https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/424674-kamala-harris-to-enter-presidential-race-on-or-around-mlk-day-report

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) will formally announce her bid for the White House on or around Martin Luther King Jr. Day, sources told KCBS Radio, a station in her home state of California.

The sources said she would "probably" make the announcement at a rally in Oakland, the radio station added.

A spokesperson for Harris told The Hill, however, that no announcement is imminent and Harris will not be in Oakland during the holiday weekend.

Harris has long been considered a possible frontrunner for the 2020 Democratic nomination and speculation that she would enter the race continued to mount this week when she launched a book tour and media blitz to promote her memoir that was published Tuesday.

The KCBS Radio report comes after Harris told CNN's Jake Tapper on Wednesday that she will soon make a decision on 2020.

During the CNN appearance, Harris said she thinks the U.S. is ready for a woman of color to be president.

"We have to give the American people more credit, and we have to understand that the American public and the people of our country are smart people, who will make decisions about who will be their leader, based on who they believe is capable, who they believe has an honest desire to lead, to represent, to see them, to be a voice for them even if they have no power," Harris said in the appearance.

Harris last month said that she planned to decide whether to run "over the holiday."

“It will ultimately be a family decision," she said at the time. "And over the holiday, I will make that decision with my family."

If Harris is the next major candidate to announce a bid, she would join Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as the major Democratic names to have thrown their hats in the ring.

Warren last month announced an exploratory committee for a presidential bid.

Other possible high-profile Democratic candidates include Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as well as former Vice President Joe Biden and former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas).

>"We have to give the American people more credit, and we have
>to understand that the American public and the people of our
>country are smart people, who will make decisions about who
>will be their leader, based on who they believe is capable,
>who they believe has an honest desire to lead, to represent,
>to see them, to be a voice for them even if they have no
>power," Harris said in the appearance.

By nearly 3 million strong.

We just don't have a democratic system in place.

it just aint happening

I would want to hear her explanation for some of the things she did (and did not) do as California AG, though.

I’m leaning towards Beto but I need to see them under pressure.

She had too much ambition to shake up the status quo. I am not mad at that because I think holder her to a higher standard is a double standard in many ways, even though I realize she was in a PRIME position to advance progressive positions in the judicial system of an enormous, largely liberal state. The problem is she is trying to have it both ways. She isn't just a regular center-of-left, merit-emphasizing candidate, she wants to be seen as progressive and as a champion of the people. She is kind of raising the bar for herself and how people react will set a course for her campaign. Overall I kind of like her, even though there were a lot of things she did that I didn't agree with. She is tough, shrewd and has experience in some big positions in government. I wouldn't be mad at all to see her win the nomination.

SHOULD emerge.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

let this please be sorted out in the primary.

warren irks me so im hoping there are some people that do run that i feel good about.

i would definitely give kamala a chance.

at this point i want to wait to see who decides to run. then look at what they would support. although im inclined to choose beto if he isnt support m4a i would have to pass on him.

biden and warren are very meh to me. i would go for bernie if no one else supports the same issues but i find that doubtful.

She irks you? Come on mayne.

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-dont-hate-women-candidates-i-just-hated-hillary-and-coincidentally-im-starting-to-hate-elizabeth-warren


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

it offended a lot of people and made her look really out of touch.

I think she'd probably make a fine president based on her voting record and history of advocacy, but the 'irksome' shit at least partly falls at her own feet.

If you going to run and beat Trump, you don't play into his hand.

She should have said "I'll release my DNA test when you release your tax returns" and KIM.

I would love her as Pres, I just worry about her ability to win. That didn't help me feel better.

The way the sexism works is how people take misstep and all of sudden decides its disqualifying and are unable to let it go (i.e., but what about her emails!)

Not wanting to turn this into a defense of HRC. I just hate these vague (irksome) gendered knocks (math teacher) of female candidates that are indistinguishable from thinly layered sexism.



>it offended a lot of people and made her look really out of
>touch.
>
>I think she'd probably make a fine president based on her
>voting record and history of advocacy, but the 'irksome' shit
>at least partly falls at her own feet.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

it's her personality. She's big on details (which is good), and love digging in to the weeds. See her campaign announcement rally in Iowa.

The irksome stuff doesn't feel sexist to me either. The way she handled the 'pocahantes' attacks was totally and utterly cringe worthy from start to finish. I imagine it would play out pretty similarly if Bernie, Biden or HRC had claimed native american heritage and gotten exposed (the thought of any of those three pretending to be native american is pretty funny to me though).

No doubt she'll face real sexism during the run, but the 'math teacher' and 'irksome' attacks aren't it in my mind.

Teacher instead of a Senator or potentially a President, THAT is 100% sexism.

It's you getting asked "you work here?" in a clothing store just because you happen to be a POC dressed nicely in the store.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

No one is saying she should actually get out of politics and be a teacher cuz she's a woman. I'd be willing to bet 99% of the people on this board would admit she's a pretty good politician, even. She just seems a little nerdy, scholarly, and academic.

i would vote for aoc no questions asked

as i said in this thread, i would definitely consider kamala.

this isnt about gender.

biden irks me
warren irks me

i cant explain exactly what i dislike about them but if theyre right on the issues then i would roll with them.

lol i just read the article and its starts off almost saying exactly what i said

but nah that aint me

Won’t be shamed into voting for a woman I don’t think can win tho.

>Won’t be shamed into voting for a woman I don’t think can
>win tho.

Yeah. There is a difference between "I want this person as president" and "I think this person has the best chance to win"


It is fucked up man, it really is- but I don't know if Murrikkka is ready for a woman as president.


That article is clever, sure. But it might actually be making a point that it doesn't intend to make.

maybe im too hopeful though

Then the Pocahontas shit happened and now she seems kinda corny. Especially with the beer sip on Instagram. Prolly had mineral water in the beer bottle.

>It is fucked up man, it really is- but I don't know if
>Murrikkka is ready for a woman as president.

i think america was more ready for a black man as prez than a woman because we have been more socialized to see black men in positions of leadership...ceos, head coaches, gangs, action movies, etc.

on the other side...a woman candidate with more political baggage than anyone in modern history got the 2nd most votes ever recorded. more than any white man. and i have a hard time seeing as many dems staying home in 2020 as did in 2016.

so it might just come down to basic fundamentals. the dem base is expanding, getting more female (the gender gap is at its highest ever), and millenials and gen-x-ers are poised to start outvoting boomers and silents (they actually outvoted them in 2016 by a slim margin). a woman being a democratic candidate might be more significant than a democratic candidate being a woman (if that makes sense).

>a woman being a democratic
>candidate might be more significant than a democratic
>candidate being a woman (if that makes sense).

a democratic candidate is gonna have the democratic voting coalition at their disposal. any downside to being a woman candidate could pretty much just be offset by structural/historical voting patterns and party affiliation.

a repub candidate has won the presidential popular vote only 1 time in the last 7 elections. and both bush and trump only won their 1st terms due to some controversial unprecedented fuck shit where they were able to squeak through with less votes. meanwhile dem winners pretty much cruise to victory. that pattern is only accelerating.

one of the blue rust belt states that turned on clinton and put trump in office (michigan)...just elected a ticket comprised entirely of women.

so it might have been more about individual circumstances than gender.

i wonder how florida is going to go. have they finalized ex-felons being able to vote? will they mostly vote democratic as its been assumed?

theres no question that democrats will get majority votes nationwide but those key states are the part that worries me.

we dont need all of those states that voted for trump to flip back but will definitely need to get some of them.

are there some states that voted for clinton that you are worried could flip red in 2020?

simply because the repub gov gets to replace 3 liberal state supreme court judges for a 6-1 conservative majority on the bench (elections have consequences). the previous 4-3 liberal majority court actually stopped a lot of voter suppression in past years. now with an overwhelming conservative majority...most of that shit is gonna be rubberstamped.

winning margins in florida are already slim. even a small peel off of dem voters will have a significant impact.

(black) felons being able to vote will help dems. but the gov and repub legislature are already looking for ways to creatively undermine the amendment. and the conserv court will prolly allow it.

>we dont need all of those states that voted for trump to flip
>back but will definitely need to get some of them.

if states vote how they did in 2018...especially in the rust belt (which swung back heavily to dems outside of ohio)...then its a safe dem victory. im more worried about senate races in key red states. because a dem prez winning with a repub majority senate will pretty much be d.o.a.

>are there some states that voted for clinton that you are
>worried could flip red in 2020?

new hampshire could go red. clinton only won by 3k votes and the gov and previous legislature passed a set of laws suppressing the college vote. that could be the difference.

Ideally, you should vote for who you think would do best in office, not who you think others might find palatable.

But hell, even if you think America is too sexist to elect a woman, that shouldn't be the reason you don't vote for a woman... you end up just supporting the sexists.

which is why some candidates that win a primary might perform worse in a general election than the person they beat.

even if a really liberal/progressive democrat wins the traditional blue electoral college states and gets the victory (the math is in their favor)...they could cost dems important senate and other down ballot races in moderate/conservative districts/states.

repubs did a really good job of falling in line and voting through less extreme candidates this past cycle. even bannon and tea party incumbents were urging people to vote for mainstream repubs and rinos just to make sure repubs won those elections (they would support trumps agenda regardless). they saved themselves from some disappointments in ms, mo, in, etc.

the democratic base has yet to mature to the same level of party discipline and vote strategically in the same way. we are still on some 'vote with your heart/conscience' shit. we still havent fully grasped the idea that you have to first attain power to exert power.

I didn't say I wouldn't vote for a woman. By any means. I hope the primary has Warren, Kamala, and Amy at the very least.


I am just **unsure** if a woman can win a national election, which is fucked up.

That said, Reeq made a good point about MI in here.


Dems do need to consider who has the best chance to WIN. No partying off the popular vote. No moral victories. They need to WIN.

Folks should recognize that ALOT of that is ingrained sexism.

It's hard to admit. But its sooo programed in us.

I remember the first time I had a lady airline pilot and I flinched. Took my rationale mind to overcome my instinctive reaction.



>i would vote for aoc no questions asked
>
>as i said in this thread, i would definitely consider kamala.
>
>this isnt about gender.
>
>biden irks me
>warren irks me
>
>i cant explain exactly what i dislike about them but if theyre
>right on the issues then i would roll with them.
>
>lol i just read the article and its starts off almost saying
>exactly what i said
>
>but nah that aint me


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

i really dont think it applies to me. some people just rub you the wrong way.

my company actually has a lot of women as VPs and i think everything would benefit by having more women in power.

i wouldnt say all power positions should be filled by women but that they should be filled by the best person. currently that ratio doesnt add up. there should definitely be more women in power than there are.

i do think i have a bias against age, and maybe being stereotypically "white" if im completely honest. so that might make me shy away from a candidate at first but these are just initial feelings. i will give them all a chance.

>Folks should recognize that ALOT of that is ingrained sexism.
>
>
>It's hard to admit. But its sooo programed in us.
>
>I remember the first time I had a lady airline pilot and I
>flinched. Took my rationale mind to overcome my instinctive
>reaction.
>
>
>
>>i would vote for aoc no questions asked
>>
>>as i said in this thread, i would definitely consider
>kamala.
>>
>>this isnt about gender.
>>
>>biden irks me
>>warren irks me
>>
>>i cant explain exactly what i dislike about them but if
>theyre
>>right on the issues then i would roll with them.
>>
>>lol i just read the article and its starts off almost saying
>>exactly what i said
>>
>>but nah that aint me
>
>
>**********
>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>
>"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

then I realized I really didn't like how she pandered to people.

Every time she was around black people, Hillary tried to 'act black'--whether it was wearing the big mama church hat at a black church (her words: I don't feel no ways tired) or the hot sauce thing (which was so obvious it made Charlamagne cringe on the spot).

Also, the fact that Hillary couldn't admit that using the term 'superpredator' was a problem even after the man who coined the term denounced it was telling.



Having said that, I voted for her.

not her emails. i thought the good did outweigh the bad but she was a very flawed candidate and not just because she could lose. her past policy and statements were troubling. she would had been 1,000 times better than trump so there was zero doubt about voting for her though.

The hot sauce thing was particularly egregious. I don't think I've ever cringed so hard.

Honestly that was the first time I thought to myself "shit she may actually lose this thing" haha. No joke. Before that I was ignoring all the warning signs (while subconsciously knowing the possibility was very real). But in that moment I was thinking, wow, fuck, she actually is kinda unlikable.


