Jump to content

US Politics: Mail and Managers for Mitch


Tywin Manderly

Recommended Posts

It'd be best for the progressives to split and form their own party. If progressives overwhelmingly vote for the Dem nominee, but liberal voters can't be trusted to vote for a progressive nominee, I think splitting the vote at this point makes more since. Until the libs get their heads on straight and quit making this a purity test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

It'd be best for the progressives to split and form their own party. If progressives overwhelmingly vote for the Dem nominee, but liberal voters can't be trusted to vote for a progressive nominee, I think splitting the vote at this point makes more since. Until the libs get their heads on straight and quit making this a purity test.

The GOP wholeheartedly agrees!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can trust me to vote Sanders if he's the nominee. I won't be happy about it at all, but Trump is so much worse. And I think that the default position of most center-lefts like me.

 

Also, Biden being the frontrunner, and Sanders being in the two spot, relates back to the fundamental structural problem of the Democratic party, which is that the older politicians never give up power. The party embraces seniority to such an extent, and there's such a strong "wait your turn" attitude, that younger politicians never get the spotlight they need to build up their national profile and support. Its why Obama was such a unique case, and no one was able to replicate his success this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Until the libs get their heads on straight and quit making this a purity test.

You literally just announced that you were making this particular election a purity test. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Also, Biden being the frontrunner, and Sanders being in the two spot, relates back to the fundamental structural problem of the Democratic party, which is that the older politicians never give up power. The party embraces seniority to such an extent, and there's such a strong "wait your turn" attitude, that younger politicians never get the spotlight they need to build up their national profile and support. Its why Obama was such a unique case, and no one was able to replicate his success this year. 

I'm still disappointed that Castro didn't make it farther.  Felt like he checked all the right boxes, is a good orator, and would have performed extremely well against Trump.  Couldn't get past the old guard though and his debates were shit, but he was who I was most excited about out of the first 20, which was another problem, too many candidates so those with the name recognition and big war chests simply waited until those without name recognition ran out of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aceluby said:

I'm still disappointed that Castro didn't make it farther.  Felt like he checked all the right boxes, is a good orator, and would have performed extremely well against Trump.  Couldn't get past the old guard though and his debates were shit, but he was who I was most excited about out of the first 20, which was another problem, too many candidates so those with the name recognition and big war chests simply waited until those without name recognition ran out of money.

Yep.  Someone earlier in this thread commented about how much better and healthier the discourse of the 2020 primary would be if Sanders and Biden had just not ran.  Then we wouldn't have any possibility of a candidate older than Trump (which we all agree would be good, right?) and we would have had the opportunity to hear a lot of new voices.  Imagine if the 6 frontrunners on the stage were instead Warren, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Harris, Castro, and Bullock?  Wouldn't that be a far more representative sample of the Democratic party, and a more interesting discussion? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

At this point, if Bernie doesn't get the nom, I won't be voting in the general. All you moderates made me realize this was okay. I'll write him in during the general.

We’re the Judaean People’s Front, not the People’s Front of Judaea! Down with the People’s Front of Judaea!

A left wing story as old as time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Just to comment on the nuclear plant stuff, at least for the US electricity and transportation are roughly 30% each of our national emissions profile (and agriculture is 10%). So decarbonizing our grid is nothing to sneeze at (somewhere in the vicinity of 2 billion metric tonnes of CO2 equivalents). 

Nuclear of course is not THE solution, but an important intermediate one in my opinion.

 

But you just lumped in electrical output with transportation. That's the point! They aren't the same, and going nuclear or solar will not remove the 200 million gas cars, nor will it create the infrastructure needed to support the nonexistent 200 million electrical vehicles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

It'd be best for the progressives to split and form their own party. If progressives overwhelmingly vote for the Dem nominee, but liberal voters can't be trusted to vote for a progressive nominee, I think splitting the vote at this point makes more since. Until the libs get their heads on straight and quit making this a purity test.

Until you fix the voting system and go beyond first past the post voting this is the absolute best way to guarantee Republican supermajorities everywhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Yep.  Someone earlier in this thread commented about how much better and healthier the discourse of the 2020 primary would be if Sanders and Biden had just not ran.  Then we wouldn't have any possibility of a candidate older than Trump (which we all agree would be good, right?) and we would have had the opportunity to hear a lot of new voices.  Imagine if the 6 frontrunners on the stage were instead Warren, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Harris, Castro, and Bullock?  Wouldn't that be a far more representative sample of the Democratic party, and a more interesting discussion? 

Sigh. I'm going to hate this election. I will do what I must but definitely not thrilled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 I'm guessing that was a direct response to two more moderate posters saying they would be tempted to vote third party if Sanders gets the nom?

Definitely. It proves my point--it's cool when moderates do it. I've always voted for the dem nominee no matter if they're my preferred candidate or not. Once there is a chance for a non-traditional nominee, however, we see the moderates really struggling with the potential of that vote. It's kind of refreshing to be honest. Hold your nose and pull the lever in every election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Definitely. It proves my point--it's cool when moderates do it. I've always voted for the dem nominee no matter if they're my preferred candidate or not. Once there is a chance for a non-traditional nominee, however, we see the moderates really struggling with the potential of that vote. It's kind of refreshing to be honest. Hold your nose and pull the lever in every election.

I don't think you really characterized that well. The problem was not voting for a very progressive candidate (like Warren, for example) - the problem is voting for Sanders specifically, who is disliked quite a lot for his and his follower's behaviors and actions and general lack of actual governance ability. 

