|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 01 2019 07:07 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2019 07:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2019 06:53 farvacola wrote:
Deciding whether to do something based on how the GOP will spin it is a recipe for loss that Dems have been practicing for many years now, that’s not the right framework. Also, impeachment in the House has its own spin optics that easily outweigh what could occur in the Senate. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it. I've been in favor of Impeachment since the Mueller report came out. But that doesn't change what is going to happen, the actual content of the impeachment hearings will have minimal effect. Everyone that will hear of it already knows what Trump is, and those that don't won't hear it because they only consume GOP controlled media. What will happen is a mixed question of certainty and prediction, and while you're right that the GOP will spin things as they always have and many folks will remain unmoved, there still exists a sizable group of folks on the edge of voter/non-voter status that could shift their stance based on what shakes out. Folks who are tired of limp-dick Democrats who stand for nothing could be difference makers come voting day, particularly in light of the narrow margins in '16.
I think it's most certainly going to fail from an accountability perspective, but I'd agree it's egregious enough to (if Democrats weren't totally incompetent about this stuff) potentially shift some popular vote by a % or two or cost a handful of seats for Republicans with solid opponents.
Imo Trump's "civil war" tweets was him putting out the warning that the only way to remove him prior to the election (and maybe after it) is going to require handcuffs and enforcers willing to arrest a president.
Sanders movement is prepared for that, Warren's supporters will want the process to play out and honor its conclusion (which will be the same as Mueller).
|
On October 01 2019 12:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2019 07:07 farvacola wrote:On October 01 2019 07:01 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2019 06:53 farvacola wrote:
Deciding whether to do something based on how the GOP will spin it is a recipe for loss that Dems have been practicing for many years now, that’s not the right framework. Also, impeachment in the House has its own spin optics that easily outweigh what could occur in the Senate. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it. I've been in favor of Impeachment since the Mueller report came out. But that doesn't change what is going to happen, the actual content of the impeachment hearings will have minimal effect. Everyone that will hear of it already knows what Trump is, and those that don't won't hear it because they only consume GOP controlled media. What will happen is a mixed question of certainty and prediction, and while you're right that the GOP will spin things as they always have and many folks will remain unmoved, there still exists a sizable group of folks on the edge of voter/non-voter status that could shift their stance based on what shakes out. Folks who are tired of limp-dick Democrats who stand for nothing could be difference makers come voting day, particularly in light of the narrow margins in '16. I think it's most certainly going to fail from an accountability perspective, but I'd agree it's egregious enough to (if Democrats weren't totally incompetent about this stuff) potentially shift some popular vote by a % or two or cost a handful of seats for Republicans with solid opponents. Imo Trump's "civil war" tweets was him putting out the warning that the only way to remove him prior to the election (and maybe after it) is going to require handcuffs and enforcers willing to arrest a president. Sanders movement is prepared for that, Warren's supporters will want the process to play out and honor its conclusion (which will be the same as Mueller).
I hope Bernie overtakes Warren, but I am worried he's in the same position as Biden: He's already so well known that he doesn't really have a good path to gaining support. Certainly not to the same extent as Biden, and his support is moving a lot more than Biden, but I feel like a lot of Warren supporters are fully aware of how Bernie compares. They aren't convinced by Bernie. Bernie's debate performances haven't been particularly stellar and I am struggling to see how he overcomes what is a pretty huge deficit right now. I'm not seeing any polls indicating he has a chance unless a bunch of people drop out and all their support goes to Bernie.
|
Bernie’s fundraising numbers are quite good, I think he’s still got a great shot.
|
On October 02 2019 00:27 farvacola wrote:
Bernie’s fundraising numbers are quite good, I think he’s still got a great shot.
In many ways, his fundraising is what concerns me. He's totally flush with cash and nothing seems to be coming of it. He's totally got the machine a top tier candidate needs, its just not helping.
|
On October 02 2019 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2019 00:27 farvacola wrote:
Bernie’s fundraising numbers are quite good, I think he’s still got a great shot. In many ways, his fundraising is what concerns me. He's totally flush with cash and nothing seems to be coming of it. He's totally got the machine a top tier candidate needs, its just not helping.
I think its just not meant to be for Bernie. He had his real shot in 2016, but now you have Warren who is pretty much Bernie 2.0 for me. A lot of great progressive policies while still being able to work to get them done.