>then I realized I really didn't like how she pandered to
>people.
>
>Every time she was around black people, Hillary tried to 'act
>black'--whether it was wearing the big mama church hat at a
>black church (her words: I don't feel no ways tired) or the
>hot sauce thing (which was so obvious it made Charlamagne
>cringe on the spot).
>
>Also, the fact that Hillary couldn't admit that using the term
>'superpredator' was a problem even after the man who coined
>the term denounced it was telling.
>
>
>
>Having said that, I voted for her.

Nah, she just doesn’t have that big personality to be prez

As a black man who goes to interview for jobs it drives me crazy to hear women and POC dismissed for jobs with bullshit intangibles like this.

George HW Bush, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford had the big personality for President?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

out of the 40 house seats that dems flipped in nov...only 1 ran on medicare for all. and she was just part of a larger wave that wiped the entire gop out of orange country in cali. everyone else ran on strengthening/improving obamacare and protecting pre-existing conditions. even some repubs won by lying and saying they wanted to build on obamacare and protect pre-existing conditions (despite voting against it).

in fact...bernie kinda gifted the gop their most potent attack in the midterms. repubs just called dem candidates nationwide socialists and said they wanna take medicare from older people and give it to everyone else while raising everyones taxes to do it. they even did it to dem candidates who didnt support m4all...which lets you know the polling/feedback they got for the attack was positive. it hurt andrew gillum in florida and he had to back away from explicitly supporting m4all and just endorse generic 'universal coverage'. the moderate/educated suburbs that handed dems the house arent really big on m4all and could easily shift back to moderate socially liberal repub candidates who just pledge to make obamacare cheaper.

regardless of how much the overton window has shifted on the *discussion* of healthcare...healthcare reform in the united states is still a political third rail. clinton/dems got beat up for pursuing it. obama got his healthcare policy through due to a rare senate supermajority and unified control of government. but he was rewarded with the biggest midterm beatdown for any party since 1948. and we will be living out the ramifications of that loss for an entire generation or longer.

in general...when you propose something new...it gives your opponents the advantage of being able to define it because so much of it is unknown/unproven. in fact...fdr wanted universal healthcare as part of the new deal. but repubs effectively characterized it as a socialist plot to racially integrate hospitals. repubs characterized obamacare as death panel enactment. and now they have a proven line of attack on medicare for all. they could also paint it as a killer of jobs in the private healthcare industry. all of this at a time when americans are becoming more distrustful of government and its institutions.

just because its the best/right policy doesnt mean its right politically. i mean...dem policies are on the popular side of damn near every major political issue (wages, guns, etc) but how has that worked out?

and polls showing how popular medicare for all is are somewhat misleading. poll numbers decrease significantly when you tell people that they might have to pay more for it (even if it saves them more in the long run). that was a hard sell for bernie during the 2016 campaign and will still be hard to sell in 2020.

So why should Dems do anything?

its on a policy by policy basis.

increasing the minimum wage isnt as polarizing as revamping our entire healthcare system. neither is campaign finance reform. neither is paid sick/family/vacation leave. neither is expanded early childhood education. neither is felon voting re-enfranchisement. or increasing voting access in general. or independent redistricting commissions. or decriminalization of marijuana. even on the healthcare front...medicaid expansion isnt as polarizing as medicare for all.

a criminal justice reform bill just passed through congress on a bipartisan basis and was signed by trump. nobody is gonna pay a political consequence for that.

just in the last midterms alone...ballot initiatives were approved in states across the country dealing with the policies i mentioned above. by significant bipartisan coalitions of voters. even in red states.

the same broad consensus and momentum isnt there for medicare for all.

>its on a policy by policy basis.
>
>increasing the minimum wage isnt as polarizing as revamping
>our entire healthcare system. neither is campaign finance
>reform. neither is paid sick/family/vacation leave. neither
>is expanded early childhood education. neither is felon
>voting re-enfranchisement. or increasing voting access in
>general. or independent redistricting commissions. or
>decriminalization of marijuana. even on the healthcare
>front...medicaid expansion isnt as polarizing as medicare for
>all.

Those things would only become more polarized the more an incoming Dem president pushed for them. There was nothing controversial about the idea of a stimulus package in an economic downturn. Or raising the debt ceiling. Or for that matter, the basic policies of the ACA. Until Fox News told their audience these were things to be hated and feared and it became Kenyan Islamo-Marxism.

Have there been that many polls done on felon re-enfranchisement? I know it passed in Florida, but nationally it hasn't been talked about very much. Only exception is maybe marijuana legalization.

>a criminal justice reform bill just passed through congress on
>a bipartisan basis and was signed by trump. nobody is gonna
>pay a political consequence for that.

A criminal justice reform bill that will help a small fraction of the incarcerated population and gives a shit ton of money to private prisons. I don't think that's the approach you want to take with healthcare, though.

>just in the last midterms alone...ballot initiatives were
>approved in states across the country dealing with the
>policies i mentioned above. by significant bipartisan
>coalitions of voters. even in red states.

You can't really test something like M4A on that kind of basis, as it would be impossible to implement at a state level.

Nothing is static, of course. Anything could become more/less popular over time. Including M4A, which is significantly more popular now than it was three years ago. I just don't see why THIS is where we should say "can never happen, don't even try, losing issue," because we wouldn't approach any other major problem this way.

If anything that the 46th president does is going to be ripped apart by bad-faith efforts from Republicans, why play into their hands by limiting your agenda? Unless you just personally think it would be bad policy, which is something else entirely.

a way to neutralize the GOP attacks on it and make it attractive. im going to be surprised if the GOP candidate is attacking M4A in the general campaign.

>im going to be surprised if the GOP candidate is
>attacking M4A in the general campaign.

people supporting m4a virtually got shut out of competitive races in the midterms. actually blew winnable races in places like nebraska because they were too far left on the issue. the issue was only a winner in already-blue enclaves where any dem would pretty much win. it wasnt even part of winning campaigns in crucial races in ever-blue-ing virginia. so why would you expand that to a national campaign?

repubs can point to the failure of single payer in bernies own state of vermont. thats the type of simple bumperstickering that would pretty much define the entire convo around it in a presidential election. what are dems gonna counter with? it works in norway? lol.

like in the midterms...repubs can just say 'dems are coming to take your healthcare and tax you more to give it to other people' to old people. it doesnt even have to be factually correct. catchy fearmongering works. individual dem candidates were saved by not actually running on m4a. what happens when one does now?

why do you think barely a small handful of dem governors (who have to interact with the actual people in their states every day) endorse medicare for all?

its advocates are so loud...people think its a lot more robust of a campaign issue than actual election results have shown. it was basically forced into the main party platform by hostage negotiation after 2016 and not through organic elevation by dem voters in the states. is that the type of policy you wanna hang the fate of your whole party on?

>what are dems gonna counter with? it works in norway? lol.

And not get okie doked by all of the "how will it be paid for" bad faith questions.

Our system costs more than M4A would by a couple trillion, it just mostly goes to prescriptions and administrative costs instead of actual health care.

Make them actually DEFEND the status quo. Why is that good? Why should people possibly be forced into the choice of bankruptcy or death after losing a job? Why is money that goes from the bank accounts of American citizens to the federal government wrong but more money coming from the bank accounts of American citizens to Aetna (and getting worse care in return) a good thing? Make them make the case for a system that leaves most of the country at a disadvantage for the benefit of a relative handful.

>And not get okie doked by all of the "how will it be paid for"
>bad faith questions.

media falls back on unoriginal/predictable shit like this but it does come from a real place. the price tag for single payer has killed it at the state level. thats been documented. so repubs have that card in their hand. dems only have hypotheses and projections.

everything youve said is valid. its also a lot more complex for voters to digest than 'bernies plan failed in bernies state'.

think 'obamas gun plan failed in obamas state'. the nuances are largely irrelevant among the general populace.

cant really back it up. i just feel the tide has shifted and it will show in 2020.

I actually kinda fuck with her but her past prevents me from being 100%

and is she not allowed to have developed her policies since then?
i dont know much about her really.

she did go against Police and law enforcement issues on some stuff, but on others she was pretty status quo/conservative.

She was fairly pro-death penalty and pro-three strikes. I can't recall off the top, but there's some other stuff that made me do a double take. There's obviously some nuance that i'm leaving out, but it's stuff that might hurt her a bit in the primaries, but weirdly might help in the general with 'MERICANS!' were she to be the nominee.

Getting put on as Willie Brown's side piece also makes me nervous that she could have some real skeletons in the closet. In California we don't really give a shit about that messiness (see our gubernatorial election last year), but nationally it might be something that gets brought up.

She's not perfect, but fuck it, throw her in the mix and see what her platform is.

...ever busted for jay-walking in San Francisco during her watch. Not to mention any the committed serious offenses.

Plus him and his crew will almost certainly run a "she slept her way to the top!" smear campaign, which would be inaccurate, but knowing how things work in this country, effective.

I like Harris a lot, but putting her out in front would play into exactly what Drumpf wants.

In what I'm sure is just a coincidence, he donated to her campaign (she was the only D he donated to that cycle.)

>Getting put on as Willie Brown's side piece also makes me
>nervous that she could have some real skeletons in the closet.
> In California we don't really give a shit about that
>messiness (see our gubernatorial election last year), but
>nationally it might be something that gets brought up.


brown was separated from his wife for 10 years when he and Kamala hooked up. And it was already an open secret at the time. I doubt that'll be an issue at all.

folks arent gonna go fact check that once someone lobs it at her.

im not giving credit. depending on how the media runs it. (if they even bother to do it), no one is really going to care because brown was separated from his wife. Only time will tell. See what happens.

just for the simple fact that its hard to directly attack his opponent in a lot of areas because trump is guilty of the same thing.

like do you really wanna attack kamala on adultery, or biden on #metoo, or beto on inexperience, etc?

as an incumbent with an actual record to run against. His entire 2016 campaign was based around him being a master of all things who would be able to do what nobody else could by sheer will. Obviously, he didn't live up to that.

Of course, this should've worked against Bush in 04 (remember in 2000 when he was the "compassionate conservative" and then immediately stopped pretending once he got in?) But we're also not 3 years removed from 9/11.

>But we're also
>not 3 years removed from 9/11.

made a safe air national guardsman look more patriotic/heroic than an actual combat vet and medal recipient.

>made a safe air national guardsman look more patriotic/heroic
>than an actual combat vet and medal recipient.

on another note, we'd be 2 years removed from a Government Shutdown... that he caused, over that stupid wall

even BUSH didn't have that problem

>just for the simple fact that its hard to directly attack his
>opponent in a lot of areas because trump is guilty of the same
>thing.
>
>like do you really wanna attack kamala on adultery, or biden
>on #metoo, or beto on inexperience, etc?


He'll say if he'd cheated, it would've been just what virile, rich, and powerful men like him do..... to "loose" women like Harris.

And his #MeToo allegations are #FakeNews but Biden is the real monster.

And he's gonna roast Beto like he's Justin Beiber.

Dude has no shame; I don't think any opponent should count on him pulling his punches bc his hands are dirty too.

Beto Lost
Bernie OLd
KamaLa taLks a good one...ain't do shit
Warren Lies about Harvard advertising her as a minority professor
Biden OLd too

Dems gonna fuck this up again.

The party needs a fresh face, with fresh ideas...and can Win

I don't see it yet

Like it was Cali

He didn’t snatch defeat from victory. He almost pulled off the impossible.

Beto gets on stage

LOSER!!! Lou who who LOSER!!!

That's all Trump will have to say to brand him...just like he did crooked hillary

lil' marco
lying ted
low energy jeb
etc...

He Lost to Ted Cruz...what makes you think he can beat Trump?

SMH...Ted Cruz man

+ he keeps stating definitively, that he's not running in 2020

I'd expect he ends up VP...maybe...on somebody else's ticket

>He Lost to Ted Cruz...what makes you think he can beat Trump?

Y’all really don’t understand how impossible it is to beat a republican in Texas?

apparently, it's not as impossible as you think.

you do know how down ballot races work right?

a rising tide at the top of the ticket lifts all boats. most voters dont even know who their local candidates are. but they come out to vote for major office candidates than just vote straight ticket down the ballot.

all of the major cities in texas went blue for the first time ever because of beto.

beto flipping tarrant county to blue benefited dem candidates around fort worth (including that state senate seat). beto overperforming in major suburbs carried those candidates over the finish line too.

beto killing it in harris county swept 17 black female judges into office.

these folks won *because* of beto. not despite him.

