Jump to content

US Politics - I'm not orange I'mpeach


Which Tyler

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I think it comes down to Democrats being scared about electability and convincing themselves that a black woman was "unelectable".  Harris' favorability among Democrats is still good, and like you said she hasn't done anything that bad.  She had a stumble when Tulsi Gabbard attacked her in the second debate, but that was hardly a lethal blow.

It strikes me as a shame that Democrats seem committed to picking a 70+ year old candidate.  I think they will regret that decision. 

Agreed 100%.  I think there is that reticence -- particularly among black voters, which is why they stick with Biden.  She needed them to boost her campaign.  My expectation would be it'd be a three-way race between Biden, her, and Booker.  But nope.  Seems like they're largely playing it safe, not that I blame them.

7 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Eh, I think it's more that she didn't have a built-in constituency, and then tried to pander to all constituencies equally when she excited people after the first debate. Everyone wanted to see someone have a go at Biden, and she did, but didn't capitalize on the attention given to her in the aftermath. 

That's not to count her out of the race yet. There's still a long time to go before voting begins, the race opened up some with Bernie's heart attack, and Harris has enough money to keep her campaign going for a while.

This is very good analysis as well.  Thing is, I'm not sure how she could do more to "capitalize" on her obviously prepared line against Biden in the first debate.  It obviously landed, got the coverage she was seeking.  Just eventually it fades away.  @James Arryn asked, I believe (I'm pretty drunk), if this would be a lesson in campaign failure.  I don't see it.  Not sure what Harris did wrong, necessarily.  It's just she didn't do anything that made her stand out.  Warren did a much better job of that in outlining herself as the policy wonk.  Do people know or even care about all her plans?  Of course not.  But she's the plan lady.  It was well done.

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Maybe, but I think this is one of the rare issues where Democrats can out spin Republicans simply because their argument is shorter. It may only help at the margins, but that’s where we lost.

Only place it would matter is in districts the Dems have to equivocate about it anyway.  So, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

This is very good analysis as well.  Thing is, I'm not sure how she could do more to "capitalize" on her obviously prepared line against Biden in the first debate.  It obviously landed, got the coverage she was seeking.  Just eventually it fades away.  @James Arryn asked, I believe (I'm pretty drunk), if this would be a lesson in campaign failure.  I don't see it.  Not sure what Harris did wrong, necessarily.  It's just she didn't do anything that made her stand out.  Warren did a much better job of that in outlining herself as the policy wonk.  Do people know or even care about all her plans?  Of course not.  But she's the plan lady.  It was well done.

 

Even beyond the wonk stuff, Warren had a massive presence in the debates. It was very striking, as I, as I'm sure others, were not prepared for it. 


September 25, 2019 - Warren Continues To Climb While Biden Slips Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Democratic Primary Is Neck And Neck

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3641

Quote

 

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is essentially tied with former Vice President Joe Biden in today's Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll. Warren gets 27 percent of the vote while Biden gets 25 percent of Democratic voters and independent voters who lean Democratic. Though well within the margin of error, this is the first time that a candidate other than Biden has had the numerical lead in the primary since Quinnipiac began asking the question in March.

The top two candidates are followed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders with 16 percent, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 7 percent, and California Senator Kamala Harris at 3 percent. While this is Harris' lowest number yet, support for these candidates as well as the rest of the field has remained relatively stable since the last national poll in August. No other candidate tops 2 percent.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Even beyond the wonk stuff, Warren had a massive presence in the debates. It was very striking, as I, as I'm sure others, were not prepared for it.

Meh.  I don't think Warren really performed significantly better than Harris in the debates.  There was just more attention on her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Meh.  I don't think Warren really performed significantly better than Harris in the debates.  There was just more attention on her.

Translation: She performed better.

Maintaining attention is the entire purpose of a primary. Look at our president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Translation: She performed better.

I guess.  I just don't see how that's really in any candidate's control, thus how you can "blame" them for it.  The causality between the horserace and attention is always going to be endogenous, but once you get it, it's a whole lot easier.  Warren got the momentum, Harris didn't.  Why that is is a complicated question, but I don't think it has much to do with either's debate performances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DMC said:

Agreed 100%.  I think there is that reticence -- particularly among black voters, which is why they stick with Biden.  She needed them to boost her campaign.  My expectation would be it'd be a three-way race between Biden, her, and Booker.  But nope.  Seems like they're largely playing it safe, not that I blame them.

