Jump to content
DMC

US Politics: Out in the Cold

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Darzin said:

I think the polling has as much to do with name nonrecognition as anything else once the primary starts in earnest I think that lead will disappear. I think in practice having a young  candidate debating Trump will make for great optics. I really like Bernie but he would be 86 by the time he finishes a full two terms that's really pushing it as far as age for me.

I doubt it. But even if it disspitates nationally, it’s unlikely she’ll be more appealing to Obama-Trump voters. We need those people back. That should be the priority rather than relying on blacks and Latinos(especially) to carry the day. This will sound cold but  Sanders dies in office I’d be ok with that. The immediate and more important concern is winning 2020.  In 2 or 3 years from now if the man dies from a stroke, I’d still count his election as a success. A young candidate will not stand a better chance simply because they’re young. Harris is not an especially appealing canidate right now. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree I think Harris is not terribly appealing. I really like Julian Castro but I'm not sure if he'll get traction. I also like Beto O'rourke I think he would cruise  to victory as a second Obama, which is both good and bad, good because I think he'd capture the Obama coalition and be almost impossible to paint as a radical, and bad because he's not a radical, though he has endorsed healthcare for all which is my litmus test. I also somewhat like Tulsi Gabbard, for some of her foreign policy stances, she's problematic in other areas but she'd be my number one for secretary of state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Darzin said:

a second Obama

It's interesting to see comments like this, which assume the most important and distinctive thing about Obama was that he was charismatic and (relatively) young, and not that he was black. 

Obama's appeal to minority voters is often disregarded, but honestly, the idea that O'Rourke could 'capture the Obama coalition' overlooks the fact that he would simply not energise those voters to the same extent. The need to win over white working-class defectors is real, but so is the need to get out the votes that Obama mobilised from minorities. There is a very real danger of taking those votes for granted. And no, a VP pick won't fix that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They(white workers) are the demographic Democrats need to flip if they’re going to win the presidency. It makes little sense for a lot of democrats to be touting Harris’ appeal among Hispanics and blacks as reason she’s a strong candidate given its unlikely most of the people of color who will vote in the next election will go for Trump. The white workers that voted for Obama need to be won back if the democrats want to win.

Eh, not necessarily.  Just turn out the base in greater numbers.  Hillary won the popular vote and was beaten by Trump threading an electoral  needle, and she did it without energizing anybody.  

That said, with her record as AG, Harris is very Clinton-like on crime.  Sanders might poll well against the field but I can't see him turning out big numbers in the base - I think there'd be more success going with Harris and VP with midwestern appeal.  

Not really sure who I'd vote for in a primary right now.  I could easily see voting for Harris, Gillibrand, Castro, Warren.  Would vote for Beto over Sanders or Booker, hard pass on Bloomberg.  

I think O'Rourke could get hammered pretty badly on the DUI, and I think Sanders and Warren would be more vulnerable than the rest to ridiculous attacks from the right.  

 

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


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

It's interesting to see comments like this, which assume the most important and distinctive thing about Obama was that he was charismatic and (relatively) young, and not that he was black. 

What are you saying here? Are you saying the most important aspect of Obama was that he is black? Because it sure sounds like that's what you are saying. 

Share this post


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

This article about Harris and her history as a prosecutor cooled me a bit on her candidacy: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/kamala-harris-prosecutor-record-2020-campaign.html

 

I’ve been meaning to look up some articles about Harris to see why people are attacking her career as a prosecutor and AG.

I’ll read the whole article, but my immediate reaction is that the knives came out pretty damn fast for her.

Wrongful convictions are controversial everywhere in the world. The immediate reaction, as far as I have seen from cases I’ve read about, is for authorities to dismiss the challenges to the convictions and defend the system. Often a lengthy review has to be conducted and sometimes a retrial, and sometimes a recommendation to overturn. Part of the problem is in many cases the crime was horrible and the public was appreciative of the criminal being found, tried and convicted.

The second point about the crime lab technician isn’t exactly shocking either. Check with the boarders - I bet every country they live in has had a similar scandal. New technology evolved so quickly and the need was so great rules of conduct and procedure didn’t get thoughtful development. Here in Ontario we had a coroner who was considered to walk on water, when actually he was spouting some unreliable bs and put people behind bars for years, people who were totally innocent. A group here devoted to turning over wrongful convictions got many of his cases reviewed (eta actually, every single case he ever touched) and overturned. That group, btw, has it’s roots in the Hurricane Carter case. It was Canadians who were responsible for his release, and he moved here and works with the group.

It seems to me that having been a tough prosecutor is darn good shield against Republican attacks.

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


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

Eh, not necessarily.  Just turn out the base in greater numbers.  Hillary won the popular vote and was beaten by Trump threading an electoral  needle, and she did it without energizing anybody

 There was already a high turn Hillary lost the vote that actually mattered. The Obama-Trump voters who gave Trump the election need to be prioritized because they are the people who could flip back the states needed for the Democrats to win. Winning the popular vote does not matter.  If democrats neglect them this time and place their faith with poc to save the day they will lose.  Like they did in 2016. 