Locally I’m sure Dems can win in urban areas but the whole state? That’s still years away.

its not about texas its about how much of a peed-on area rug that cruz is

and if this country hasn't proven itself to be a maxed-out-texas (relative to how wonky politics is these days) then I must be missing something


also do note all this is said in a very "its late Thursday" I ain't that pressed kinda way

Y’all scare me.

Beto was trying to bank a 3 pointer of lthe scoreboard like in the MJ commercial and he hit the rim.

meanwhile he completely aint getting nuance and context.

Who is going to decide to NOT vote for Beto because he lost Texas?


I don't get that logic. "Well I was going to vote for the Dem candidate, I like what he says, etc...but then I found out he lost to Ted Cruz"

Murrikkka elected an incompetent reality TV star as president in 2016...but a guy who barely lost TX isn't feasible?

The ticket just has to carry the rust belt.


There are definitely folks in here who don't seem to get how much money dude raised, how much he helped down ticket candidates, and how impressive it was that he got that close.

Its motherfucking Texas.

and think they have a good argument

We aren’t winning Texas.

It’s definitely all about winning the rust belt and if he can almost beat Cruz it means he knows how to get that Bama vote in the middle of PA. He doesn’t need much to flip PA, Mich and Wisc.

...on the perception he's a successful business man

Despite evidence to the contrary

It's not about me, you, Reeq,etc...

You expect that same general public to understand down ballot candidates?

C'mon

I'm buying Beto for VP

As a POTUS candidate vs Trump...he will absolutely be presented as a Loser.

+Beto looks like the type of dude to cry in public when insulted...just sayin

But we aren’t trying to convince Trump supporters

I think there are enough folks who regret their vote and some that stayed home that will vote for a guy like Beto over Trump.

Again, we don’t need a ton of votes. Just a chosen few in a few swing states.

That sounds familiar

How'd that work out last time...

I agree, Superman would make an excellent candidate, but he's not eligible on account of his Kryptonian birth and fictional character status.

vs Trump, you need yuge personality that can command the room

It's not about being perfect

It's about standing on that stage and not getting sonned by his antics

HRC ethered him on any debate of policy

yet...the memorable clips from those debates are him threatening to lock her up, and doing laps in the background while she spoke

IMO, I haven't seen a candidate offered to date that I'm confident can give it as good as they get it from Trump

Again, how'd that workout last time

Again, I haven't seen a candidate offered to date that I'm confident can Win

I'm hoping that candidate hasn't been offered yet...I'll let you know if that changes.

like in your free time when you arent just shitting on everyone else...who do you actually support?

I still believe in his policies

obviously the age is a bigger problem 4 years later

but I am encouraged by the shift that seems to be imminent in the democratic party

I'll continue to support Bernie until there is a candidate that picks up the baton and continues his fight.

I like Nina Turner and I would vote for her in a heartbeat

A Nina Turner POTUS/Bernie Sanders VP ticket is probably my dream come true right now

What we have to agree upon is, there is no perfect candidate

Turning over rocks to find flaws doesn't help any of us

I want to hear policies and how candidates are going to move the country forward

Not NRA ratings and old tweets.

He's less popular than I think you think and someone calling him "Dumb Donald" or whatever for six months isn't actually going to excite people.

And before you respond with "oh, so you think Hillary should run again, hmmmmm," no, I do not. I just don't think liberal boomer Facebook burns are going to be the magic bullet.

Think about this

Trump leveraged the FBI announcement, etc...which was a major factor in the election

and wasn't POTUS

Now that he is...whoever gets the D nod...is going to face off vs Trump WITH the power of the office behind him

Safe bet, regardless of the nominee, there will be scandal and dirt, etc...

The nominee needs to be able to not only weather that storm, but hit back.

Because earlier you were talking about "Lyin Ted" and "Low energy Jeb" like we need our own version of that.

If that's hitting back, it's not going to work.

Folks thought she has it in a landslide

Obama wear a moustache and run him as "Barry Ho" the hella chill guy from Hawaii, you know "Ho" he's like part Asian or something..I think. PLEASE VOTE FOR HIM.

I'm kidding

https://twitter.com/VoteOjeda2020/status/1083466588454567936

voted for trump, was pro-coal, and didnt support medicare for all (supported public option for obamacare).

his abortion rights history was iffy too...but at least he came around for his campaign.

his schtick works in wv (not enough to win lol) but he is gonna look like a complete clown on a national level next to serious policy experts like harris and warren.

He projects an image of strength/sounds like he'll smash somebody in the face which is something the party has been lacking

Whoever does win the nomination would do well to make use on the campaign trail to siphon votes in those close districts.

All these people want to go straight form whatever to president. If we had a few more bodies in the Senate, there might be an actual shot of getting something passed in the next president's first term.

And not just on lock but enthusiastic. Especially in the primaries. Maybe the entire BGLO/HBCU vote as well.

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1083821956519129089

last time this happened was obama.

I don't know much about her, other than the Franken and Clinton stuff.

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1083868200968863751

i wonder if some of these people really feel like they have a shot at winning.

i wonder if shes running as a younger proxy for bernie.

Hopefully she is a quick out. I want a real primary this time, but I don't think having 10+ options for weeks/months on end would be good.

To your Bernie point, if he runs, maybe she ends up fucking him over by taking some of his votes.

perhaps even be named as her VP pick if she gets that far.

Tulsi has shown incredible courage and judgment for being so young. Despite her age, she's seen a lot and has conducted herself with dignity and authenticity.

I can make a case (and would be happy to debate it) that she's the strongest candidate in the mix right now -- but whether voters will agree is another question, but she does already have a very loyal, spirited grass-roots base that is already growing - and it's not just made up of progressives or "Berniecrats" - it's also attracted independents, who she can credibly appeal to.


-->

to the point where you could legitimately question whether shes a real progressive/democrat. thats not good heading into a democratic primary.

like how do you overcome questions about being anti-lgbtq, anti-muslim, pro-assad/putin, etc all at once to string together support from a democratic base thats largely on the other side of those issues now?

like im not sure why any progressives consider her progressive when she didnt support medicare for all or join the progressive caucus until mid/late 2017, wanted to restrict the admission of syrian/muslim refugees, voted to allow mentally ill people to carry guns, lied about not accepting wall street donations in the past, voted against the house progressive caucus budget the last 2 times it came up for a floor vote before 2017, and went on fox news and criticized obama for not using the term 'radical islamic terrorism'.

it honestly baffles me that 'progressives' support her...because her history is notably more conservative than obama/clinton (who they criticize for not being left enough).

if she didnt endorse bernie in 2016...his supporters would prolly be calling her a blue dog democrat/dino and trying to primary her. and they would be justified.

black people should reject the 1st black attorney general of ca.
beto took money from fossil fuel employees in a state dominated by fossil fuel jobs.
theyre prolly gonna say there are 2 julian castros and we dont know which one to trust lol.

>theyre prolly gonna say there are 2 julian castros and we dont
>know which one to trust lol.

DEAD

In many ways - I see it playing to where a popularized perception of a candidate will dominate over the actual reality of who that candidate is (just as we're saying with the portrayal of AOC right now in the big 3 media).

>to the point where you could legitimately question whether
>shes a real progressive/democrat. thats not good heading into
>a democratic primary.

That sounds familiar as a tactic to de-legitimize a candidate (there was some who even cited Bernie as "not a real progressive" and many said he wasn't a real democratc, of course, and never dealt with his policy)

But what is a "real progressive/democrat" mean? It's different depending on who you ask.

>like how do you overcome questions about being anti-lgbtq,
>anti-muslim, pro-assad/putin, etc all at once to string
>together support from a democratic base thats largely on the
>other side of those issues now?

She doesn't have to overcome those things, because she isn't those things. re: "anti-lgbtq" - perhaps you're referring to her views in her early 20's after being raised by a fundamentalist father who was indeed an anti-lgbtq activist - but Tulsi is not her father. She did a 180 in her 20's and came into her own beliefs after shaking free of that programming - and now celebrates gay-marriage and even came up here to do a speak with a pro-lgbtq organization (Rights & Democracy) to advocate for lgbtq rights.

Re: "pro-assad/putin" - lol, c'mon - because she visited Syria, met with Assad - and doesn't adopt the NeoCon foreign policy establishment without questioning it? She actually said that Assad should be prosecuted and executed *if* he was behind the chemical attacks. She is absolutely correct in pointing out the lack of principle in out interventionist policy, and to call out Obama and now Trump for aiding ISIS directly and indirectly in Syria and in the broader region - while claiming to conduct a "war against terror" in an effort to destabilize as many regions as possible (which is the PNAC creed) and transform the mid-east to the benefit of saudia arabia & israel in their obsession with destroying iran.

>like im not sure why any progressives consider her progressive
>when she didnt support medicare for all or join the
>progressive caucus until mid/late 2017,

But she does support medicare for all. Again, the inaccurate reporting on what her actual, current positions are is astounding.

wanted to restrict the
>admission of syrian/muslim refugees,

I definitely disagreed with her there, but she has also come around on that issue.

voted against the house progressive
>caucus budget the last 2 times it came up for a floor vote
>before 2017, and went on fox news and criticized obama for not
>using the term 'radical islamic terrorism'.

Her take on that was almost identical to Maajid Nawaz - in that she wasn't saying that like it's being portrayed to be "anti-islamic". She was criticizing our foreign policy for aiding ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups while claiming to be fighting the war on terror. She has stood in solidarity with Muslims who are being savaged by those extremist groups, and has argued that we aren't doing that when our policies have only contributed to the rise of extremism in the region - and she's right.

>it honestly baffles me that 'progressives' support
>her...because her history is notably more conservative than
>obama/clinton (who they criticize for not being left enough).

Obama/Clinton were never as progressive as she is right now - but she's not a partisan loyalist, and that rubs some people wrong.

>if she didnt endorse bernie in 2016...his supporters would
>prolly be calling her a blue dog democrat/dino and trying to
>primary her. and they would be justified.

There was an effort to primary her but it fell short because of the reliance on narrative spin as opposed to what her actual policies are.


-->

it may fill in some of the holes you have on her record.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party

just posted a lil earlier:
https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1084190704816087042

jacobin is a well-known lefty rag and mehdi hasan is a staff writer for theintercept. if shes even getting heavy criticism from *them* then its gonna hard for her to find a path forward.


>But she does support medicare for all. Again, the inaccurate
>reporting on what her actual, current positions are is
>astounding.

you misread my comment. im saying she didnt support it (or even join the progressive caucus) til mid/late last year.

here she is with an f rating from progressivepunch.org based on her actual voting history. shes a member of the progressive caucus but shes ranked below tim ryan.
http://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=house

the more i think think about it...the more im beginning to think only die-hard sanders supporters think she is a progressive. general progressives seem to be able to see her for who she really is.


>There was an effort to primary her but it fell short because
>of the reliance on narrative spin as opposed to what her
>actual policies are.

it wasnt by bernie supporters is my point. 'ourrevolution' endorsed her while they attacked much less conservative democrats. her opponent was actually more progressive and further left than her but it didnt matter to bernies group. weird right?

>jacobin is a well-known lefty rag and mehdi hasan is a staff
>writer for theintercept. if shes even getting heavy criticism
>from *them* then its gonna hard for her to find a path
>forward.

A lot of the Jacobin critique was based on stances that she no longer holds. I'm dealing with what she currently votes for, advocates for and believes in - i.e. what her policies are *now*

What's interesting about the Hasan critique is that if you actually look into it, Gabbard's over-arching policy in the mid-east is essentially identical to Hasan's (who has called out the U.S./Saudi/Israeli plot to transform the mid-east in their favor).

Listen to what she said even on Van Jones last night about Syria -- she said that our troops shouldn't be there to further a proxy war that is aimed to precipitate regime change in Iran. We are only authorized to be there to oust al-qaeda & ISIS - and that's not why we're there. In fact, we've aided them (directly and indirectly) in an effort to top Assad and create regime-change there. That's precisely what Hasan has been speaking out against for years.