Also, I took the quiz and it turns out that basically everyone save Gabbard is fine but not outstanding, and that cements my general change in stances from 2016 which is that policy goals do not matter in the slightest. Of the runners, only Warren has reasonable plans on being able to get anything through to actual policy, and I disagree with like half of her plans anyway. Everyone else either has bizarre ideas about reconcilliation with Republicans or outright fantasies about the filibuster that mean nothing will get done. Policy isn't the goal. Sane governance is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way with an honest cost-risk-benefit and timeline that anybody should be wasting all that money, and all that time when climate catastrophe is IN EFFECT, building nuclear reactors, power plants and weapons.  None.  There is nothing so clumsy and filled with danger as a nuclear energy.  And it is NOT clean, it creates very dangerous waste, which is very difficult to dispose of.  Just.  No.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Probably not, no. The US is simply too sexist to vote for a woman POTUS right now, with a strong economy and an incumbency bias. 

Obviously any challenger is going to have to deal with the incumbency advantage and the (probably very good) state of the economy.  But the handwringing about a female candidate - in general - seem clearly much more derived from instinctual trauma of 2016 rather than empirical trends.  Moreover, as I've said before, the emphasis should be evaluating these three (or four) candidates on their own political/electoral strengths and weaknesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Yep.  Someone earlier in this thread commented about how much better and healthier the discourse of the 2020 primary would be if Sanders and Biden had just not ran.  Then we wouldn't have any possibility of a candidate older than Trump (which we all agree would be good, right?) and we would have had the opportunity to hear a lot of new voices.  Imagine if the 6 frontrunners on the stage were instead Warren, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Harris, Castro, and Bullock?  Wouldn't that be a far more representative sample of the Democratic party, and a more interesting discussion? 

Yes.

And, as far the poster goes who suggested that the progressives should start their own party, they are working so far on reformation. at least, while the mainstream determinedly ignores the latinx voters.

Quote

 

Last night, the head of the DCCC was asked point blank on MSNBC:

“Do you think AOC is good for the Democratic caucus?” She refused to answer.

The DCCC knows we’re a threat. They’re upset that we refused to pay $250,000 in “dues.” They don’t like that we’re not quiet when they back pro-Trump or anti-choice candidates over progressives in competitive primaries.

So we’re building our own version of the DCCC: a progressive alternative infrastructure that will help community leaders, activists, and working-class candidates run for office and WIN. It’s called Courage to Change, and we need your help launching it today:

Will you make a $25 Founding Donor gift to Courage to Change now? With the head of the DCCC attacking us on live TV, your donations today send a powerful message about whose side you’re on.

Become a Founding Donor

Here’s a fact: Dan Lipinski, incumbent Democrat and member of the Blue Dog Caucus, has refused to pay DCCC dues for years. The DCCC is still protecting Lipinski against his progressive challenger, despite his horrific record on abortion.

Refusing to pay “dues” isn’t uncommon.

Historically, members of the Blue Dog Caucus have often refused to pay DCCC dues, and faced virtually no consequences for it. In fact, the DCCC often spends huge sums of cash to protect Blue Dog Dems — but only people like AOC take flak for not paying dues.

This brazen double standard is just the tip of the iceberg. Our current system is designed to suppress working-class, progressive candidates to protect out of touch, corporate incumbents. Things need to change.

That’s why we launched Courage to Change, a progressive PAC that will fight to elect working-class champions and progressives in red-to-blue districts. Will you become a Founding Donor with a $25 gift to Courage to Change now

 

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Obviously any challenger is going to have to deal with the incumbency advantage and the (probably very good) state of the economy.  But the handwringing about a female candidate - in general - seem clearly much more derived from instinctual trauma of 2016 rather than empirical trends.  Moreover, as I've said before, the emphasis should be evaluating these three (or four) candidates on their own political/electoral strengths and weaknesses.

And as you've pointed out repeatedly women have always done fine in the legislature and done poorly in the executive, and none of those trends you mentioned contradict that either. 

Nor does polling, which has warren and harris below others on the "vote for them or trump" thing. 

Nor does data suggesting that women will donate to men or women, but men will mostly donate to men. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think you really characterized that well. The problem was not voting for a very progressive candidate (like Warren, for example) - the problem is voting for Sanders specifically, who is disliked quite a lot for his and his follower's behaviors and actions and general lack of actual governance ability

 

Why does this matter?  All I'm hearing here is "all potential Dem voters need to get behind the nominee and unite against Trump, unless it's Sanders, in which case it's ok because people's reservations about him are some how more valid than any concerns you could have with someone else. "

I could say the bolded about any Dem candidate left.  

Either we all need to unite behind the nominee whoever the fuck it is or we don't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

But you just lumped in electrical output with transportation. That's the point! They aren't the same, and going nuclear or solar will not remove the 200 million gas cars, nor will it create the infrastructure needed to support the nonexistent 200 million electrical vehicles. 

? I lumped them together because I was looking at an EPA graph and decided to show what the top emission sectors were (the two being very similar in size). My only point is that grid decarbonization isn't wasted effort, quite the contrary. Anyway, we seem to have moved on., so...

Speaking of Warren, she has about 7 years of legislative experience (and no held office before that), so it isn't like she is a seasoned veteran. On the other hand, Biden has the most experience, and that doesn't seem to mean jack either. I'm hoping a lot of these supposed deficiencies will go away in people's minds once we get a nominee.  

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...