Unless she falls, Bernie isnt going to rise
|
On October 02 2019 00:37 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2019 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:On October 02 2019 00:27 farvacola wrote:
Bernie’s fundraising numbers are quite good, I think he’s still got a great shot. In many ways, his fundraising is what concerns me. He's totally flush with cash and nothing seems to be coming of it. He's totally got the machine a top tier candidate needs, its just not helping. I think its just not meant to be for Bernie. He had his real shot in 2016, but now you have Warren who is pretty much Bernie 2.0 for me. A lot of great progressive policies while still being able to work to get them done. Unless she falls, Bernie isnt going to rise
Yeah and I think that's why you're seeing weird fringe blogs talking about her time as a republican and her silly ancestry stuff. Luckily a huge amount of Bernie supporters are totally fine with Warren and not trying to wage all out war. I still prefer Bernie, and I'll be rooting for him until he drops out or is mathematically eliminated. But I'm not gonna pretend waging war against Warren would ever actually help his cause.
|
On October 02 2019 00:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2019 00:37 IyMoon wrote:On October 02 2019 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:On October 02 2019 00:27 farvacola wrote:
Bernie’s fundraising numbers are quite good, I think he’s still got a great shot. In many ways, his fundraising is what concerns me. He's totally flush with cash and nothing seems to be coming of it. He's totally got the machine a top tier candidate needs, its just not helping. I think its just not meant to be for Bernie. He had his real shot in 2016, but now you have Warren who is pretty much Bernie 2.0 for me. A lot of great progressive policies while still being able to work to get them done. Unless she falls, Bernie isnt going to rise Yeah and I think that's why you're seeing weird fringe blogs talking about her time as a republican and her silly ancestry stuff. Luckily a huge amount of Bernie supporters are totally fine with Warren and not trying to wage all out war. I still prefer Bernie, and I'll be rooting for him until he drops out or is mathematically eliminated. But I'm not gonna pretend waging war against Warren would ever actually help his cause.
In the debates they built off of each other rather than clashed, so they did a good job preparing their supporters. The majority of Bernie supporters will support Warren, and vice versa. I fully expect one of the two to drop out and put their full support behind the other
|
I think Bernie reaching 1,000,000 donors faster (literally rising over Q2 and the best quarter of any candidate so far) than any candidate ever and 99.9% of his donors not being maxed out is more reflective of a growing movement than a short run of good polling and being embraced by corporate media like we've seen for Warren (who has to do better than Buttigieg who saw a decrease in his fundraising).
The idea that Warren's history isn't legitimately problematic seems to me to be typical neoliberal dismissal of marginalized people's perspectives when it doesn't jive with preserving their position that they know comes at a devastating human cost.
The corporate media pushing the narrative that Warren is supplanting Bernie is one constructed and reaching farce with Nate Silver as it's spearhead from what I see.
EDIT: She could just as easily be being painted as 2020's Herman Cain based on her polling (Herman Cain had a higher peak and longer plateau at it than she's managed so far btw).
|
On October 02 2019 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think Bernie reaching 1,000,000 donors faster (literally rising over Q2 and the best quarter of any candidate so far) than any candidate ever and 99.9% of his donors not being maxed out is more reflective of a growing movement than a short run of good polling and being embraced by corporate media like we've seen for Warren (who has to do better than Buttigieg who saw a decrease in his fundraising).
Can you elaborate on what this means in the face of his actual polling still being low? My understanding is that fundraising and whatnot is important because it can indicate support. But if Bernie has 2x the donors and 1/2 the support, who cares about the donors? The goal here is to have people place votes, not just donate. A large percentage of his voters also being donors doesn't help so long as the voters are still below rival candidates.
This feels a lot like 2016. If other candidates actual voters are like this:
Very engaged: 10%
Somewhat engaged: 45%
Somewhat disengaged: 35%
Very disengaged: 10%
Bernie's are more like:
Very engaged: 60%
Somewhat engaged: 25%
Somewhat disengaged: 10%
Very disengaged: 5%
Because of this, comparing Bernie's numbers to more "casual" candidates isn't really valid. You can't predict Bernie's success based on the same metrics as other candidates, other than % support. Then again, Bernie outperformed polls significantly in 2016. I'd love to see him body slam Warren and Biden into the ground. But I'm not willing to pretend her nonsense about being native american is even slightly important to me.