Saying you're not in support of regime-change in Syria is *not* the same as being pro-Assad. Many were not pro Saddam Hussein but they did not want to go to war and install a faux-government there in his place (for fear of the vacuum that would be created) --- and they were right.

>you misread my comment. im saying she didnt support it (or
>even join the progressive caucus) til mid/late last year.

Ok - but look at her on the issues:

https://www.votetulsi.com/vision

Progressive AF. This whole "she didn't join this D group or that D group" sounds an awful lot like "Bernie's not a real Democrat" type of smearing. Let's look at her actual policies and not what gang she claims

>the more i think think about it...the more im beginning to
>think only die-hard sanders supporters think she is a
>progressive. general progressives seem to be able to see her
>for who she really is.

If there were the case - you wouldn't have everyone in progressive independent media from TYT to The Real News supporting her candidacy - because they actually understand what her policy positions are.



-->

and that, in the context of the global rise of right-wing authoritarians is a horrible thing

She is - and the response to her announcement illustrates that. She's not perfect, and certainly has her flaws.

I'm just curious as to why the scrutiny on other candidates already announced (and those who are set to announce) isn't so pre-manufactured and passionate - and I'm surmising a lot of it has to do with Dem old-guard forces that feel jilted after she resigned from the DNC as Vice Chair after calling out the inequitable adjudication of the 2016 Dem Primary.

Along with her foreign policy (which I rock with heavily) - I'll ride with somebody with that kind of conviction in the face of power any day over cookie-cutter Dems who are too afraid to say/do anything that clashes with party orthodoxy.

-->

if anything...her conservative views were more contrarian and made her more independent within the party.

the shit she supposedly supports now is en vogue within the party.

the dem conservative subgroup is way smaller than the dem progressive subgroup. she did the political equivalent of bandwagoning in the playoffs.

she would have exemplified 'conviction' if she actually stuck to her guns and didnt switch up when it was convenient.

First up, the idea that we are post partisan is news
to me.

Second, how would she rally different groups if
she can’t rally Dems?


And, i keep reading “she’s evolved”....k, to what?

And it seems like code for “she isn’t awful anymore,
I promise”

But....what specifically is “exciting” about her to
people? Does she have some unique agenda
or ideas I’m unaware of?


And how do you shake a Bannon co-sign?


Cuz if the gist of the argument is she favors
standard progressive Dem positions and
she doesn’t hate gays anymore and oh
the term “radical Islam” is no longer important
to her....etc

Then what is special about her? That she has
“Evolved”?

which would be incredibly convenient if you were planning on running for president in the democratic party in a few years lol.

>And, i keep reading “she’s evolved”....k, to what?

the same folks who give tulsi a pass on 'evolving' werent willing to give clinton the same benefit of the doubt (gay marriage, tpp, etc). not to compare them to trump supporters...but the blatant hypocrisy in the face of past behavior is way too obvious.

on just about every issue but guns tho.

>Progressive AF. This whole "she didn't join this D group or
>that D group" sounds an awful lot like "Bernie's not a real
>Democrat" type of smearing. Let's look at her actual policies
>and not what gang she claims

tulsi just started championing a progressive platform after 2016. completely flipped on major issues with no real reasoning.

if conor lamb or tim ryan suddenly started acting like alexandria ocasio-cortez...'progressives' would be roasting them lol.

shit pelosi has voted more progressive than tulsi her entire career and 'progressives' treat her like ted cruz lol.

when it comes to championing Progressive values. He's done it longer and with more passion than anybody in the House or Senate - and he's been stunningly consistent and resolute.

>tulsi just started championing a progressive platform after
>2016. completely flipped on major issues with no real
>reasoning.
>
>if conor lamb or tim ryan suddenly started acting like
>alexandria ocasio-cortez...'progressives' would be roasting
>them lol.

I do think that Tulsi's background will be a significant hurdle for her - particularly with Democratic voters who want to re-litigate 2016 and blame Tulsi (along with Russia, Bernie, Jill Stein and Alf) for Hillary's defeat. But she's not trying to be AOC - she has a wholly distinctive identity that is progressive, but it's also post-partisan and independent of standard party dogma in many ways (which incidentally, is also a feature of AOC). Tulsi's approach has a universal message to it - and it's very much global in scope. There is no candidate who is running right now who understands peace & war in a complicated global order better than Tulsi. You've never even heard Warren talk about foreign policy - and if she does - she sounds uncomfortable and wants to pivot to a different domestic item.

When it comes to being "progressive" (whatever that means now) - you could certainly make the case that other candidates (Warren, Bernie) are more progressive. But I don't think you can find a candidate right now that is both progressive and can credibly dissent with party orthodoxy in a way that doesn't just appeal to progressives on the left, but also to independents and a growing voter bloc that is not particularly interested in partisan identity.




-->

What specifically do you like about her?


And don’t get me wrong, I’m here all day for folks
bucking the party....but I’d like to hear something
specific.

What is her unique message, exactly?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwvZ7heXcAE3pjU.jpg

who knows where she stands now...lol

cmon vex...youre my guy...but if this was somebody who never endorsed sanders and suddenly became progressive a year or two ago...you know his folks would be calling her a phony progressive just faking the funk for political opportunism.

you know how i know its true? because they did it in michigan to a candidate who didnt have half the anti-progressive history baggage that gabbard has (he was running against an 'our revolution'/'justice democrats' candidate).
https://www.facebook.com/justicedemocrats/posts/shri-thanedar-is-a-fraud-a-millionaire-who-is-pretending-to-run-as-a-progressive/433580157082730/

sandersnistas got on hillary for changing her stance on *one issue* (gay marriage) in 2013. tulsi basically changed her entire political identity in 2016/2017 lol.

https://twitter.com/samthielman/status/1084076284098039809

people better keep an eye on her campaign financing.

def puts this old tweet in better context.
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/649615636088365058

'progressives' say shes anti-war/intervention but apparently shes pro-bombing-muslims-in-other-sovereign-countries-15-years-after-9/11.

honestly she runs the same pro-putin/russia loose/crude logic that rt and tucker carlson employ (and trump tried for a while). 'we should actually be bombing al qaeda *with* putin because they attacked us way back on 9/11'.

yikes.

>def puts this old tweet in better context.
>https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/649615636088365058
>
>'progressives' say shes anti-war/intervention but apparently
>shes
>pro-bombing-muslims-in-other-sovereign-countries-15-years-after-9/11.

What does that actually mean? Her point in that tweet was pointing out the absurdity of our involvement in Syria. Our stated mission was to "defeat ISIS" - but Putin & Iran were actually doing that, yet we tried to thwart their effort because of the pro-Saudi, pro-Israeli position that we serve to oust Assad (who is supported by Iran).

It's way more complicated than most people want to accept - and to say that she is "pro-bombing Muslims" is absurd. You can disagree w/ her policy without falsely accusing her of wanting to bomb Muslims.

>honestly she runs the same pro-putin/russia loose/crude logic
>that rt and tucker carlson employ (and trump tried for a
>while). 'we should actually be bombing al qaeda *with* putin
>because they attacked us way back on 9/11'.

Syria isn't about 9/11 - it's about a proxy-war between Saudi Arabia/Israel and Iran - and the utilization of ISIS to destabilize governments which formed after we destroyed Iraq's moderate society and inflamed extremist fires throughout the region, leading to the creation of ISIS (which is an extension of Wahhabi hard-line Saudi ideology).

There is nothing "Pro-Putin/Russia" about that.


-->

why do you think rt supports her heavy, russian trolls/bots are flooding timelines and attacking people for her, the alt right loves her, and she was up for a position in the trump administration?

i mean...why do think this bot account was created just a few days before tulsi announced her decision to run? (how did they even know beforehand?)
https://twitter.com/BobWilkerson56

why do you think theyre running the jill stein promotion playbook with her campaign?



>Syria isn't about 9/11

exactly. then why did *she* mention it in her tweet? that loose/crude russian agitprop logic made to play on american sentiment. she mirrors it word for word. you dont find that suspicious?

>why do you think rt supports her heavy, russian trolls/bots
>are flooding timelines and attacking people for her, the alt
>right loves her, and she was up for a position in the trump
>administration?

The predominate response to her announcement has not been what you reference above, but dozens of high-profile establishment democrats and media that had smear pieces queued up as soon as she entered the race - and it's been spread all over the internet. So there is a concerted media effort to spin her candidacy - but not in the way that you describe. You can't underestimate the revenge that many Establishment Dems have in their hearts for the way she jilted the DNC and relinquished her VP title - calling out DWS and Clinton in an unfathomably brave way that many thought would cost her gravely in terms of her political career (and perhaps it would have had Clinton won).

But I've actually been following Gabbard for many years and have observed her political evolution - and see her as a transcendent force that can actually rally voters in a post-partisan environment (which is what I think we're headed for). I see her as the most viable candidate to pull in diverse voters from all across the political spectrum without compromising her progressive views (and she *is* very progressive - issue to issue - despite those that say she isn't citing decade-old quotes that she has since renounced and evolved on).

RT supports her because she hasn't bought into the "Russian conspiracy", wholesale. I know that Maddow and others spend every evening talking about Russia Russia Russia - but when it comes to issues of war and peace - it's not as simplified as our national coverage makes it out to be. She is nuanced on foreign policy in a way that few others are - and that has been twisted to mean that she's "pro-Russia" simply because it challenges longstanding foreign policy established views.




-->

Granted - I do like a lot of the issues he covers - but in terms of analysis his show does nothing for me.

I do - however - enjoy TheRealNews network.

-->

but now he is basically lefty alex jones lol.

but his tone and long-winded monologues rarely do anything for me.

I prefer Kyle Kulinski when it comes to that TYT off-shoot perspective.

-->

I'm honestly asking.


Because she seems awful man. Awful on everything from Syria to her rhetoric on Muslims to being cosigned by motherfucking Steve Bannon and more.


I don't really want to hear why attack X is wrong.


I'd like to know what you like about her...honest question.

and criticized dem senators (including one from her state) for scrutinizing whether religious zealot/extremist judicial nominees would let their ideology interfere with their jurisprudence.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hawaii-rep-tulsi-gabbard-accuses-fellow-democrats-of-religious-bigotry-in-questioning-judicial-nominee/2019/01/09/2c17ecdc-1467-11e9-90a8-136fa44b80ba_story.html
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/religious-rights/424362-elected-leaders-who-weaponize-religion-are-playing-a

*democrats* are weaponizing religion? really?

repubs are ramming through wholly unqualified judges (the aba even says this) who have a record of promoting extreme christian fundamentalist views in contradiction with the constitution...but she takes no issue with that.

the weird part...she just brought this up *now* based on something that happened in november.

you have republicans in texas voting on whether to oust *their own* county vice chair simply because he is muslim. and she focuses on *this* as an example of religious bigotry?

she is gaaaaarbage.

i guess the good part about her running is that her *real* record is going to be discussed in front of a national audience. because i seriously believe a lot of people who like her know very little about her (aside from puff piece bios and the bernie endorsement).

Because I legit do t get it.

She isn’t more consistently progressive than Warren.

She isn’t more electable than Kamala.

She doesn’t have a swing state advantages like
say Klobuchar.

She doesn’t have the juice of Beto or the bragging
rights of winning in Trump country like Brown.

Hell she isn’t even Bernie.



So....why are some people excited? I legit want to
understand.

and lip service toward the progressive agenda

-->

I would have no problem supporting Warren against Trump in a general (obviously) - but I don't think Warren is as viable in a general election.

Tulsi has legitimate post-partisan instincts, and has proven to be able to engage in productive dialogue with those who opposite to her ideologically. She has proven to take unpopular stances that are nonetheless principled and upright - and will defy conventional political norms if necessary. I am impressed with the strength of her conviction (and happen to agree with her on virtually every issue).

I don't think Warren and other standard D Democrats can excite a diverse electorate that is increasingly independent and fatigued at the same old partisan bickering. Some talk the talk on being able to operate in a post-partisan environment - but she has actually done it.

If you look at who she appeals to - it's all over the political spectrum. That's what you want in a general presidential election.

>Because she seems awful man. Awful on everything from Syria to
>her rhetoric on Muslims

Can you be specific? What is awful about her position on Syria? What are you referring to when you say her "rhetoric on Muslims"?





