unknown "moderate 'electable' white guy" to gain much traction in this primary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think Inslee has the best shot of the three because of his leftist credentials.  Really don't expect any unknown "moderate 'electable' white guy" to gain much traction in this primary.

It is true that I don't think there's a ton of appetite for moderation in the Democratic party.  But there are a ton of liberal and very liberal candidates to split the vote, and comparatively fewer moderates.  And there is a lot of appetite for electability, so I think that a relatively moderate governor who pivots a little to the left but hammers a message of "We can return to normalcy, I know how to get things done" could win.  Such a candidate might be able to pull off a surprise win in Iowa and Nevada, given how split the field is, and that would immediately propel them into the first tier. 

Bullock is a long shot, I totally admit that, but I think that being a governor might be really advantageous vs being one of a dozen senators running for office.  Congress is super unpopular, which makes me think running a "Washington Outsider' campaign could work.  Of the first tier people, really only Beto has that option, and somehow I think "Two term Montana governor" is a little more impressive than "barely lost a Senate race to Ted Cruz".  IMO the biggest impediment for someone like Bullock is just whether he can break through the crowd and get noticed.  If he can establish himself in the top 5 or so choices, I think he'd have a real shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But there are a ton of liberal and very liberal candidates to split the vote, and comparatively fewer moderates.

I think Beto and Harris (and, ironically considering how this conversation started, Booker) will eat up most of that moderate constituency, particularly in terms of fundraising.

9 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Congress is super unpopular, which makes me think running a "Washington Outsider' campaign could work.

I tend to lean towards Silver's point that this is almost always brought up as a pundit dream early on, but never actually materializes (since Hart).  I do like Bullock personally though.  But one problem in my headcanon, to bring up my weird heuristics again, is that his predecessor is Schweitzer - who had virtually the exact same type of hype and rationale, and proceeded to do nothing with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Deny, deny, deny -----> Suggest you have no knowledge -----> Argue that it’s not a big deal/not illegal -----> Say anyone would have done the same thing.

This has been the strategy on basically everything, and it’s desensitizing the country.

The other wrinkle is:

Allegations of X.

GOP: there’s no evidence, this is just a witch-hunt/speculation/fake news. We get it, you hate Trump, he’s the devil, etc. Eyes rolled.

Time passes.

Proof of X.

GOP: there’s nothing new here, we’ve known this for a while, what’s the point of talking about this now other than the Left hates Trump? Eyes rolled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I've detested this O'Rourke concept since before he officially became a loser (and thereby a Democrat hero), and your typically sober analysis leaves my mouth tasting of salt.

I do not understand the logic behind this.  Why is any election loss an automatic DQ for the Presidential race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×