|
On October 02 2019 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2019 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think Bernie reaching 1,000,000 donors faster (literally rising over Q2 and the best quarter of any candidate so far) than any candidate ever and 99.9% of his donors not being maxed out is more reflective of a growing movement than a short run of good polling and being embraced by corporate media like we've seen for Warren (who has to do better than Buttigieg who saw a decrease in his fundraising). Can you elaborate on what this means in the face of his actual polling still being low? My understanding is that fundraising and whatnot is important because it can indicate support. But if Bernie has 2x the donors and 1/2 the support, who cares about the donors? The goal here is to have people place votes, not just donate. A large percentage of his voters also being donors doesn't help so long as the voters are still below rival candidates. This feels a lot like 2016. If other candidates actual voters are like this: Very engaged: 10% Somewhat engaged: 45% Somewhat disengaged: 35% Very disengaged: 10% Bernie's are more like: Very engaged: 60% Somewhat engaged: 25% Somewhat disengaged: 10% Very disengaged: 5% Because of this, comparing Bernie's numbers to more "casual" candidates isn't really valid. You can't predict Bernie's success based on the same metrics as other candidates, other than % support. Then again, Bernie outperformed polls significantly in 2016. I'd love to see him body slam Warren and Biden into the ground. But I'm not willing to pretend her nonsense about being native american is even slightly important to me.
Who compared Bernie's numbers to more "casual" candidates (I realize now you were arguing that voter enthusiasm was a sign of weakness...)? Bernie's polling isn't low, it's around where Obama was at this point of the race (with respect to there being more candidates).
Polling obviously isn't voting and it's far more likely to see Warren's spike fall than for Bernie to fail to rise as the race narrows. As we get closer to actually voting, having a 1,000,000+ volunteers to call and knock doors and eventually GOTV becomes even more critical if the establishment is still split between Warren and Biden (or someone else like Buttigieg).
October 2008 ~20% of people polled said they would vote for Obama, he got a lot more than that.
October 2012 ~26% of people polled said they would vote for Herman Cain and Gingrich was polling in the 30's in December.
There's a reason we would typically not make the kinda extrapolations from the data we have that corporate media has in favor of Warren, because her polling is meaningless beyond distinguishing her in the top 3 for now (with about a 10% base, more than Harris who has fallen apart)
|
On October 02 2019 01:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2019 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:On October 02 2019 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think Bernie reaching 1,000,000 donors faster (literally rising over Q2 and the best quarter of any candidate so far) than any candidate ever and 99.9% of his donors not being maxed out is more reflective of a growing movement than a short run of good polling and being embraced by corporate media like we've seen for Warren (who has to do better than Buttigieg who saw a decrease in his fundraising). Can you elaborate on what this means in the face of his actual polling still being low? My understanding is that fundraising and whatnot is important because it can indicate support. But if Bernie has 2x the donors and 1/2 the support, who cares about the donors? The goal here is to have people place votes, not just donate. A large percentage of his voters also being donors doesn't help so long as the voters are still below rival candidates. This feels a lot like 2016. If other candidates actual voters are like this: Very engaged: 10% Somewhat engaged: 45% Somewhat disengaged: 35% Very disengaged: 10% Bernie's are more like: Very engaged: 60% Somewhat engaged: 25% Somewhat disengaged: 10% Very disengaged: 5% Because of this, comparing Bernie's numbers to more "casual" candidates isn't really valid. You can't predict Bernie's success based on the same metrics as other candidates, other than % support. Then again, Bernie outperformed polls significantly in 2016. I'd love to see him body slam Warren and Biden into the ground. But I'm not willing to pretend her nonsense about being native american is even slightly important to me. Who compared Bernie's numbers to more "casual" candidates (I realize now you were arguing that voter enthusiasm was a sign of weakness...)? Bernie's polling isn't low, it's around where Obama was at this point of the race (with respect to there being more candidates). Polling obviously isn't voting and it's far more likely to see Warren's spike fall than for Bernie to fail to rise as the race narrows. As we get closer to actually voting, having a 1,000,000+ volunteers to call and knock doors and eventually GOTV becomes even more critical if the establishment is still split between Warren and Biden (or someone else like Buttigieg). October 2008 ~20% of people polled said they would vote for Obama, he got a lot more than that. October 2012 ~26% of people polled said they would vote for Herman Cain and Gingrich was polling in the 30's in December. There's a reason we would typically not make the kinda extrapolations from the data we have that corporate media has in favor of Warren, because her polling is meaningless beyond distinguishing her in the top 3 for now (with about a 10% base, more than Harris who has fallen apart)
Makes sense to me. Thank you for explaining! No, voter enthusiasm is not a sign of weakness.