-->

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1084075001119211521

seriously do all these people think they can win? im guessing some of them wanna increase their national profile or tryout for the vp job.

we seriously need to concentrate on these 2020 senate races tho.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

betta yet what make u think beto can win? if his burglary n DUI charges aint been dismissed back inna day would he even be ABLE to run?

dat skateboardin hair flippin peep my hipster smile shit aint a guarantee for shit

he like a justin timberlake of politicians

julian been a mayor and a secretary inna exec branch plus he a harvard trained lawyer

i aint seein no reason to clown him at all

matta of fact im glad mfs is steppin up

more da gatdamn merrier let da people decide



>https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1084075001119211521
>
>seriously do all these people think they can win? im guessing
>some of them wanna increase their national profile or tryout
>for the vp job.
>
>we seriously need to concentrate on these 2020 senate races
>tho.

>seriously do all these people think they can win? im guessing
>some of them wanna increase their national profile or tryout
>for the vp job.

And so they know all it takes is one monster debate performance and boom, they're genuine contenders.

for no other reason than that they look fucking weird

I know nothing about Castro...but I'm not mad at him throwing his hat in the ring.

Like I said, I don't want TOO many people, but at least we are getting a primary.

Only ones I can do without so far are that dude from WV (lol) and Gabbard.

I hope Brown and/or Klobuchar are going to get in this, cuz we need the rust belt.

and not enough on the senate/house/state races that brought us those big gains in 2018.

i dont wanna end up with a dem prez with a repub senate and missed opportunities to control redistricting in important states.

>I hope Brown and/or Klobuchar are going to get in this, cuz we
>need the rust belt.

brown running could actually be disastrous. he holds a dem senate seat in a state that his going hard right fast. aside from brown...repubs swept the major offices in 2018. if brown ever bounces...that seat almost certainly goes to a repub (even after repub gov appoints new senator).

>and not enough on the senate/house/state races that brought
>us those big gains in 2018.
>
>i dont wanna end up with a dem prez with a repub senate and
>missed opportunities to control redistricting in important
>states.

Fair, but I think this is a concern regardless of who
is in the primary.
>
>>I hope Brown and/or Klobuchar are going to get in this, cuz
>we
>>need the rust belt.
>
>brown running could actually be disastrous. he holds a dem
>senate seat in a state that his going hard right fast. aside
>from brown...repubs swept the major offices in 2018. if brown
>ever bounces...that seat almost certainly goes to a repub
>(even after repub gov appoints new senator).

I honestly don’t know how the senate looks in
2020. I wouldn’t want to lose him to the VP
spot, but if he is our best bet to best Trump? Sign
me up.

The outcome of the senate won’t matter if Trump
is still there.

I’ll take a Brown presidency that has to wait until
2022 to be truly effective over a Trump win any day.

>The outcome of the senate won’t matter if Trump
>is still there.
>
>I’ll take a Brown presidency that has to wait until
>2022 to be truly effective over a Trump win any day.

so its more likely dems would lose even more senate seats in 2022 (along with offices in the states). then you add the seat that brown would already be giving up.

a dem prez with a repub senate is basically a lame duck. no judges (def no supreme court seat), no critical senate-approved appointments to various agencies, etc. itd basically just be a different face on the trump administration. but with repubs gaining seats across the country and cementing power before another repub prez won and again capitalized on that power.

2nd best scenario to a dem prez with a dem senate would be trump winning with dem winning both chambers of congress. then trump would effectively be a lame duck with no real power while dems eat up even more power in the states for 4 years. with an almost-certain economic downturn falling under a 2nd trump term...a dem prez could legitimately come into power with a senate supermajority and a whole bunch of dem-dominated states (especially after redistricting). only downside is that rbg would have to make it through 4 more years.

That’s the priority. Even with a Dem senate, he’d
still have too much power considering anything
from executive orders to federal departments
to continuing to control the media.

Assuming Brown is the best bet, one senate seat
isn’t worth not beating Trump.

This debate might not matter if Brown doesn’t run
or doesn’t win the primary.


My point, too, is that regardless of who is in the
primary, the left risks losing sight of the senate
cuz that’s how things go.

Having Castro, Harris, etc in the primary race
won’t change that...so why not have a robust
primary?

nothing i can say really bothers me about him but its just meh

which is funny to me since he's white. I've been wondering for the past few months who is more popular in Texas... like if they were running for the same seat would Texans choose Beto or Julian.
I'm glad Julian threw in though.

I forget when but there was a time in maybe 2017 when La Raza entered the national stage and Trump folks/conservatives tore into that shit. They think La Raza is on the same level as white nationalism/KKK/etc.

Hard sell to those folks

https://www.twitter.com/KStreetHipster/status/1084169515775246337

her history really is horrendous. i dont see how she can explain away *all* that.

>https://www.twitter.com/KStreetHipster/status/1084169515775246337

cute twitter snark - but wildly inaccurate. I guess people are just going to mis-state her positions until they convince themselves that it's really what her positions are.

Have fun with that.




-->

some of them recently.

she voted for that nra bill to allow the mentally ill to get guns in *2017*...when she was supposed to be progressive (maybe why she didnt join the official progressive caucus until months later?). only 11 other dems voted for that bill. none of them claiming to be progressive.

you think it might be time to re-evaluate your assessment of her a lil bit?

The very first tweet talks of the the religion of the other candidates - and then fails to mention that Tulsi is Hindu; instead stating that she is "the only non-lawyer." Weird out the gate to not mention her faith when she mentions everyone else's.

Then - it starts off by implying Tulsi is pro-life. She's not. She's pro-choice.

Next, she states that Tulsi is anti-LGBQT. lol. Really?

She's a member of the LGBT Equality Caucus in the House and has been endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign.

It's kind of hard to continue the game when you start off like that. Is this Neera Tanden's burner account?

re: gun control?

Tulsi has an F-rating from the NRA, a 0% rating by the Hawaii Rifle Association, and a 100% rating by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

I guess she's really just a plant who rocks with Steven Bannon on the weekends in Malibu, tho.

>you think it might be time to re-evaluate your assessment of
>her a lil bit?

Not at all. She's not perfect and certainly has her flaws and historical challenges - but the irony in this purity test from Centrist Dems is laughable.

I love Warren - but she's polarizing as hell to the electorate. Castro? He's just trying to stay active and set something up in the future. Beto? I like the energy behind him - but what has he really done besides run a brilliant, spirited (and losing) campaign against Cruz?

Tulsi deployed twice to war in the mid-east, has seen the ugly face of war. Marched at Standing Rock - flew into war-torn Syria under dangerous circumstances to get a first-hand, on-the-ground account of what's actually going on.

Her evolution as a person has been remarkable. She was raised conservative, joined the army because she was conservative and in her time abroad learned of the dangers of fundamentalism and legislating morality. She self-reflected and realized the hypocrisy of the conservatism of her father - and evolved, genuinely.

We celebrated Obama for evolving on issues. Hillary wasn't destroyed like this from most of the people sounding off on Tulsi, despite Hillary living a privileged life full of denying rights to people based on her perceived superiority. It took her decades to evolve on lgbtq rights and she only did so when forced by political shifting climate. But Tulsi evolves into her progressivism and it's unforgivable?

I still think she's the most viable challenger in a general election thus far. That may change with Harris or Beto entering the race, as I could see both of them front-running effectively if they are crowned the presumptive darling.

But I will say that I was expecting this backlash from within the DNC ranks for Gabbard. But let's be open-source in the spirit of healthy competition and let them fight it out via debate - so that the people can hear whether Gabbard is really the anti-lgbqt, anti-muslim, pro-life Bannon tomboy that "poliwonk hipster" swears she is.



-->

But what else? What is her message that had you
so excited?

You have a lot of posts about how much you admire
her personally, but nothing really of substance.

Yeah you think she’ll be able to rally voters, but you
also admit she is hated by the left and centrist Dems.

If she can’t rally Dems, AND she is an F-rated by the NRA
progressive....

Who the fuck is she going to rally?


Obama and Hill did get some shit for evolving, but
I can’t think of a candidate who has “evolved” on
more issues than Gabbard. Big issues too.


You also claim she is getting unfairly attacked, but she has
a ton of baggage to attack man.

You also gloss over things by saying “she isn’t
perfect”....that doesn’t explain away shit like
a Steve Bannon co-sign (are you going to
address that?)

Some of this shit is very concerning. And I don’t
say that as a Dem loyalist or some shit.

I honestly don’t get how a progressive could
be this excited about her and/or think she has
the best chance.

>Yeah you think she’ll be able to rally voters, but you
>also admit she is hated by the left and centrist Dems.
>
>If she can’t rally Dems, AND she is an F-rated by the NRA
>progressive....

I want her to run in the primaries but my gut says she wont get the nomination.

We need a win in 2020 and i dont feel like places like Florida, Pennsylvania, or Ohio would come in for her for President.

She can make a strong VP though.

We need a strong candidate like a younger Biden who will WIN those swing states.

2020 isn't an experimental year.

Its a defeat 45 at all cost. All hands on deck.

Dont care who it is as long as he or she is ELECTABLE.

need to see how the primaries go but shes a top choice for me right now.

https://youtu.be/o8g9I-MQl2k

Between ppl like Tulsi, Warren, Bernie (probably), and Nina Turner if she runs, i have no reason to ever settle for someone like that (Kamala).

>Between ppl like Tulsi, Warren, Bernie (probably), and Nina
>Turner if she runs, i have no reason to ever settle for
>someone like that (Kamala).

Tulsi and Warren have like nothing in common, lol.

At least from everything ive seen and read on her so far

No snark, but no one can give me a straight answer.


And please don't say her character, because it could just be she has perfected the sell of the flip flop. Plus..character doesn't get you elected.

And if it is her "evolution"...could Kamala not claim the same thing?


So...what specifically do you like about Tulsi with regards to policiy, etc?

(but u wont like this, certain character traits that i value in a leader are a big part of it for me, and yeah you only truly know someone if they're your sister, but we do our best)

"I have some unanswered questions, but im very excited (she's running).

Moreso than any particular issue, i just have immense respect for her overall integrity and case-by-case approach to issues. I like that she appears to consider each matter earnestly, and not just take whatever side will keep her popular with her peers.

AND i think she would be kryptonite to Trump. She would utterly dismantle his fake tough-guy act. She wouldn't even have to say anything for everyone to know she's 1000 times tougher than him, and she isnt going to pearl-clutch and take the bait over every one of his stupid daily tweets and insults, so he wont be able to paint her as some kind of wimpy pc-police sjw snowflake, which is his main political weapon. That will be nullified.
She'll even call him a little bitch from time to time lol.

But she'll actually be focused on the issues and he'll have to wade into deeper substantive waters against her."

>(but u wont like this, certain character traits that i value
>in a leader are a big part of it for me, and yeah you only
>truly know someone if they're your sister, but we do our
>best)

I get that. Put it this way- folks keep telling me "look how she has grown/evolved!" which is just...its an odd thing to use because typically changing positions is BAD in politics.

Or at least...not the sole reason to like someone lol.


And if growth is the determining factor here, can't Kamala just claim growth on your issues with her?


What about Gillibrand's "growth" on guns?


>
>"I have some unanswered questions, but im very excited (she's
>running).
>
>Moreso than any particular issue, i just have immense respect
>for her overall integrity and case-by-case approach to issues.
>I like that she appears to consider each matter earnestly, and
>not just take whatever side will keep her popular with her
>peers.

Can you give a specific example?

>
>AND i think she would be kryptonite to Trump. She would
>utterly dismantle his fake tough-guy act. She wouldn't even
>have to say anything for everyone to know she's 1000 times
>tougher than him, and she isnt going to pearl-clutch and take
>the bait every one of his stupid tweets and insults, so he
>wont be able to paint her as some kind of wimpy pc-police sjw
>snowflake, which is his main political weapon.
>She'll even call him a little bitch from time to time lol.


This is where I defer to folks who have seen her debate, so I will take your word for it. But in that CNN interview she was talking some generic Hawaii love bullshit.

>
>But she'll actually be focused on the issues and he'll have to
>wade into deeper substantive waters against her."


What specific issues is she going to focus on, though?

>I get that. Put it this way- folks keep telling me "look how
>she has grown/evolved!" which is just...its an odd thing to
>use because typically changing positions is BAD in politics.
:
Nah, the fact that she evolved on some things isnt the main thing at all for me, but to that point i would say the ability and willingness to evolve often reflects a certain humility and sincerity in one's approach to the issues.