This is very good analysis as well.  Thing is, I'm not sure how she could do more to "capitalize" on her obviously prepared line against Biden in the first debate.  It obviously landed, got the coverage she was seeking.  Just eventually it fades away.  @James Arryn asked, I believe (I'm pretty drunk), if this would be a lesson in campaign failure.  I don't see it.  Not sure what Harris did wrong, necessarily.  It's just she didn't do anything that made her stand out.  Warren did a much better job of that in outlining herself as the policy wonk.  Do people know or even care about all her plans?  Of course not.  But she's the plan lady.  It was well done.

Only place it would matter is in districts the Dems have to equivocate about it anyway.  So, no.

The main thing she did wrong was going negative early in a crowded primary. It earned her the dislike of people who like Biden (most of the Democratic party), while not earning her any significant anti-Biden vote (which is mostly ideologically left-wing, and other candidates are in better position to capitalize on it).

She was also badly unprepared for other people going negative against her. Compare that to Warren's effective rebuttal against Delaney. It reminds me of the famous quote by Arthur Harris, "The German people entered this war under the rather childish delusion they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Gorn said:

The main thing she did wrong was going negative early in a crowded primary. It earned her the dislike of people who like Biden (most of the Democratic party), while not earning her any significant anti-Biden vote (which is mostly ideologically left-wing, and other candidates are in better position to capitalize on it).

Heh, what?  She went negative?  How?  By going after Biden?  She did the entire field a service in terms of demonstrating you can go after Biden.  If that's "going negative," I don't wanna know what's not.  Your armchair quarterbacking is pretty funny though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why Trump is so scared of Biden....anyway, Hillary Clinton had a lot of baggage coming into 2016, and it was easy to tie her into the narrative of Benghazi, butter emails etc. Biden doesnt have the same baggage (except for the plagarism).

I'm not sure how much this corruption smear will stick. I mean, I hear a lot of noise about it on social media, but I dont know how much his approval rating has gone down from the Ukraine stuff. Its hard to tell how any of this will play out in the general when there again may be many undecideds waiting till the last moment to decide the least bad option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a little weird to say Harris did as well as Warren in the debates. Harris had a fabulous first debate. The second debate was less great, but fine. 

I think the third debate she was absolutely forgettable. She had those really badly scripted one liners that just didn't land. And...nothing else, that I can remember. Nothing that excited any kind of conversation, or resulted in any kind of media discussion in the days following.

I think in general, Harris has all the skills, background and charm to be a great nominee. Yes, she has some actually troubling aspects to her time as a Prosecutor, but its ludicrous to suggest she's the worst of the kind. 

That said, maybe she suffers from having her sister be her campaign manager. I'd imagine there are some things a sister won't tell you that a non-relatives would. And that something has to be that she needs to take positions that aren't calculated to theoretically please everyone. It ends up pleasing no one, because the "average Democratic voter" doesn't exist. That average is a composite of some very different political perspectives.

Beyond that, though, she absolutely does have a disadvantage because of the way her race and gender are viewed. Her stumbles, such as they are, are far far smaller than Biden's, but she lacks the cushion he does, or even the cushion Sanders has. And there's no way to view that except as a function of her being a black woman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DMC said:

Agreed 100%.  I think there is that reticence -- particularly among black voters, which is why they stick with Biden.  She needed them to boost her campaign.  My expectation would be it'd be a three-way race between Biden, her, and Booker.  But nope.  Seems like they're largely playing it safe, not that I blame them.

1.  I think having one black candidate in the race would have helped a coalescence around that candidate (much the way it did with Obama).  Having two, and Obama's vice president divides the vote and complicates matters. 

2.  It's not impossible that black voters will come home to Kamala, still. 

3.  Her waffling on Medicare really hurt her, but I think her absence of the vision thing hurts her more. We know she's a fundamentally cautious politician, but what is she passionate about? What would she do first? Obama won the intellectual war in the democratic party.  You see signs of other candidates recognizing this and trying to replicate (Pete with his foreign policy speech).  Kamala is a non-combatant. 