 

46 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I think O'Rourke could get hammered pretty badly on the DUI, and I think Sanders and Warren would be more vulnerable than the rest to ridiculous attacks from the right.  

I would not be as worried about attacks from the right but those from the left. Sanders and Warren fare better with the “extreme” part of the left who were vehemently against Clinton. Centrists like Harris disgust them and will be very earnest to cast a shadow over her and may vote 3rd party again to protest. 

 

2 hours ago, mormont said:

It's interesting to see comments like this, which assume the most important and distinctive thing about Obama was that he was charismatic and (relatively) young, and not that he was black. 

Obama's appeal to minority voters is often disregarded, but honestly, the idea that O'Rourke could 'capture the Obama coalition' overlooks the fact that he would simply not energise those voters to the same extent. The need to win over white working-class defectors is real, but so is the need to get out the votes that Obama mobilised from minorities. There is a very real danger of taking those votes for granted. And no, a VP pick won't fix that. 

Yeah in 2016, poc voted almost the same way they did in 2012. Relying them to save the day in the election now is foolhardy. Yes, minorities shouldn’t be taken for granted. There is active attempts by republicans to suppress their votes and democrats need to be watchful and ready to take up the charge. But winning back the Obama-Trump must be understood as crucial. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 There was already a high turn Hillary lost the vote that actually mattered. The Obama-Trump voters gave gave Trump the election need to be prioritized because they are the people who could flip back the states needed for the Democrats to win. If democrats neglect them this time and place their faith with poc to save the day they will lose.  Like they did in 2016. 

 

I would not be as worried about attacks from the right but those from the left. Sanders and Warren fare better with the “extreme” part of the left who were vehemently against Clinton. Centrists like Harris disgust them and will be very earnest to cast a shadow over her and may vote 3rd party again to protest. 

 

Yeah in 2016, poc voted almost the same way they did in 2012. Relying them to save the day in the election now is foolhardy. Yes, minorities shouldn’t be taken for granted. There is active attempts by republicans to suppress their votes and democrats need to be watchful and ready to take up the charge. But winning back the Obama-Trump must be understood as crucial. 

Sanders would get hammered in a general election if he were to be held up to half the scrutiny Clinton or Obama were.   And I don't think he can even recapture the enthusiasm he did in 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Relic said:

What are you saying here? Are you saying the most important aspect of Obama was that he is black? Because it sure sounds like that's what you are saying. 

I'm saying that it's weird that this one important factor often gets overlooked when anointing a 'new Obama'. 

As for how important getting out the POC vote is, there are people here better qualified than I am to comment. However, it's not just about how black voters vote. It's about whether they vote. Whether they turn out. Black turnout fell in 2016: many have argued that was a major factor in the result. I'm not qualified to say if they're right or wrong. But it does suggest that there's a risk in taking the minority vote for granted.

Share this post


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

Sanders would get hammered in a general election if he were to be held up to half the scrutiny Clinton or Obama were.   And I don't think he can even recapture the enthusiasm he did in 2016.

We don’t know that. It seems his level of loyalty among his supporters that reached a level of demogaugery that approached Trump’s  Recent polls has him placed as the most popular senator in America https://news.gallup.com/poll/243539/americans 

With a majority of Americans sharing a favorable view of the man.

He’s actually polling better than Harris and He hasn’t even begun campaigning.

He probably is the best shot at recapturing the Obama-Trump voters. His platform mainly focuses on problems that could relate to them, that could give them the impression he’s their guy.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Darzin said:

I agree I think Harris is not terribly appealing. I really like Julian Castro but I'm not sure if he'll get traction. I also like Beto O'rourke I think he would cruise  to victory as a second Obama, which is both good and bad, good because I think he'd capture the Obama coalition and be almost impossible to paint as a radical, and bad because he's not a radical, though he has endorsed healthcare for all which is my litmus test. I also somewhat like Tulsi Gabbard, for some of her foreign policy stances, she's problematic in other areas but she'd be my number one for secretary of state.

This fear of radicalism is in my opinion really misplaced. A lot of people do in fact want radical economic changes. Sanders solutions in 2015 could be interpreted as “radical” but they were generally popular. Being seen as “moderate” isn’t exactly popular right now. Hillary was for the most part a moderate on most issues. She was spectacularly unpopular. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's rating have rebounded some (only about half a point in the 538 aggregate, but still), I think we should be able to correlate it directly with his capitulation. Maintaining the status quo where he kept promising a wall but never delivered was probably his best option rather than this political play of shutting down the government where he gut outmaneuvered.

He should stick to threading the needle with the electorate, which he does best rather than engage in politics. Of course, if the wall doesn't materialize by 2020 there might be a reckoning....or not.