>Or at least...not the sole reason to like someone lol.
:
Agreed. Its not my reason.


>And if growth is the determining factor here, can't Kamala
>just claim growth on your issues with her?
:
To me, there's a difference between your stance on an issue and the way you treat people. If its true that Kamala Harris pushed to keep an innocent man in prison for an extra 2 years because she disapproved of the way he mishandled the paperwork or whatever, that reflects a coldness of heart that i can't even fathom...plus, im highly sceptical of anyone the corporate establishment tries to prop up.


>What about Gillibrand's "growth" on guns?
:
I need to learn more about her before i comment.


>
>>
>>"I have some unanswered questions, but im very excited
>(she's
>>running).
>>
>>Moreso than any particular issue, i just have immense
>respect
>>for her overall integrity and case-by-case approach to
>issues.
>>I like that she appears to consider each matter earnestly,
>and
>>not just take whatever side will keep her popular with her
>>peers.
>
>Can you give a specific example?
:
Her support of Trump's North Korea peace talks is one example. Criticizing Obama over Yemen and Saudi Arabia is another. There are others.


>What specific issues is she going to focus on, though?
:
Her top priority seems to be foreign policy (fewer entanglements) and environmental, and the ways we can shift our spending from war back to domestic needs like healthcare, student debt, infrastructure, etc. She has expressed an interest in the possibility of a basic income for all, spoke on how it could save money and make a lot of sense, though hasn't yet endorsed it outright.

not sure why

Is it because she is off white and ex military?

Haven’t heard or read one concrete thing about her that gets me excited and when folks are asked why they like her they never link to an accomplishment or a speech that has umpph to it.

I will admit, I haven’t even tried to find out in my own because she doesn’t seem like she has a chance.

I've heard her speak to a couple of important issues

Campaign finance reform/election reform - and i found myself agreeing with a lot of what she said

Criminal Justice Reform - she's spoken out against mandatory mins

Reigning in NSA/Civil rights - she's talked about limiting the government's ability to spy on people (seems legit)


I can't say she's a clear choice or anything, but i'm not writing her off. A lot of the criticism i see of her seems to be oversimplification of some of her actual statements. That's politics, though.

thanks.

.

she has to own some of the dumb shit she said when she was young, but she also co-sponsored a bill to repeal DOMA, so despite some of the dumb shit she may have said, she doesn't appear to be legislating on any kind of anti-gay agenda.

And she can frame herself as the only one willing to fight "the homosexual agenda" and will commit to placing troops in Syria (helping The Lion of Damascus Assad crush the terrorists.)

Literally the best arguments for her have been "she'll burn it all down from all directions" and "she'll call Trump a bitch." It's like an intersection of people who were about Jim Webb in 2016 and Dennis Kucinich in 2008, only it's a young woman who surfs.

I'd actually rather she didnt, and she might not (tho she did once), but i meant it more as a humorous aside, and if you go back and read what i was saying, the point i was really trying to drive at is that she WOULDN'T get bogged down in the petty bickering, and that appearing tough and badass is TRUMPS only political appeal for so many, she'd cancel that out and force him into *deeper substantive* waters (meaning it WOULDN'T be about tough-guy vs snowflake, but rather be forced into actual policy discussions)

just in the whole reality show circus aspect of politics.

Trump has this ability as a schoolyard bully to size people up and zero in on that thing to go at (Crooked Hillary, Low Engergy Jeb, Pocahantas). I don't see him finding that striking point with her. I see him being kinda shook by a woman who's stronger than him, and not afraid to go low back if it came to that (bone spurs).

She's stronger than him in such an obvious unquestionable way, and so unphased by tweets and naughty words, he'd be shook, unsure, and undressed.

>not sure why
>
>Is it because she is off white and ex military?

Plus the Bernie connection. Ex-military + off white + Bernie endorsement + seems to dislke the party = seemingly hits some kind of sweet spot for some folks.

What is so odd to me is when they say "she'll be able to win independents and even some Republicans"...

Ex Bernie heads are literally repeating a Hillary argument from 2016 that proved disastrous.

Its had me fucked up. How Sway?


>
>Haven’t heard or read one concrete thing about her that gets
>me excited and when folks are asked why they like her they
>never link to an accomplishment or a speech that has umpph to
>it.
>
>I will admit, I haven’t even tried to find out in my own
>because she doesn’t seem like she has a chance.


I appreciate Gomez and especially Jon breaking some stuff down. I still don't get it though.

I appreciate the response.

>>I get that. Put it this way- folks keep telling me "look
>how
>>she has grown/evolved!" which is just...its an odd thing to
>>use because typically changing positions is BAD in politics.
>
>:
>Nah, the fact that she evolved on some things isnt the main
>thing at all for me, but to that point i would say the ability
>and willingness to evolve often reflects a certain humility
>and sincerity in one's approach to the issues.

Okay, but I hope Tulsi supporters apply that same logic to other candidates then. I don't mean you specifically, but if her changing positions reflects humility and not shrewd politics, then it has to be the same for all.

>
>
>>Or at least...not the sole reason to like someone lol.
>:
>Agreed. Its not my reason.
>
>
>>And if growth is the determining factor here, can't Kamala
>>just claim growth on your issues with her?
>:
>To me, there's a difference between your stance on an issue
>and the way you treat people. If its true that Kamala Harris
>pushed to keep an innocent man in prison for an extra 2 years
>because she disapproved of the way he mishandled the paperwork
>or whatever, that reflects a coldness of heart that i can't
>even fathom...

Fair, but isn't there a certain coldness of heart required to think gays need conversion therapy?

Or that the term "radical Islam" should be used?


This is where it seems like Tulsi fans cherry pick issues with other candidates, and gloss over her issues as "look how she has grown" or "there is no perfect candidate"


plus, im highly sceptical of anyone the
>corporate establishment tries to prop up.

I am unaware of how the establishment is propping up Kamala specifically. How is that happening?

>
>
>>What about Gillibrand's "growth" on guns?
>:
>I need to learn more about her before i comment.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>"I have some unanswered questions, but im very excited
>>(she's
>>>running).
>>>
>>>Moreso than any particular issue, i just have immense
>>respect
>>>for her overall integrity and case-by-case approach to
>>issues.
>>>I like that she appears to consider each matter earnestly,
>>and
>>>not just take whatever side will keep her popular with her
>>>peers.
>>
>>Can you give a specific example?
>:
>Her support of Trump's North Korea peace talks is one example.
>Criticizing Obama over Yemen and Saudi Arabia is another.
>There are others.

Okay. I honestly don't know what she said, specifically. But I side eye anyone who was happy with Trumps approach to North Korea. For the first time in my life, I was legit worried about nuclear war.

And...thinking there was a deal was/is very naive. I'll have to research exactly what she said.


As far as the Obama criticism...I'll have to research that too. But I hope it didn't come with praise of Putin and/or Syria, etc.

Or, again, criticizing him for not using the term radical Islam.


I'm not against Obama criticism, either. But...would Tulsi also push for the term "Radical Christianity" ? I mean, cmon.


When the criticisms line up with what the right is saying, I scratch my head.




>
>
>>What specific issues is she going to focus on, though?
>:
>Her top priority seems to be foreign policy (fewer
>entanglements) and environmental, and the ways we can shift
>our spending from war back to domestic needs like healthcare,
>student debt, infrastructure, etc. She has expressed an
>interest in the possibility of a basic income for all, spoke
>on how it could save money and make a lot of sense, though
>hasn't yet endorsed it outright.

So I think if this is the case, her presence in the primary may be a positive. Because the party really hasn't had a foreign policy that is clearly presented as radically different from the GOP in a while. If she forces other candidates to take a stance, I'm all for it.

The willingness to explore UBI is interesting, I'll check that out.


The other stuff is good, though pretty standard Dem stuff. I'll do some research, but I still don't get it lol

For sure, good exchange.

As someone else alluded to, there are different kinds of evolving, and i guess interpreting whether its sincere or just political shrewdness is a matter of feeling it out and a bit of a judgement call. But i tend to respect any seemingly honest and genuine evolution on a topic that comes from earnesty, even if its away from my own position.

And you might disagree, but i dont think there's much comparison in "coldheartedness" between deliberately trying to keep an innocent man in jail, and believing a particular sexual inclination is unhealthy and supporting an elective optional method of "curing" said inclination. Even if its all BS and they're absolutely wrong about all of that.

If a vegan thinks everyone should stop eating animal products, says nasty things about animal farmers and cheese makers, but isnt trying to make it illegal or put innocent ppl in jail...but said vegan does think meat/milk/honey/cheese is unhealthy and immoral (despite the fact that its the only option for many, and some science that disagrees with veganism) and she even supports a rather ridiculous unproven extreme *cleanse diet* that makes ppl dizzy and weak but will cure them of meat cravings if they want to become vegans, all optional, i might say "thats kind of ridiculous" but im not gonna put her in the same category as someone who would insist an innocent man remain in jail.

This bullshit needs to stop

There is no perfect candidate

Whoever gets the nomination will have flaws

Tulsi is not perfect

Gillibrand is not perfect

Let's start holding these candidates to policy commitments...instead of chasing rainbows

Green New Deal
Non-interventionism Foreign Policy
Closing the wealth gap
Medicare for all
Election reform

Can we agree that the candidates need to support these policies?

Let's force them to show us their plans on how to get their...instead of deciding ahead of time they can't

It's terrifying watching assumed democratic voters, tear down candidates like they work for fox news...especially considering the last POTUS cycle

We're a year and a half away...let's hear them speak for themselves.

In this particular case, I am asking a supporter of Tulsi why he supports her.

I'm honestly not trolling or attacking- I have seen a few, passionate supporters of hers and I want to understand why- I want to understand where that passion comes from. Because, like Legs said, there is never really any specific example of a policy or speech etc to point to.

Her growth is often cited as something people like, so I used the Gillibrand example to point out that other candidates grow.

It wasn't even a swipe at her, because from what I understand, she has a believable/tangible reason for her change of opinion on guns- and it is very timely/topical/relate-able.

This is what the primaries are going to look like, man. No one is asking for perfection- we are discussing our choices.

https://www.tulsigabbard.org/

Kind of hard to take your inquiry seriously...when the information you are asking for is easily found

My point is...it feels like people are already dividing themselves into camps

That's what happened in the last primary

it was Bernie or Bust vs I'm With Her

admittedly, Bernie pushed the platform way further than it was intending, IMO

which felt like it forced HRC to come around on a few of those issues

I don't want to see that happen again; dividing the party, and having to put a gun to someone's head in order to adopt progressive ideas

as a voting group, let's decide on the actions that we want implemented into policy ahead of the primaries

and as you said, we'll see where those candidates stand and what their plan is to get there

but let's stop pretending a candidate with no blemishes exist...or in 2019, we can't find information on what their campaigns stand for

c'mon

>https://www.tulsigabbard.org/
>
>Kind of hard to take your inquiry seriously...when the
>information you are asking for is easily found

#1. We can't ask each other on here why they support someone?

#2. I really, sincerely wanted to know why folks were hyped. He was nice enough to actually respond.

#3. I'm bored as shit at work, cut me some slack lol.

>
>My point is...it feels like people are already dividing
>themselves into camps
>
>That's what happened in the last primary
>
>it was Bernie or Bust vs I'm With Her
>
>admittedly, Bernie pushed the platform way further than it was
>intending, IMO
>
>which felt like it forced HRC to come around on a few of those
>issues
>
>I don't want to see that happen again; dividing the party, and
>having to put a gun to someone's head in order to adopt
>progressive ideas
>
>as a voting group, let's decide on the actions that we want
>implemented into policy ahead of the primaries
>
>and as you said, we'll see where those candidates stand and
>what their plan is to get there

I agree and for the record I honestly don't know who I am supporting so I am not representing any camp. I am happy we are having a primary and, on in the case of Tulsi, I think having her in the primary could be a huge positive if it forces other candidates to develop a clear foreign policy. That is one thing I've learned about her recently.


>
>but let's stop pretending a candidate with no blemishes
>exist...

I don't think that. My main point was lets be consistent then. If Tulsi gets props for coming around on gay marriage, then Gillibrand gets props for guns. That was my point.

or in 2019, we can't find information on what their
>campaigns stand for
>
>c'mon

Of course, but if your question is "what has you hyped" I can't google that shit.

