U.S. politics. thread

[Ice Queen]

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I heard an interview with him on NPR a few weeks ago where he mentioned that if he ran, planning for climate change and protecting our air and water supplies would be his priority.  Glad to hear he's running, at the very least it's pushing green issues up in the mix.  

I've heard a few stats saying that people who identify the environment as the most important issue don't have very high voter turnout.  The Dems could potentially pick up a lot of votes between the GND and generally hammering on about environmental concerns.

Messaging should make clear there are a lot of job opportunities in green energy, and that the economy is irrelevant if we're living in a toxic wasteland.  

I'm a fan of the orcas, so I've been following Jay Inslee for quite some time. He's not all completely about the environment and can come off as a bit of a watermelon, but he does a good job and seems to be a pretty good governor. He always has new job initiatives on his twitter feed and seems to be a pretty decent guy.

He's been in Congress and is a two-term governor. He's qualified. Whether anyone outside of Washington will like him is another story. 

[Maithanet]

9 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

He's been in Congress and is a two-term governor. He's qualified. Whether anyone outside of Washington will like him is another story. 

Shame he's not twenty years younger.  He's a youthful looking 68, but still that's gonna be a real tough sell for a lot of Democrats.  Definitely is for me. 

[Ice Queen]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Shame he's not twenty years younger.  He's a youthful looking 68, but still that's gonna be a real tough sell for a lot of Democrats.  Definitely is for me. 

As a Democrat who is all for more diversity among our candidates, ruling out someone based on their age, gender and skin color is wrong--it's exactly what we've been trying to fight against and is, in my view, racist, ageist and sexist. 

If they're qualified, we should give them a fair hearing. We're not Republicans and we don't disqualify people based on membership in a club. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, Week said:

Repeating what has already been said -- still worth posting. Christina Greer and Elie Mystal for the win.

Additional reading/context too. =)

https://www.thenation.com/article/sanders-trump-country-democratic-primary/

Oh Elie.  But this, right here, is the quote from the Atlantic Article worth sitting down and considering hard:

Quote

But you don’t hear a lot of analysis about how Kamala Harris’s path to the nomination needs to include Trump Country. I wonder why.

 

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

As a Democrat who is all for more diversity among our candidates, ruling out someone based on their age, gender and skin color is wrong--it's exactly what we've been trying to fight against and is, in my view, racist, ageist and sexist. 

If they're qualified, we should give them a fair hearing. We're not Republicans and we don't disqualify people based on membership in a club. 

Speak for yourself. I'll limit the oldies I vote for to the juke box unless given supreme reason to do otherwise.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

As a Democrat who is all for more diversity among our candidates, ruling out someone based on their age, gender and skin color is wrong--it's exactly what we've been trying to fight against and is, in my view, racist, ageist and sexist. 

If they're qualified, we should give them a fair hearing. We're not Republicans and we don't disqualify people based on membership in a club. 

Meh.  I think that a younger person is more likely to be electable, and I care about that a great deal.  I also think that being President is incredibly taxing, both mentally and physically, and it is hard for me to believe that someone in their 70s is going to be the best choice available. 

[Ice Queen]

24 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Meh.  I think that a younger person is more likely to be electable, and I care about that a great deal.  I also think that being President is incredibly taxing, both mentally and physically, and it is hard for me to believe that someone in their 70s is going to be the best choice available. 

 

24 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Speak for yourself. I'll limit the oldies I vote for to the juke box unless given supreme reason to do otherwise.

It's fine if you both think that way. We just have to be careful we don't become what we're fighting against. Personally, I'd love to see a younger woman win, but I'm not going to vote for her just because she is young and a woman. I'll vote for whoever I think is going to do the best job, and if that turns out to be an old white guy, so be it.

As someone who is turning 50 in a couple of months, I have to say that I don't think 68 is old at all. You can still have all your mental faculties at that age, and as long as you've kept in reasonably good shape and eat right, there is no reason why you can't do the job, although it is true that health problems become more common after the age of 40.

Edit: That's not to say I'll vote for a Republican, no matter who he is (and it will inevitably be an old white guy). I will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is, no matter what age, color, or gender. Just making that clear!

[Week]

19 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Oh Elie.  But this, right here, is the quote from the Atlantic Article worth sitting down and considering hard:

Quote

But you don’t hear a lot of analysis about how Kamala Harris’s path to the nomination needs to include Trump Country. I wonder why.

 

Rallies or GOTV is Trump Country do not need to be pandering to Trump voters racists is the point IMO.

Re: Bold, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Can you clarify?

All paths to the dem nomination need to include Trump Country. I expect that Kamala is probably the front runner in Trump-won states that Bernie lost (Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, N/S Carolina, etc.). Not to make this a 2020 Kamala v Bernie -- just speaking about Kamala in retrospect of what occurred in 2016.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

13 minutes ago, Week said:

Rallies or GOTV is Trump Country do not need to be pandering to Trump voters racists is the point IMO.

Re: Bold, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Can you clarify?

All paths to the dem nomination need to include Trump Country. I expect that Kamala is probably the front runner in Trump-won states that Bernie lost (Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, N/S Carolina, etc.). Not to make this a 2020 Kamala v Bernie -- just speaking about Kamala in retrospect of what occurred in 2016.

