Jump to content
DMC

US Politics: Shutbound & Down

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

(and yes, he really did give out copies of Atlas Shrugged).

At least he is not doing any damage by giving it to staffers. If he gave all those copies to schools he might do real damage to the minds of young kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point on Iowa re "midwest' Although as a side note, calling PA midwestern boggles my mind. OH pushes it from my perspective.

I don't disagree that I would like a younger candidate, but I don't like letting externalities sway me (age/gender/(long list) etc) Let a candidate's ideas and record stand on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Fair point on Iowa re "midwest' Although as a side note, calling PA midwestern boggles my mind.

Yeah, calling PA midwest is pretty silly, especially if you just look at a map.  It's just easier to use Midwest as shorthand than writing "those three states" over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

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.

I'm not a Sanders support currently, I lean more towards Harris, but you can't argue that Sanders does not excite the youth vote. One of the most surprising part of the primary for me was that Sanders captured women 18-29. So age is perhaps not everything, although two older candidates were competing.

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


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

I'm not a Sanders support currently, I lean more towards Harris, but you can't argue that Sanders does not excite the youth vote. One of the most surprising part of the primary for me was that Sanders captured women 18-29. So age is perhaps not everything, although two older candidates were competing.

I agree, but that was 2016.  I voted for Sanders in the primary.  I just think that today, the party has moved left, and he's no longer the only option to Clinton.  I think half the reason he was popular with younger voters is that he wasn't Clinton.  Most of his policy stuff I'm down with in a general way but I was a little concerned that his foreign policy wasn't more openly pacifist.  I think the best thing Sanders did was show that there is a lot of popular support for a more progressive domestic agenda that really seeks to address income inequality.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

I agree, but that was 2016.  I voted for Sanders in the primary.  I just think that today, the party has moved left, and he's no longer the only option to Clinton.  I think half the reason he was popular with younger voters is that he wasn't Clinton.  Most of his policy stuff I'm down with in a general way but I was a little concerned that his foreign policy wasn't more openly pacifist.  I think the best thing Sanders did was show that there is a lot of popular support for a more progressive domestic agenda that really seeks to address income inequality.  

Well he barely had a foreign policy. I was somewhat concerned about that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Well he barely had a foreign policy. I was somewhat concerned about that. 

I mean if you start with the premise that the president can dictate foreign policy independent of the military industrial complex, having none is certainly better than any US foreign policy since, well, basically ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

I don't disagree that I would like a younger candidate, but I don't like letting externalities sway me (age/gender/(long list) etc) Let a candidate's ideas and record stand on their own.

I don't think the age factor can reasonably be discounted. We need someone to do a punishing job for eight years, that doesn't start for another two years. People like Warren and Sanders might be fully up to the task of campaigning now, but what shape will they be in a decade's time? It's certainly possible that they'd be fine, but I'm not comfortable with the odds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I mean if you start with the premise that the president can dictate foreign policy independent of the military industrial complex, having none is certainly better than any US foreign policy since, well, basically ever.

Sure, but he is running for President and just because he does not talk much about his foreign policy does not mean he does not have one. It just means he is not telling us. I understand he probably did that due to messaging. His greatest strength perhaps was staying on message on economic issues. But not knowing much of what he would do if given control of foreign policy was somewhat concerning to me as a voter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Western PA, and Ohio, if they aren't part of the Midwest, what are they?  

Yeah Ohio is literally part of the Midwest according to census region.  And while PA is in the Northeast, Western PA is much more similar to the midwest than (most of) the rest of the Northeast.  A simpler way (and more flexible) term to describe this is the rust belt.

23 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I agree, but that was 2016.  I voted for Sanders in the primary.  I just think that today, the party has moved left, and he's no longer the only option to Clinton. 

Yep exactly.  There was almost literally no one else to be excited about if you had misgivings about Hillary.  Four years later changes things, plus there's plenty of other candidates for the youth to get excited about.

Share this post


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

I sure hope that you guys are right.  But so much already big deal stuff has proven not to be in our new abnormal.  

It's good that you're developing some intuition for spotting things that are probably not a big deal. For future reference, the fact that the story originated in BuzzFeed is also a rather strong indicator. Interestingly enough, Mueller's office decided to quash this one directly:

Quote

Special counsel Robert Mueller's office disputed an explosive story from BuzzFeed News as "not accurate" Friday night, after the news outlet reported the President had directed his personal attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, for which Cohen was later prosecuted.

"BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate," said Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller's office, in a statement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's good that you're developing some intuition for spotting things that are probably not a big deal. For future reference, the fact that the story originated in BuzzFeed is also a rather strong indicator. Interestingly enough, Mueller's office decided to quash this one directly:

 

Buzzfeed also responded asking Muellers office to clarify what wasn't correct and how it wasn't correct. Also that they were confident in their report and the evidence they were given and stand behind their reporter 100%. Which clouds the issue for me because they could get sued into the dirt over a false article.

Share this post


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

Buzzfeed also responded asking Muellers office to clarify what wasn't correct and how it wasn't correct. Also that they were confident in their report and the evidence they were given and stand behind their reporter 100%. Which clouds the issue for me because they could get sued into the dirt over a false article.

Mueller isn't going to provide any additional clarity to Buzzfeed, and I really doubt that Mueller is lying.  On the other hand, one of the authors on the buzzfeed article has a checkered past, which was pointed out by other news organizations earlier today, and so far zero other news organizations have been able to corroborate the allegations in the article.  So, it seems very likely that Buzzfeed's article contains multiple material errors.  No way to tell what the errors are until Mueller submits his report, and even then, it will depend on what portions of Mueller's report are made public.

Trump and his supporters are going to have a field day with this.  It bolsters his claims of fake news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you mean Leopold who was a finalist for a Pulitzer prize last year? Sure, he does but he's also broken big stories. Cormier also doesnt seem to have any skeletons far as I have read.

Share this post


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

×