"Hey google, what does Jon on Okayplayer like about Tulsi Gabbard?"


Again, I imagine there is going to be a lot of this type of talk around here.

Have offered other candidates and subsequent criticisms

Anybody post why they're excited for Kamala?

There's pre-emptive plea cops that people who don't like her really can't offer any reason other than copface/she's the po po

There are a number of troubling cases to reflect upon IRT Kamala

...but somehow this post has devolved into Tulsi statements from 2002...?

i.e. attacking the other candidates feels like a cover for Kamala

when do we start debating her record and policy stances...was my point?

see it now?

Your point was lets not expect a perfect candidate, and lets not repeat 2016 mistakes.

But as far as your Kamala point-


#1 I honestly haven't seen any passionate Kamala supporters, to your point. The Tulsi supporters caught my attention because they have been a little loud, and I wanted to understand that since she is such a troubling candidate based on past positions. I wanted to understand how folks were getting past that.

#2 Jon specifically posted something on Kamala and said "I prefer Tulsi..." among others. Opening a discussion on Tulsi.



#3 This thread seems to have become the candidate thread. There's also some talk about Castro if you scroll up, no?

>Have offered other candidates and subsequent criticisms
>
>Anybody post why they're excited for Kamala?
>
>There's pre-emptive plea cops that people who don't like her
>really can't offer any reason other than copface/she's the po
>po
>
>There are a number of troubling cases to reflect upon IRT
>Kamala
>

I don't disagree, its just how the thread developed. That tends to happen. The Beto thread was the candidate thread for a while, too.

>...but somehow this post has devolved into Tulsi statements
>from 2002...?

Cuz we talked about Tulsi in here. In fact, this is where someone posted that she was running initially. And Castro. Etc.

And Jon, specifically, brought her up.

>
>i.e. attacking the other candidates feels like a cover for
>Kamala
>
>when do we start debating her record and policy stances...was
>my point?
>

Go for it. Post your thoughts. I'm curious if you think the Kamala critiques are also "expecting a perfect candidate"


Like I said, I'm not in the Kamala camp and I guess she just hasn't sparked the interest that Tulsi has (based on her history/controversy)

see: every position Mitt Romney has ever taken.

just speaking on the gay marriage issue, she had a conservative upbringing and made some pretty dirtbag comments when she was 22. Even the articles posted in the other post seem to indicate she seems to have done a 180 according to her voting record. it seems to be a sign of actual growth which i think should be commended rather than all this "look what she said when she was 22" headlines.

That said, I don't know her timeline on this, or if she just "evolved" once it was safe like everyone else. Obama and hillary pretended to evolve when it was painfully obvious they were fine with it the whole time. I understand why but it doesn't make it any less phony.

and ride it as long as you can, and push for the change you want to see.

You might have to settle in the general, though. It's kind of the way our system is set up.

Kamala is not my favorite. There are a few others I'd lean towards at the moment. But give it some time. Let's see what the platforms are,how well they communicate them, their plans to implement them, and what kind of teams they put together, etc. If Kamala somehow grinds out a W in the primary, she's pretty preferable to who we've got in office now.

as a weird roundabout way to tie 'establishment' candidates to an 'unpopular' dem president.

i talked about them tying beto to obama earlier in this post. i guess they backed themselves into a corner where they have to actually make obama seem bad now too.

just one problem.

obama has a *95%* approval rating among democrats and left office almost as popular as reagan overall.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38667115

one of my main issues with the 'progressive' movement is that its not really focused on coalition building like politicians like clinton (bill), obama, beto, etc. its more about the politics of exclusion/elimination and telling other candidates/voters theyre not as politically virtuous as you.

like 'progressives' say politicians like obama are not 'real democrats' ('any blue wont do')...as they bring out record numbers of democrats to vote and are loved overwhelmingly by the true base of the party lol.

the more you do shit like this...the more you galvanize the much larger mainstream party base against you. i mean...there are real people voting for the politicians you claim dont represent the party lol.

'establishment' democrats put together coalitions of dems/indies/crossover repubs to flip red senate seats in places like arizona and nevada. and came within a few votes per precinct of flipping a red senate seat in texas (+9 republican in 2016).

meanwhile 'progressives' could only flip one *district* from red to blue in *cali* in a democratic wave year.

if the 'progressive' movement really wants to grow into a viable *majority* force it has to start taking a big tent approach instead of a velvet rope approach.

Because I *do* want a 2020 candidate who can reckon with the failures of the Obama years and can articulate, not just what he missed but WHY they think he wasn't able to accomplish more for X progressive issue. I've got my own views on this that I don't expect any 2020 candidate to share completely, but it's something they should all eventually get on record about.

But it can't just be "he was bad, I am not" because that misses everything externally that hamstrung Obama. I was disappointed that neither candidate in 2016 (on the Dem side) was able to really grapple with this. Hillary mostly tried to bring up how unfairly he was treated (true!) without articulating why this wouldn't happen to her, Bernie would talk about how he was going to will legislation into being.

The Matt Stoller "Obama was the worst president of all time and Dems will get crushed if they don't explicitly run against his legacy" stuff is just trolling, though.

and people act like he was governing like george w bush lol.

he got blocked or re-routed by repubs/courts on immigration/daca/dapa, obamacare public option (with help from lieberman, wage/overtime/leave laws, etc

and even still...

- passed a progressive tax plan with some of the largest middle cuts/credits in history
- mandated equal pay for women
- dodd-frank reforms to curtail financial industry
- created the consumer financial protection bureau
- passed the largest green energy subsidies in history
- clean power plan, clean water act, paris climate accord, etc
- insured 20+ million *more* americans
- doj consent decrees to address abusive practices of police departments
- started to ween federal gov off private prisons
- 1st president to actually address mass incarceration to any degree and lessen federal prosecutorial aggression/scope for non-violent crimes that disproportionately affected minorities
- increased legal protections for gay/trans people, sexual assault victims, minorities, etc
- net neutrality
- allowed marijuana decriminalization to take place in the states (very underdiscussed...people dont realize *why* states started moving in that direction)
- longest streak of job growth ever
- transformed federal courts, flipped several districts from conservative to liberal (even with unprecedented obstruction by senate repubs)

and so on and so on...

easily the most progressive president since fdr in terms of concrete action.

prolly affected the trajectory of america every bit as much as reagan. but reagan cemented his policy gains better due to repub wins in states/congress and having a repub successor as president.

but to 'progressives' obamas entire presidency was basically he didnt pass medicare for all and he used drone strikes lol.

like you...im all for an honest appraisal of strengths/weaknesses. but this habit of completely defining obama strictly by his 'failures' (while dismissing context) is intellectually lazy/dishonest. especially when its just to prop up your candidate (who really has nothing but proposals, promises, and bill co-sponsorships to go on).

>but this habit of completely defining
>obama strictly by his 'failures' (while dismissing context) is
>intellectually lazy/dishonest.

And I don't agree with it. That's what I meant by external factors that hamstrung him. This needs to be acknowledged because (besides the fact that it's true) the next Dem president is going to face the exact same thing. If you chalk it up exclusively to "Obama was weak, I will be strong," you're going to be sunk.

(they're the same as the left: we're not out of war yet, not enough was done to meet the promise of having a not-Republican in office, too many Clinton shitheads in his cabinet: punk-ass Rahm Emanuel, bitch-ass Tim Geithner, etc.)


context is the only thing that keeps him from getting the Carter treatment (which IMO was unfair. Carter's chief failing to me -- FUCK that hostage bullshit -- was the weakening of organized labor in his admin. he's very much forgotten in this discussion of the road to "trickle down" supply-side bullshit).

the obstructionism was off the chain. Democratic voters (and the people who didn't turn out for Obama) did jack shit during the midterms. Even the Democrats themselves didn't try to combat the bullshit. and the worst of it all, we had to sit and watch mainstream media paint the Tea Party as a legitimate political movement, when it was really "anti-Obama" racist horseshit that kowtowed even further to the fringe elements of the party in a theatric showing of being "more conservative".

we never got the kind of pressure that would force Obama to show his hand and make some necessary movement on the big items. even passing the ACA was like trying to pull the most stubborn teeth. a goddamn Heritage Foundation-approved healthcare plan was too much for the anti-Obama right.

it showed, even out of the White House, "conservatism" (the parlance for "owning libs" as a political product) dominated regardless. that's a lesson of 2016, as well.

rating?

Are you referring to a specific candidate here?

>as a weird roundabout way to tie 'establishment' candidates
>to an 'unpopular' dem president.
>
>i talked about them tying beto to obama earlier in this post.
>i guess they backed themselves into a corner where they have
>to actually make obama seem bad now too.
>
>just one problem.
>
>obama has a *95%* approval rating among democrats and left
>office almost as popular as reagan overall.
>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38667115

Sure. And the party should use that popularity.


But, its okay to admit Obama the President didn't equal Obama the candidate.

And learn from that. And address it.

And I think that, as the primary goes on, the question of "how will you accomplish x when Obama couldn't?" is a fair question.



I'm not saying its right or even smart to shit on Obama. But, if there are critiques to be made and/or questions to ask, we can't label that person 'progressive'


>
>one of my main issues with the 'progressive' movement is that
>its not really focused on coalition building like politicians
>like clinton (bill), obama, beto, etc. its more about the
>politics of exclusion/elimination and telling other
>candidates/voters theyre not as politically virtuous as you.

This is where I get lost on who you mean by 'progressive'...because I don't think your generalization is fair.

Are you talking about Bernie Bros?


>
>like 'progressives' say politicians like obama are not 'real
>democrats' ('any blue wont do')...as they bring out record
>numbers of democrats to vote and are loved overwhelmingly by
>the true base of the party lol.

Again, I'm not sure who are fighting here, specifically. And, who is the "politician like Obama" in this case? Beto? Kamala?

Also, you just said "the true base of the party"...isn't that a divisive statement? How is that different than saying "true Democrat"?

Both sides in this do it.


>
>the more you do shit like this...the more you galvanize the
>much larger mainstream party base against you. i mean...there
>are real people voting for the politicians you claim dont
>represent the party lol.
>
>'establishment' democrats put together coalitions of
>dems/indies/crossover repubs to flip red senate seats in
>places like arizona and nevada. and came within a few votes
>per precinct of flipping a red senate seat in texas (+9
>republican in 2016).

Obviously, there are other factors to consider than their status as establishment or 'progressive' as you put it.

In general, voters had tangible reasons to vote Democrat last cycle. The party needs to continue to communicate those reasons.


Also...Reeq...are you saying Dems need to chase Republican votes in 2020? You seemingly have gone back and forth on that.

And, anyway, that didn't work in 16.




>
>meanwhile 'progressives' could only flip one *district* from
>red to blue in *cali* in a democratic wave year.

Obviously more than one progressive won in 2018. It is your definition of 'progressive' that loses me.

But, I hope you aren't claiming that progressive energy didn't deliver huge wins in 18.

>
>if the 'progressive' movement really wants to grow into a
>viable *majority* force it has to start taking a big tent
>approach instead of a velvet rope approach.

How would that look? Because part of the issue is the party runs to the center too often.

And how can these 'progressives' take a big tent approach, when they are told they aren't the "real base of the party" etc?

monitoring the flow of political discussion from journalists, lefties, right wingers, etc.

so things im watching get hashed out all day prolly aint even on the radar to the general public lol.

it prolly looks like im just kicking up dust outta nowhere lol.

first off...i know you aint being snarky fam. you aint gotta say it! lol. we engage in genuine debate all the time (which i enjoy) and i appreciate the fact that you challenge me via intellectual...but not emotional...temperament.


>Are you referring to a specific candidate here?

nah im speaking moreso on a scorched earth campaign waged by some prominent sanders supporters (sirota, konst, etc). you would prolly have to be especially in-tuned to that world to get where im coming from lol.


>Sure. And the party should use that popularity.
>
>
>But, its okay to admit Obama the President didn't equal Obama
>the candidate.
>
>And learn from that. And address it.
>
>And I think that, as the primary goes on, the question of "how
>will you accomplish x when Obama couldn't?" is a fair
>question.
>
>
>
>I'm not saying its right or even smart to shit on Obama. But,
>if there are critiques to be made and/or questions to ask, we
>can't label that person 'progressive'

yeah i kinda addressed this in reply #216. theres an ongoing effort to portray obama as a republican in democrat clothing...rather than a democrat with a significant historical mantle in the party legacy. you would prolly have to be regular viewwers/spectators of the people im talking about to 'get it'.


