U.S. Politics: That's too bad for Carrots

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I don't think we do need him.

I think it's pretty dumb to say the 38 year old former mayor of a town the size of my thumb who managed to basically tie a heavily contested Iowa caucus can't be more useful to the future of the Democratic party than as WH press secretary.

[Jaxom 1974]

Just now, DMC said:

I think it's pretty dumb to say the 38 year old former mayor of a town the size of my thumb who managed to basically tie a heavily contested Iowa caucus can't be more useful to the future of the Democratic party than as WH press secretary.

Yeah, but see, DMC, it's just that Pete's no Bernie.  So what good could he ever possibly be...?

[Gaston de Foix]

4 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I don't think we do need him. He is a milquetoast white guy whose only achievements include gentrifying the 3rd largest city in Indiana and working for McKinsey, the company who advised stratagies that exacerbated the opioid crisis while working with Purdue Pharma and suggested paying pharmacies for each overdose that could be attributed to their store. This is not to say that Pete was involved in the particular scandal, but that what makes up the bulk of his professional experience, and if we want to elevate a young white guy who has few strongly held beliefs and will say whatever will get him ahead, those are a dime a dozen in politics, so I reckon we can do better.

And touting that he got a standing ovation from a Fox News town hall is kind of silly since Bernie Sanders also got a standing ovation while advocating for much more progressive policies. Sure maybe pop him in a role with no future like press secretary, but for Christ sake let's not pretend he represents anything other than cozying up to the Neo-liberal establishment of the Democratic party.

All your points would be well-made and persuasive if we didn't live in a country where 74 million people can overlook Trump's obvious unfitness for office and the death of 250K people partly as a result of his neglect.  The reality is that the US is a center-right country, and if you want to be electorally relevant you need to try to appeal to those who don't agree with you as well as those who do. 

And, by the way, it would be a great thing if politicians across the country aspired to something more than 50+1% of the vote.  The siloization and the writing off of people's whose views you disagree with - that's what in part produced Trump and has allowed him to stay the uncrowned king of half the country.  

Pete's willingness and ability to speak to the best aspirations of the American people and to expose the shallowness of Fox's talking heads is actually a pretty good 1-2 punch. 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Yeah, but see, DMC, it's just that Pete's no Bernie.

Well, a gay man would never be caught dead with that hair.

[A True Kaniggit]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, a gay man would never be caught dead with that hair.

As a straight man who is commonly stereotyped as gay, I take umbrage with this post.

Gay people can wear their hair however the hell they please. That includes "The Bernie"

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

That includes "The Bernie"

Surely this haircut should sweep the nation like "The Rachel," ubiquitous at hipster bars and Whole Foods.

[A True Kaniggit]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Surely this haircut should sweep the nation like "The Rachel," ubiquitous at hipster bars and Whole Foods.

"Should" and "Would" build no houses.

WOT

Isn't this a Nynaeve quote? It sounds like a Nynaeve quote.

[A True Kaniggit]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Surely this haircut should sweep the nation like "The Rachel," ubiquitous at hipster bars and Whole Foods.

And I just so happen to be on the 3rd season of a "Friends" rewatch.

Damn you're good.

 

Though this isn't as scary as the time @Jace, Basilissa guessed I was eating Popeyes on a night I was.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

"Should" and "Would" build no houses.

WOT

I don't understand Wheel of Time references.

2 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

And I just so happen to be on the 3rd season of a "Friends" rewatch.

Once you said you were putting together your tree tonight I decided to stake out your place to see how it looks.

[GrimTuesday]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think it's pretty dumb to say the 38 year old former mayor of a town the size of my thumb who managed to basically tie a heavily contested Iowa caucus can't be more useful to the future of the Democratic party than as WH press secretary.

Pete was relevant for one night after getting jerked off by the media for weeks and literally only focusing on Iowa, basically anyone could get hot for a minute in those circumstances.

He is from Indiana, so sure it would be really funny to see him flail at winning a state wide race in Indiana, but the reality is that the only role he is going to have is a national level, something that involves either being a party leader, a federally appointed position, or working in the media.

I'm not saying put him of a raft and float him into the Atlantic, just that he is not particularly special nor does he align with the left wing trajectory the Democratic party seems to be drifting (ever so slowly) towards.

Just now, Gaston de Foix said:

All your points would be well-made and persuasive if we didn't live in a country where 74 million people can overlook Trump's obvious unfitness for office and the death of 250K people partly as a result of his neglect.  The reality is that the US is a center-right country, and if you want to be electorally relevant you need to try to appeal to those who don't agree with you as well as those who do. 