I think Elie's point, for whatever it is worth, is that there is a silent assumption that this isn't Ms. Harris's strong suit demographic and that she doesn't appeal to people in those states (which is BS IMO). 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

42 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Speak for yourself. I'll limit the oldies I vote for to the juke box unless given supreme reason to do otherwise.

Good enough for you?

[OldGimletEye]

More on Ivanka Trump being born on third base, but thinking she hit a triple.

Not only she ignorant about the economics of unemployment, evidently, but likely on the issue of mobility.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/opinion/ivanka-trump-social-mobility.html

Quote

The subject under discussion was the proposal, part of the Green New Deal, that the government offer a jobs guarantee. Ms. Trump trashed the notion, claiming that Americans “want to work for what they get,” that they want to live in a country “where there is the potential for upward mobility.”

 

Quote

The key observation, based on a growing body of research, is that when it comes to upward social mobility, the U.S. is truly exceptional — that is, it performs exceptionally badly. Americans whose parents have low incomes are more likely to have low incomes themselves, and less likely to make it into the middle or upper class, than their counterparts in other advanced countries. And those who are born affluent are, correspondingly, more likely to keep their status.

 

[Fragile Bird]

Do you think, maybe, someone should open a thread devoted to the topic of sex workers? I realize the tie-in is Harris, but it is a huge and complex topic by itself.

[Fragile Bird]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

More on Ivanka Trump being born on third base, but thinking she hit a triple.

Not only she ignorant about the economics of unemployment, evidently, but likely on the issue of mobility.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/opinion/ivanka-trump-social-mobility.html

 

 

Because everyone should have the opportunity to open a whorehouse in the Yukon during a gold rush and earn piles of money off of sex-starved men and desperate women and use that money to start the climb up!

Oh, wait, are we back to sex workers again?

[lokisnow]

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee announces his candidacy to be the Democratic nominee for President.

It appears that the central plank of his campaign will be combating climate change as President. 

like Buttigieg and Castro he seems like another person who has declared because what he really wants is a cabinet position. 

His age doesn't bug me, the two biggest age blocs of voters in the democrat party are boomers and millenials, someone who appeals to boomers but doesn't turn off millenials would possibly be better than someone who appeals to millenials but doesn't turn off boomers.

That's cause the VEP of Boomers vote at a 70.9% rate, so pulling in more boomers will net more votes because the VEP of millenials vote at a 47.8% rate. So there are more millenial voters available, but they're flakier. And pulling in more Boomer voters will be more likely to pull votes from Trump, even if you're not flipping trump voters, by getting more boomers to vote for you, you're reducing his pool of available votes.

 

[Kalbear]

Ocasio-Cortez just based her conversation about telling other people re: GND criticism that they need to do something or back off as a reframing of Teddy Roosevelt's awesome quote, and I couldn't be more happy about her. 

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1101554501910183936

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Good enough for you?

I had you as more of a “You Don’t Own Me” kind of lady.

38 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Do you think, maybe, someone should open a thread devoted to the topic of sex workers? I realize the tie-in is Harris, but it is a huge and complex topic by itself.

Do it, BIRD! You will fly high, shiny and chrome!

34 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

like Buttigieg

 

You’re probably right about Castro, but not this fella. He’s clearly raising his profile for a run at Congress or some statewide office.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I had you as more of a “You Don’t Own Me” kind of lady.

Do it, BIRD! You will fly high, shiny and chrome!

You’re probably right about Castro, but not this fella. He’s clearly raising his profile for a run at Congress or some statewide office.

I have hidden depths.

[S John]

I can’t wait to see Trump faced with an opponent with “Butt” in his name.  We all know he can’t resist.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

5 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I heard an interview with him on NPR a few weeks ago where he mentioned that if he ran, planning for climate change and protecting our air and water supplies would be his priority.  Glad to hear he's running, at the very least it's pushing green issues up in the mix.  

I've heard a few stats saying that people who identify the environment as the most important issue don't have very high voter turnout.  The Dems could potentially pick up a lot of votes between the GND and generally hammering on about environmental concerns.

Messaging should make clear there are a lot of job opportunities in green energy, and that the economy is irrelevant if we're living in a toxic wasteland.  

I just have this feeling that climate/environment isn't a winning platform. I mean for me, it's kind of the biggest thing I'm going to look at. But people just don't seem too concerned to actually vote for it. Feinstein really put me in a low mood on this.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I just have this feeling that climate/environment isn't a winning platform. I mean for me, it's kind of the biggest thing I'm going to look at. But people just don't seem too concerned to actually vote for it. Feinstein really put me in a low mood on this. 

No it isn't.

If you want to create a serious platform (not some feelgood policies) you are effectively asking to have less/reduce their standard of living.

It means driving around in your car way less, particularly with the thirsty muscle cars and SUVs, eating less meat, and effectively asked voters whether they really want to have three (or more) children. AOC raised the last point somewhat clumsily. Oh, also use of less electricity.

If you can make a winning campaign platform out of that, then congratulations, you are a political campaign genius.