|
On October 02 2019 01:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2019 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:On October 02 2019 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think Bernie reaching 1,000,000 donors faster (literally rising over Q2 and the best quarter of any candidate so far) than any candidate ever and 99.9% of his donors not being maxed out is more reflective of a growing movement than a short run of good polling and being embraced by corporate media like we've seen for Warren (who has to do better than Buttigieg who saw a decrease in his fundraising). Can you elaborate on what this means in the face of his actual polling still being low? My understanding is that fundraising and whatnot is important because it can indicate support. But if Bernie has 2x the donors and 1/2 the support, who cares about the donors? The goal here is to have people place votes, not just donate. A large percentage of his voters also being donors doesn't help so long as the voters are still below rival candidates. This feels a lot like 2016. If other candidates actual voters are like this: Very engaged: 10% Somewhat engaged: 45% Somewhat disengaged: 35% Very disengaged: 10% Bernie's are more like: Very engaged: 60% Somewhat engaged: 25% Somewhat disengaged: 10% Very disengaged: 5% Because of this, comparing Bernie's numbers to more "casual" candidates isn't really valid. You can't predict Bernie's success based on the same metrics as other candidates, other than % support. Then again, Bernie outperformed polls significantly in 2016. I'd love to see him body slam Warren and Biden into the ground. But I'm not willing to pretend her nonsense about being native american is even slightly important to me. Who compared Bernie's numbers to more "casual" candidates (I realize now you were arguing that voter enthusiasm was a sign of weakness...)? Bernie's polling isn't low, it's around where Obama was at this point of the race (with respect to there being more candidates). Polling obviously isn't voting and it's far more likely to see Warren's spike fall than for Bernie to fail to rise as the race narrows. As we get closer to actually voting, having a 1,000,000+ volunteers to call and knock doors and eventually GOTV becomes even more critical if the establishment is still split between Warren and Biden (or someone else like Buttigieg). October 2008 ~20% of people polled said they would vote for Obama, he got a lot more than that. October 2012 ~26% of people polled said they would vote for Herman Cain and Gingrich was polling in the 30's in December. There's a reason we would typically not make the kinda extrapolations from the data we have that corporate media has in favor of Warren, because her polling is meaningless beyond distinguishing her in the top 3 for now (with about a 10% base, more than Harris who has fallen apart)
If we are going off fund raising how do you thin bernies chances vs trump are? Trump just raised 8 mil in 2 days
|
On October 02 2019 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2019 01:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2019 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:On October 02 2019 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think Bernie reaching 1,000,000 donors faster (literally rising over Q2 and the best quarter of any candidate so far) than any candidate ever and 99.9% of his donors not being maxed out is more reflective of a growing movement than a short run of good polling and being embraced by corporate media like we've seen for Warren (who has to do better than Buttigieg who saw a decrease in his fundraising). Can you elaborate on what this means in the face of his actual polling still being low? My understanding is that fundraising and whatnot is important because it can indicate support. But if Bernie has 2x the donors and 1/2 the support, who cares about the donors? The goal here is to have people place votes, not just donate. A large percentage of his voters also being donors doesn't help so long as the voters are still below rival candidates. This feels a lot like 2016. If other candidates actual voters are like this: Very engaged: 10% Somewhat engaged: 45% Somewhat disengaged: 35% Very disengaged: 10% Bernie's are more like: Very engaged: 60% Somewhat engaged: 25% Somewhat disengaged: 10% Very disengaged: 5% Because of this, comparing Bernie's numbers to more "casual" candidates isn't really valid. You can't predict Bernie's success based on the same metrics as other candidates, other than % support. Then again, Bernie outperformed polls significantly in 2016. I'd love to see him body slam Warren and Biden into the ground. But I'm not willing to pretend her nonsense about being native american is even slightly important to me. Who compared Bernie's numbers to more "casual" candidates (I realize now you were arguing that voter enthusiasm was a sign of weakness...)? Bernie's polling isn't low, it's around where Obama was at this point of the race (with respect to there being more candidates). Polling obviously isn't voting and it's far more likely to see Warren's spike fall than for Bernie to fail to rise as the race narrows. As we get closer to actually voting, having a 1,000,000+ volunteers to call and knock doors and eventually GOTV becomes even more critical if the establishment is still split between Warren and Biden (or someone else like Buttigieg). October 2008 ~20% of people polled said they would vote for Obama, he got a lot more than that. October 2012 ~26% of people polled said they would vote for Herman Cain and Gingrich was polling in the 30's in December. There's a reason we would typically not make the kinda extrapolations from the data we have that corporate media has in favor of Warren, because her polling is meaningless beyond distinguishing her in the top 3 for now (with about a 10% base, more than Harris who has fallen apart) Makes sense to me. Thank you for explaining! No, voter enthusiasm is not a sign of weakness.