4.  Her best branding is a rule of law candidate/justice candidate. She can really coalesce her views around the administration's lawlessness.  Engage with the current debate about impeachment and what he did wrong.  Don't parrot talking points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DMC said:

Heh, what?  She went negative?  How?  By going after Biden?  She did the entire field a service in terms of demonstrating you can go after Biden.  If that's "going negative," I don't wanna know what's not.  Your armchair quarterbacking is pretty funny though.

You have a better theory? She may have done a service to the field, but not to her own campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Well that didn't take long.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49983357

Turkish troops launch offensive into northern Syria

I have already seen yesterday evening some relatively vague news that they attacked or blocked Kurdish supply routes. The details were a bit hazy though, but since Turkish troops were haphazardly rerouted to the border all day yesterday it seemed kind of a given that Erdogan wanted to strike before the SDF could further withdraw or seek the safety of an alliance with Assad. After all, the entire reason for this blood bath is Erdogan posing as fighting PKK sympathisants, so it would not do if he can't catch them.

I'm also deeply troubled by Erdogan's rambling about relocation of refugees. So... he wants to somehow send the Syrians in the Turkish refugee camps into the bombed out ruins of the towns in Kurdish territory while putting the Kurdish civilians... somewhere? I honestly dread to ask where... This all sounds like Erdogan wants to rearrange the ethnic composition of the area to his liking, which is just absolutely mortifying no matter how you look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fionwe1987 said:

 

Beyond that, though, she absolutely does have a disadvantage because of the way her race and gender are viewed. Her stumbles, such as they are, are far far smaller than Biden's, but she lacks the cushion he does, or even the cushion Sanders has. And there's no way to view that except as a function of her being a black woman.

Disagree. Her career is one of many things, including hurting marginalized people. That has nothing to do with her race, but much to do with the race of those who were hurt by her power as AG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Well that didn't take long.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49983357

Turkish troops launch offensive into northern Syria

I saw reports this morning that indicate Erdogan told Trump they were doing this whether or not U.S. troops were there and that’s why Trump abruptly and unilaterally pulled out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I saw reports this morning that indicate Erdogan told Trump they were doing this whether or not U.S. troops were there and that’s why Trump abruptly and unilaterally pulled out.

If that's true, then it seems like he didn't expect such a swift reaction of Trump, given that while he had been publicly threatening the Kurds for weeks now, the actual troop movements started only yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Zorral said:

Here's the letter to which Pelosi has responded to:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/wh-letter-to-pelosi/index.html

As someone said, not me, "This is an 9 page temper tantrum."

As someone who worked with legal dox in one way and another -- it sure has a lot of cites! However most of them are about them Trying to exonerate Themselves already.

What I say is this is not a letter to Pelosi, this is a letter to the base, a letter to Hannity, providing talking points.

There are no legal arguments here.

That is not true. Even at a glance, at least some of these points are fair. Whether they are relevant, or based on actual facts, is another question, but there are definitely some valid legal questions raised in this letter. The US constitution is a very vague document and conventions and precedents do matter in such a case.

And it worries me. I fear that Democrats, in their haste to get rid of Trump, may themselves overstep the red line and violate at least some conventions. It's silly because there is sufficient evidence to proceed with impeachment by the book, thus preventing any delays or allowing for false equivalencies. It's odd that Pelosi's answer doesn't even try to address the main points raised by the WH letter...
Or maybe it's all strategy. After all, impeachment is a political process anyway. Since the Dems know Mc Connell will never give them a real impeachment trial they're content to make noises in that direction and let the WH debate procedures for months if need be, keeping floor votes in store as the climax rather than the opening, hoping that the media attention will rattle at least some moderate conservatives. A kind of half-assed way of trying to have the cake and eating it...
I'm not in a position to say whether that's smart or not. Maybe it is smart to ensure the entire thing lasts as long as possible to maximize its impact on the 2020 election. Or maybe it's giving Trump & co yet another chance to spin this as they want. Dunno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...