Share this post


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

Trump's rating have rebounded some (only about half a point in the 538 aggregate, but still), I think we should be able to correlate it directly with his capitulation. Maintaining the status quo where he kept promising a wall but never delivered was probably his best option rather than this political play of shutting down the government where he gut outmaneuvered.

He should stick to threading the needle with the electorate, which he does best rather than engage in politics. Of course, if the wall doesn't materialize by 2020 there might be a reckoning....or not.

Probably not. The whole shut-down was more a waste of time than anything that won’t stick in most people’ heads in a few months. Genuinely irritated when Democrats saw it as a major victory when Trump relented. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They(white workers) are the demographic Democrats need to flip if they’re going to win the presidency. It makes little sense for a lot of democrats to be touting Harris’ appeal among Hispanics and blacks as reason she’s a strong candidate given its unlikely most of the people of color who will vote in the next election will go for Trump. The white workers that voted for Obama need to be won back if the democrats want to win.

Nah. It was 77,000 voters across three states. They don't have to win them all back, they just need to turn out their base and continue the 2018 election demographics where suburban males/females turn against Trump. As long as that happens, they'll be fine without all those white, high school educated, workers in middle America who continue to vote against their own interests. In addition, polls are showing cracks in his base and the intense disapproval is at a level that is very hard to win re-election with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Nah. It was 77,000 voters across three states. They don't have to win them all back, they just need to turn out their base and continue the 2018 election demographics where suburban males/females turn against Trump. As long as that happens, they'll be fine without all those white, high school educated, workers in middle America who continue to vote against their own interests. In addition, polls are showing cracks in his base and the intense disapproval is at a level that is very hard to win re-election with.

I find this level of disregard of white workers to be arrogant. We’re talking millions here. If the democrats turned back 100,000 in each state, they would the presidency. Instead of just relying on the idea galvanizing base, to win the day, the safer bet is trying to do that but also make it priority to win back as many of these voters as they can. Focusing on the base turning up didn’t work in 2016. It’s ridiculous to pretend winning over more white workers isn’t key. The people who make up Trump’s base will still likely vote for him on Election Day. It’d be insane to presume his defeat has a particularly strong likelihood as of now.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes yes, won't someone think of the white working class? I surely haven't heard handwringing on their behalf for... *checks watch* almost an hour. Someone cater to their every whim and prejudice before they get hoodwinked by another gold-toilet-shitting populist charlatan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I find this level of disregard of white workers to be arrogant. We’re talking millions here. If the democrats turned back 100,000 in each state, they would the presidency. Instead of just relying on the idea galvanizing base, to win the day, the safer bet is trying to do that but also make it priority to win back as many of these voters as they can. Focusing on the base turning up didn’t work in 2016. It’s ridiculous to pretend winning over more white workers isn’t key. The people who make up Trump’s base will still likely vote for him on Election Day. It’d be insane to presume his defeat has a particularly strong likelihood as of now.

No. I'm not disregarding them. I'm just not catering to them. I'm catering to the entire US and the policies that the Dems push forward and have been pushing forward do benefit white, high school educated, workers, which is very much the group you're talking about. Catering to them though with the bullshit immigration issues, the bullshit nationalism that doesn't work, with the bullshit healthcare appeals, is the wrong path forward. Stick with the economic and healthcare issues with them and hope they realize that everything Trump has done has actually made shit worse for them. A Bernie candidacy, which fails with women, suburban white men and minorities is a terrible idea.

Edited by Mexal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mormont said:

Obama's appeal to minority voters is often disregarded, but honestly, the idea that O'Rourke could 'capture the Obama coalition' overlooks the fact that he would simply not energise those voters to the same extent. The need to win over white working-class defectors is real, but so is the need to get out the votes that Obama mobilised from minorities. There is a very real danger of taking those votes for granted. And no, a VP pick won't fix that. 

Harris will be the most likely to replicate the Obama coalition, not Beto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'm saying that it's weird that this one important factor often gets overlooked when anointing a 'new Obama'. 

As for how important getting out the POC vote is, there are people here better qualified than I am to comment. However, it's not just about how black voters vote. It's about whether they vote. Whether they turn out. Black turnout fell in 2016: many have argued that was a major factor in the result. I'm not qualified to say if they're right or wrong. But it does suggest that there's a risk in taking the minority vote for granted.

If the minority vote isn’t mobilized and fired up to get Trump the fuck outta here no matter who is running against him I really don’t know what to think.  Under normal circumstances I could see the added value in a charismatic minority candidate if you’re trying to juice up the Dem base, but I feel 2020 is kind of a big one and I really hope it doesn’t come down to ‘neither candidate shares my complexion so I won’t vote’ when Trump isn’t even all that shy about his racist views.  It would be shocking to me if there wasn’t high turnout across the board in 2020.  Priority #1 should be to defeat Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Harris will be the most likely to replicate the Obama coalition, not Beto.

Maybe. There are rumblings already that this might be harder than it'll appear. 

 

Share this post


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

×