No problem, it's reasonable, especially considering how inundated everyone has been with the Warren narrative (even if it's just capitalism pushing a horse race that may not be as competitive as they want us to believe).
Typically what is focused on this early is the ground game and it's growth/size. One of the reasons the establishment pick come January has such a huge advantage over any other candidate is that the entire party apparatus is basically temporarily transferred to their campaign's ground game. The remaining candidates get the party's leftovers, have to make and maintain their own donor networks, then have to rent a lot more talent for places where their base is weaker.
Cases for Warren that center polling are weak and superficial (what you see in most corporate media takes), substantive cases for the strength of her campaign are focused on her investments in Iowa and NH and seeing whether they are paying off with growing volunteers locally and nationally (but necessarily point out how in those metrics Bernie leads both her and Biden).
Right now a lot of their supporters still see them as mostly interchangeable, but that will change as she continues to moderate to appeal to establishment donors/voters.
As to the Native thing I'd just wonder if you'd think it was nothing if instead of Native she claimed she was Black?
On October 02 2019 01:50 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2019 01:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 02 2019 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:On October 02 2019 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
I think Bernie reaching 1,000,000 donors faster (literally rising over Q2 and the best quarter of any candidate so far) than any candidate ever and 99.9% of his donors not being maxed out is more reflective of a growing movement than a short run of good polling and being embraced by corporate media like we've seen for Warren (who has to do better than Buttigieg who saw a decrease in his fundraising). Can you elaborate on what this means in the face of his actual polling still being low? My understanding is that fundraising and whatnot is important because it can indicate support. But if Bernie has 2x the donors and 1/2 the support, who cares about the donors? The goal here is to have people place votes, not just donate. A large percentage of his voters also being donors doesn't help so long as the voters are still below rival candidates. This feels a lot like 2016. If other candidates actual voters are like this: Very engaged: 10% Somewhat engaged: 45% Somewhat disengaged: 35% Very disengaged: 10% Bernie's are more like: Very engaged: 60% Somewhat engaged: 25% Somewhat disengaged: 10% Very disengaged: 5% Because of this, comparing Bernie's numbers to more "casual" candidates isn't really valid. You can't predict Bernie's success based on the same metrics as other candidates, other than % support. Then again, Bernie outperformed polls significantly in 2016. I'd love to see him body slam Warren and Biden into the ground. But I'm not willing to pretend her nonsense about being native american is even slightly important to me. Who compared Bernie's numbers to more "casual" candidates (I realize now you were arguing that voter enthusiasm was a sign of weakness...)? Bernie's polling isn't low, it's around where Obama was at this point of the race (with respect to there being more candidates). Polling obviously isn't voting and it's far more likely to see Warren's spike fall than for Bernie to fail to rise as the race narrows. As we get closer to actually voting, having a 1,000,000+ volunteers to call and knock doors and eventually GOTV becomes even more critical if the establishment is still split between Warren and Biden (or someone else like Buttigieg). October 2008 ~20% of people polled said they would vote for Obama, he got a lot more than that. October 2012 ~26% of people polled said they would vote for Herman Cain and Gingrich was polling in the 30's in December. There's a reason we would typically not make the kinda extrapolations from the data we have that corporate media has in favor of Warren, because her polling is meaningless beyond distinguishing her in the top 3 for now (with about a 10% base, more than Harris who has fallen apart) If we are going off fund raising how do you thin bernies chances vs trump are? Trump just raised 8 mil in 2 days
While the total amount certainly matters, what matters more is the number of donors and portion of them that are maxed out. It's also not that polls should be disregarded altogether. Sanders consistently beating Trump in polling all the way back to the 2016 race is also a positive sign.
EDIT: Whew that was a rough one to clean up after I broke it lol
|
On October 02 2019 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:As to the Native thing I'd just wonder if you'd think it was nothing if instead of Native she claimed she was Black?
I'd roll my eyes and think she's an idiot, but an idiot can still do a lot of things right. If she spent the last 10 years insisting she is black, I would still rip my shirt off with enthusiasm supporting her over Biden and Trump. She's still better. Still worse than Bernie, but still better than who she is better than.
|
On October 02 2019 02:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2019 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:As to the Native thing I'd just wonder if you'd think it was nothing if instead of Native she claimed she was Black?