And, by the way, it would be a great thing if politicians across the country aspired to something more than 50+1% of the vote.  The siloization and the writing off of people's whose views you disagree with - that's what in part produced Trump and has allowed him to stay the uncrowned king of half the country.  

Pete's willingness and ability to speak to the best aspirations of the American people and to expose the shallowness of Fox's talking heads is actually a pretty good 1-2 punch. 

See, the problem is that most of those 74 million are more likely to call him a homophobic slur than vote for him. They don't care if he is a good boy from a small Midwestern city, he is a Democrat, and therefore a commie bastard who wants to take their guns and kill god.

It's so silly that we're talking about appealing to people who do not agree with us and who will never agree with us while just abandoning any attempt to reach out to those who have been completely abandoned by the political system. 34% of Americans do not vote, and if we figure that Republicans are going to keep doing their thing, if Democrats can get even .5%  somewhere in the realm of 400k votes (I think that is right, as illustrated earlier in the week my math skills are questionable at best), which as we saw this year, could be the difference in a close race in some states.

Beyond that, what do you propose to do to to reach out to those people who don't agree with us? Should we just start running to the right? Come on, the future of the United States, and the future of the world depends on moving to at the very least a hybrid model where private capital has been stripped of much of it's power, and whether we move right, or stay on the same neo-liberal track we are on now, we're either never getting there, or we're not getting there soon enough.

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, a gay man would never be caught dead with that hair.

Bernie is a snack, don't be hating.

[A True Kaniggit]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Once you said you were putting together your tree tonight I decided to stake out your place to see how it looks.

I can't even be mad. I would've done the same thing.

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Pete was relevant for one night after getting jerked off by the media for weeks and literally only focusing on Iowa, basically anyone could get hot for a minute in those circumstances.

Way to double down on the dumb.  First, it obviously takes some ability and/or appeal to get "jerked off" by the media in a presidential primary when you're coming from nowhere.  Second, acting like he was "only" focusing on Iowa any more than any other candidate is false.  He also came in second - by 1.3 percent - in New Hampshire.  Third, performance like that in those first two contests clearly emphasizes his skill as a retail politician - and appeal to the parts of the Democratic primary electorate that were lukewarm-at-best to the two septuagenerian white guys.

20 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

the reality is that the only role he is going to have is a national level, something that involves either being a party leader, a federally appointed position, or working in the media.

LOL, dude's 38.  Do you mean right now or longterm?  If it's the former, yeah no shit.  Running statewide in Indiana anytime soon wouldn't be wise.  Even then, he could be useful in a larger role right now "nationally" than WH press secretary - like as a party leader or a higher-level appointee - that was exactly my point.

If you mean longterm, you have no fucking idea what his future holds and neither does anyone else.  One obvious option out of many, since he's only 38, is he could move out of Indiana.  Your dismissiveness is quite obviously based on personal animus rather than any honest appraisal of his future prospects or political skills.

20 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

he align with the left wing trajectory the Democratic party seems to be drifting (ever so slowly) towards.

He aligns just fine with the vast majority of the party that doesn't require some leftist shibboleth.

[Mindwalker]

Eh, I dig Benie's hair. It's part of his performance. (Now I suddenly envision him singing and dancing on a long festive dinner table... "I got life, mothah!")

[A True Kaniggit]

13 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

@GrimTuesday - it’s certainly possible for people to vote for someone with whom they personally would never associate.

Look at evangelicals voting for Trump.

Didn’t this happen with many people of Mexican descent this time around in the American Southwest?

Trump says Mexicans are murderers and rapists, but he’s preferable because they are brainwashed to be Catholic and them baby murdering Democrats are evil?

[GrimTuesday]

46 minutes ago, DMC said:

Way to double down on the dumb.  First, it obviously takes some ability and/or appeal to get "jerked off" by the media in a presidential primary when you're coming from nowhere.  Second, acting like he was "only" focusing on Iowa any more than any other candidate is false.  He also came in second - by 1.3 percent - in New Hampshire.  Third, performance like that in those first two contests clearly emphasizes his skill as a retail politician - and appeal to the parts of the Democratic primary electorate that were lukewarm-at-best to the two septuagenerian white guys.

LOL, dude's 38.  Do you mean right now or longterm?  If it's the former, yeah no shit.  Running statewide in Indiana anytime soon wouldn't be wise.  Even then, he could be useful in a larger role right now "nationally" than WH press secretary - like as a party leader or a higher-level appointee - that was exactly my point.

If you mean longterm, you have no fucking idea what his future holds and neither does anyone else.  One obvious option out of many, since he's only 38, is he could move out of Indiana.  Your dismissiveness is quite obviously based on personal animus rather than any honest appraisal of his future prospects or political skills.

He aligns just fine with the vast majority of the party that doesn't require some leftist shibboleth.