I'd roll my eyes and think she's an idiot, but an idiot can still do a lot of things right. If she spent the last 10 years insisting she is black, I would still rip my shirt off with enthusiasm supporting her over Biden and Trump. She's still better. Still worse than Bernie, but still better than who she is better than.
It's way too early to even bother with "I'd still vote for her in a general". iirc doesn't even matter who you vote for in the general.
To me it basically says "I'll be fine under any Democrat and that is more important than which Democrat it is". It means you never have to actually commit to fight to fix things because Republicans will always offer up a worse alternative and Democrats argue the best they can do is minimize the damage Republicans do (regardless of the figureheads).
It's what led us to Trump and the leading Democrat candidate being to the right of Obama and Clinton. That's despite Obama caging kids, arming terrorists, bombing more than half a dozen countries, etc... It's how scum like Frum and Kristol have transitioned from Fox News to MSNBC and are frequently RT'd by the #resistance despite their politics and rhetoric remaining the same.
|
Right now a lot of their supporters still see them as mostly interchangeable, but that will change as she continues to moderate to appeal to establishment donors/voters.
Beeing moderate and appeal to establishment donors/voters is what will be needed to have a chance at beating trump.
As much as i like bernie,i dont think he will ever have a shot at winning the overall election. I dont think warren has a shot either but she should be able to do better then bernie.
Like if you consider that everything in politics is moving to the right,then warren is sort of the successor to bernie and maybe the max the progressives can realistically hope for.
The best person to lose the overall election would still be biden in my opinion,which should mark the end of the old party elite and thereby maybe making room for a new breed of more progressive politicians inside the democratic party.
Trump i dont know,you can say what you want about him but he has not messed up in a big way. The economy has been good or at least decent and he didnt start a new war. Considering the very low expectations i think trump has outperformed which should be reflected by him beeing a clear favorite regarding what candidate the democrats will bring.
|
On October 02 2019 03:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2019 02:22 Mohdoo wrote:On October 02 2019 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:As to the Native thing I'd just wonder if you'd think it was nothing if instead of Native she claimed she was Black?
I'd roll my eyes and think she's an idiot, but an idiot can still do a lot of things right. If she spent the last 10 years insisting she is black, I would still rip my shirt off with enthusiasm supporting her over Biden and Trump. She's still better. Still worse than Bernie, but still better than who she is better than. It's way too early to even bother with "I'd still vote for her in a general". iirc doesn't even matter who you vote for in the general. To me it basically says "I'll be fine under any Democrat and that is more important than which Democrat it is". It means you never have to actually commit to fight to fix things because Republicans will always offer up a worse alternative and Democrats argue the best they can do is minimize the damage Republicans do (regardless of the figureheads). It's what led us to Trump and the leading Democrat candidate being to the right of Obama and Clinton. That's despite Obama caging kids, arming terrorists, bombing more than half a dozen countries, etc... It's how scum like Frum and Kristol have transitioned from Fox News to MSNBC and are frequently RT'd by the #resistance despite their politics and rhetoric remaining the same.
Yeah, I'm in Oregon still, so I don't expect I'll be the tie breaker vote. How about this, if Warren is the nominee, I will write in Bernie in the general election, just for you.
|
|
|
The way i see it, GH: the change you want, won't be coming from the presidental vote, but rather through constant day-to-day work gathering like-minded and preparing for the eventual conflict with those enforcing the status quo.
Even so, the day-to-day work is not yet finished, and presidental (and local) elections still happen. Why not make the best out of the existing system by ensuring the least shitty candidates get some time, so that the day-to-day work can continue?
Or is it instead in your opinion better to let the shittiest people get more power, thus making more people desperate for drastic change?
I feel this is a choice between helping those that need help today and working for tomorrow , versus sacrificing the people that need help today to benefit the work for tomorrow.
|
On October 02 2019 04:21 JimmiC wrote:There is some storms brewing for Trump that are not all impeachment related. If the american economy starts to tank I think even his base might erode slightly. And poor manfucaturing data is a pretty good shot at some of his base, and some of the independents that might vote for him thinking it helps their employment. China has the huge advantage in a trade war of waiting out the American leadership that actually needs votes to remain in power. https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/01/economy/ism-manufacturing/index.html
Yeah for those of us who work in manufacturing, kind of a bummer of a time. Where I work, we are all basically just bracing for layoffs and working as hard as we can in hope it isn't us...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