The media was thirsting for a new Obama, that was his appeal, and I don't think he would have gotten any where near the momentum he got if it weren't for the media attention he got. Pete certainly does have some chops in terms of his speaking ability, but that does not change the fact that he is as deep as a puddle and appeals almost exclusively to white folks which... you know, is most of NH and Iowa.

I'm going to be honest, you're right, I do have a level of personal animosity towards Pete I think he is a rat fucker, and I think he is pretty good at that. His main appeal is he looks good on camera and the media likes him, and frankly I see him as a threat because he is clearly aligning himself with the "centrists" and I'd rather see him sidelined in a position that gives him a role but does not actually offer much of a path forward rather than given a bigger platform to punch left.

Come on man, he's a fucking neo-lib, just because he is in line with the establishment doesn't mean that is a good thing.

2 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

@GrimTuesday - it’s certainly possible for people to vote for someone with whom they personally would never associate.

Look at evangelicals voting for Trump.

And I’ll never forget the 2008 news article (it might have been a Time piece on Obama) where there was a man in a very rural area quoted as saying he was voting for the “n”. Except obviously he said the whole thing. Because, the economy, and he blamed the Republicans for trashing it.

And odds are that if we're going to get those people, it is not by running to the right or by doing the same shit that we've been doing for the last 30 years, it is by actively speaking to the material interests of the people who are being neglected by both parties right now. If there is something that is going to appeal to those sorts of voters, it's going to be strong social programs and the government actually flexing its muscles in ways that make a noticeable difference in peoples lives.

As for the Obama example, here is a gal who voted for Pete before finding out he was gay.

 

[A True Kaniggit]

7 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

I’m going to assume you mean “swing voter” or persuadable voters, by “those people”?

The last thing I want is the government having any “noticeable difference in my life”. I do NOT want social programs. I want clean water, clean air, support for science, and a friendly environment for business.

Except if you’re born to poor as shit parents, right? 

When a 40 pack of frozen fish sticks split between the mother and 3 siblings is dinner?  Maybe a box of Kraft Mac and cheese to go along with it. 

Edit:  The plastic tree is up! I’ll decorate it tomorrow. 

[A True Kaniggit]

4 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

What I mean is that I don’t want or need social programs impacting me.

I don’t want to live in Sweden.

Why insult Sweden?

I’m trying very hard to be nice right now.

I’m not sure if you ever had to skip meals when younger so your younger siblings could eat. Maybe a bit more mandatory socialism could be good for America?

[A True Kaniggit]

3 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

I’m sure Sweden is a nice place, but I would not want their tax rates. I could have said Norway, same thing. 

And I’m saying maybe a higher tax rate is more preferable than children going hungry.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

appeals almost exclusively to white folks which

Yeah, this part is undeniable.  He was extraordinarily weak with minority voters.  But writing off his appeal as wholly "media-created" is incredibly stupid.  That's the same horseshit the GOP said about Obama, Buttigieg had plenty of other "media darlings" to contend with, and primary voters in IA and NH are particularly resistant to solely media-generated candidates.

11 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

frankly I see him as a threat because he is clearly aligning himself with the "centrists" and I'd rather see him sidelined in a position that gives him a role but does not actually offer much of a path forward rather than given a bigger platform to punch left.

Come on man, he's a fucking neo-lib, just because he is in line with the establishment doesn't mean that is a good thing.

This is all based on your warped view/definition of "centrist" and "neo-lib."  Overall, he's quite clearly very close to the median of the Democratic electorate.  If you wanna describe such positioning in a pejorative way, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact that that's the exact ideal ideological position for a Democratic politician with national ambitions to be at.

15 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Didn’t this happen with many people of Mexico descent this time around in the American Southwest?

Eh, not really.  First of all, Trump's gains among much of the Hispanic electorate merely reflected the increasing polarization of the rural/urban dichotomy.  Second of all, the Mexican-American vote was still key to Biden's victories in Arizona and Nevada.  And his significant weakness in south Texas largely had to do with the Tejano vote, which is unique to that region.

[GrimTuesday]

13 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

I’m going to assume you mean “swing voter” or persuadable voters, by “those people”?

The last thing I want is the government having any “noticeable difference in my life”. I do NOT want social programs. I want clean water, clean air, support for science, and a friendly environment for business.

Congratulations, I'm pretty sure you're completely disconnected from the realities that the majority of Americans face. Universal healthcare, universal pre-K and childcare, stronger labor laws that do not allow employers to exploit their workers, those things will make a real difference and are what the people deserve. Sorry you would have to pay more taxes, but you and those you care about are welcome to avail yourself to those services as well, no matter how well off you are.