>This is where I get lost on who you mean by
>'progressive'...because I don't think your generalization is
>fair.
>
>Are you talking about Bernie Bros?
>

i dont really use the term 'bernie bro'. to me...thats reserved for like the most cartoonishly stereotypical bernie supporters. and it also has an implicit undertone of misogyny/racism...which isnt necessary relevant to most points i bring up.

i mean 'progressives' like a brand identity and not specifically a political assortment. like the type to ride hard for members of their 'team' (eg- gabbard, ojeda, mello, etc) despite their history of anti-progressive stances on supposedly key issues in the progressive platform.

but those same folks will portray politicians like pelosi, obama, etc as oppositional to progressives when they have an objective track record thats more progressive than the 'progressive' team mates.

so their allegiance to the term 'progressive' clearly isnt strictly by policy. its basically synonymous with 'allies of bernie' to them.

and look...its ok to moderate, give people a pass, and not apply a fine-tooth comb to every issue. in fact...i suggest more progressives do it to get more people on board. but the hypocrisy is so blatant sometimes in terms of who the standards are applied to and who theyre not.


>Again, I'm not sure who are fighting here, specifically. And,
>who is the "politician like Obama" in this case? Beto?
>Kamala?
>
>Also, you just said "the true base of the party"...isn't that
>a divisive statement? How is that different than saying "true
>Democrat"?
>
>Both sides in this do it.


by 'politicians like obama' i mean people focused on building large electoral coalitions. people who understand political fluidity wins...being moderate here...progressive there...and fitting the form of your electorate. not adhering to some rote list of demands that narrow your viability to a lesser combination of constituencies.

i admit 'true base' was a bad choice of words. what i mean is the larger 'mainstream' part of the base (which is overwhelmingly center-left).

im gonna post something down below on how beto and harris quantifiably touch upon a larger proportion of democrats.



>Also...Reeq...are you saying Dems need to chase Republican
>votes in 2020? You seemingly have gone back and forth on
>that.
>
>And, anyway, that didn't work in 16.


not necessarily 'chase republican votes'...but if a large socially liberal and fiscally moderate suburb is open to voting for a democrat...why would you shun them because they dont want socialized healthcare?

if the entire industrial labor apparatus of a county/state wants to vote democratic but relies on fossil fuel jobs and pipeline construction to keep the dues coming in...why shun them because they arent on board with a complete green upheaval to their local economy?

people have a lot of opinions of why 'democrats lose'...but the most objectively assessable reason is embracing a platform that is increasingly becoming more civilly stringent (while republicans become ethnically more stringent lol).

democrats actually dominated in the south and held on to control of the house for *40 years* (and even did well up through the early 90s) in part because they found a way to form a coalition among black voters and actual racists via organized labor principles. a lil compromise/give-and-take to say the least lol.

democrats had their largest congressional representation in a generation via 2006 and 2008 largely because they let blue dogs do their thing and didnt apply a purity test to them. made crazy gains even in red states.

why contract the tent and limit your chances of obtaining power?

due to the diverse patchwork nature of liberal factions...democratic party politics is about *common* ground. not absolute/unconditional ground.

we should be using concentric circles. not polygons.


>Obviously more than one progressive won in 2018. It is your
>definition of 'progressive' that loses me.
>
>But, I hope you aren't claiming that progressive energy didn't
>deliver huge wins in 18.

i wasnt talking about winning. i was talking about gaining ground and actually taking back territory that republicans held. only 1 'progressive' candidate (backed by justicedems/ourrevolution/etc) won a previously republican seat. *1* out of 40 flipped congressional seats. the other 'progressives' won in already-blue contests.

iono mayne...how do you champion the persuasiveness of your argument when you struggle to amass converts in ideologically diverse terrain? feel me?



>How would that look? Because part of the issue is the party
>runs to the center too often.
>
>And how can these 'progressives' take a big tent approach,
>when they are told they aren't the "real base of the party"
>etc?

dems run to the center too often? elections are won in the center. its just that the center is shifting as older/whiter (more reliable) voters become more conservative. if younger voters voted at the same rates of oldheads than it wouldnt be as much of an issue. but dems need the center. they dont have a stable of backwards rural states/districts with disproportionate electoral power to anchor their political fortunes.

and 'progressives' can take a big tent approach by simply allowing moderation and not being political vegans. they conveniently do it with people like ojeda. why is it a sin to do it with people like hakeem jeffries?

just look at the winning coalitions of clinton, reagan, obama, etc. they didnt do it by catering to fine print. they appealed to the headline.

>monitoring the flow of political discussion from journalists,
>lefties, right wingers, etc.
>
>so things im watching get hashed out all day prolly aint even
>on the radar to the general public lol.
>

Word, okay makes sense.

>it prolly looks like im just kicking up dust outta nowhere
>lol.
>
>first off...i know you aint being snarky fam. you aint gotta
>say it! lol. we engage in genuine debate all the time (which i
>enjoy) and i appreciate the fact that you challenge me via
>intellectual...but not emotional...temperament.

Yeah me too man. You've helped me look at some things differently. I put the "no snark" thing cuz sometimes I do come off snarky when I don't mean it lol

>
>
>>Are you referring to a specific candidate here?
>
>nah im speaking moreso on a scorched earth campaign waged by
>some prominent sanders supporters (sirota, konst, etc). you
>would prolly have to be especially in-tuned to that world to
>get where im coming from lol.

Okay, I'm not. I couldn't tell you who specifically supported Bernie, etc so I might see some of their shit and not even make the connection.

>
>
>>Sure. And the party should use that popularity.
>>
>>
>>But, its okay to admit Obama the President didn't equal
>Obama
>>the candidate.
>>
>>And learn from that. And address it.
>>
>>And I think that, as the primary goes on, the question of
>"how
>>will you accomplish x when Obama couldn't?" is a fair
>>question.
>>
>>
>>
>>I'm not saying its right or even smart to shit on Obama.
>But,
>>if there are critiques to be made and/or questions to ask,
>we
>>can't label that person 'progressive'
>
>yeah i kinda addressed this in reply #216. theres an ongoing
>effort to portray obama as a republican in democrat
>clothing...rather than a democrat with a significant
>historical mantle in the party legacy. you would prolly have
>to be regular viewwers/spectators of the people im talking
>about to 'get it'.


Well, maybe I don't get the extent of it. But I do get that there was/is disappointment with Obama's presidency. Even if it is unfair or uninformed, its still a feeling some folks have.

And like I said, even if you want to attribute all of the disappointment to him being stopped in his tracks by the GOP, its still a fair question to ask of each candidate.

Assuming Dems win in 2020, I hope they (and we) learn and not repeat 2010.


Either way, I agree that trying to tie a Dem candidate to Obama as a negative is not smart.

Whoever wins the primary, I hope Obama and his team are heavily involved because of his a)popularity and b)ability to win elections.


>
>
>>This is where I get lost on who you mean by
>>'progressive'...because I don't think your generalization is
>>fair.
>>
>>Are you talking about Bernie Bros?
>>
>
>i dont really use the term 'bernie bro'. to me...thats
>reserved for like the most cartoonishly stereotypical bernie
>supporters. and it also has an implicit undertone of
>misogyny/racism...which isnt necessary relevant to most points
>i bring up.

Okay, got it. I should have said Bernie supporters.


>
>i mean 'progressives' like a brand identity and not
>specifically a political assortment. like the type to ride
>hard for members of their 'team' (eg- gabbard, ojeda, mello,
>etc) despite their history of anti-progressive stances on
>supposedly key issues in the progressive platform.
>
>but those same folks will portray politicians like pelosi,
>obama, etc as oppositional to progressives when they have an
>objective track record thats more progressive than the
>'progressive' team mates.

I wasn't really in on the Bernie thing in 2016, so I'm just now noticing this with Tulsi- folks giving her mad passes on stuff that I imagine that they will not give to other candidates.

That said, I think both sides of this argument do it to an extent.





>
>so their allegiance to the term 'progressive' clearly isnt
>strictly by policy. its basically synonymous with 'allies of
>bernie' to them.
>
>and look...its ok to moderate, give people a pass, and not
>apply a fine-tooth comb to every issue. in fact...i suggest
>more progressives do it to get more people on board. but the
>hypocrisy is so blatant sometimes in terms of who the
>standards are applied to and who theyre not.


Right. Like I said up above, if we are going to give Tulsi props for her growth/ability to change, then we have to do the same for say Gillibrand.
>
>
>>Again, I'm not sure who are fighting here, specifically.
>And,
>>who is the "politician like Obama" in this case? Beto?
>>Kamala?
>>
>>Also, you just said "the true base of the party"...isn't
>that
>>a divisive statement? How is that different than saying
>"true
>>Democrat"?
>>
>>Both sides in this do it.
>
>
>by 'politicians like obama' i mean people focused on building
>large electoral coalitions. people who understand political
>fluidity wins...being moderate here...progressive there...and
>fitting the form of your electorate. not adhering to some
>rote list of demands that narrow your viability to a lesser
>combination of constituencies.
>

Okay that makes sense in general terms- do you think Beto is that, then?


>i admit 'true base' was a bad choice of words. what i mean is
>the larger 'mainstream' part of the base (which is
>overwhelmingly center-left).

This is where I disagree more. A lot of people don't vote. Too many. And I really believe that if Dems were bold with their message, and worked on branding that message, they would be successful.

In other words, I think they often leave votes on the table by not effectively appealing to non voters.


>
>im gonna post something down below on how beto and harris
>quantifiably touch upon a larger proportion of democrats.
>
>
>
>>Also...Reeq...are you saying Dems need to chase Republican
>>votes in 2020? You seemingly have gone back and forth on
>>that.
>>
>>And, anyway, that didn't work in 16.
>
>
>not necessarily 'chase republican votes'...but if a large
>socially liberal and fiscally moderate suburb is open to
>voting for a democrat...why would you shun them because they
>dont want socialized healthcare?
>
>if the entire industrial labor apparatus of a county/state
>wants to vote democratic but relies on fossil fuel jobs and
>pipeline construction to keep the dues coming in...why shun
>them because they arent on board with a complete green
>upheaval to their local economy?

Yes politics is local, so in that sense it probably often makes sense to run a blue dog or whatever (even then I'd want to know what the party has done to register new voters)...

But on a national level? Lets be bold. Lets run a candidate with progressive ideas who can sell them and explain to that county what can replace those fossil fuel jobs.


>
>people have a lot of opinions of why 'democrats lose'...but
>the most objectively assessable reason is embracing a platform
>that is increasingly becoming more civilly stringent (while
>republicans become ethnically more stringent lol).
>
>democrats actually dominated in the south and held on to
>control of the house for *40 years* (and even did well up
>through the early 90s) in part because they found a way to
>form a coalition among black voters and actual racists via
>organized labor principles. a lil compromise/give-and-take to
>say the least lol.

Honest question, so what is the plan here? What replaces unions as they continue to lose power?


>
>democrats had their largest congressional representation in a
>generation via 2006 and 2008 largely because they let blue
>dogs do their thing and didnt apply a purity test to them.
>made crazy gains even in red states.
>
>why contract the tent and limit your chances of obtaining
>power?

Fair by I am also worried about including young people in that tent.

I've mentioned here the 12-14 year old white kid in a MAGA hat at Target...scared the shit out of me.

That tent should appeal to non-voters, new voters, and should definitely appeal more to a 12 year old kid.


>
>due to the diverse patchwork nature of liberal
>factions...democratic party politics is about *common* ground.
> not absolute/unconditional ground.
>
>we should be using concentric circles. not polygons.

Did you just drop geometry on me? Man, I can't run with that lol lol

>
>
>>Obviously more than one progressive won in 2018. It is your
>>definition of 'progressive' that loses me.
>>
>>But, I hope you aren't claiming that progressive energy
>didn't
>>deliver huge wins in 18.
>
>i wasnt talking about winning. i was talking about gaining
>ground and actually taking back territory that republicans
>held. only 1 'progressive' candidate (backed by
>justicedems/ourrevolution/etc) won a previously republican
>seat. *1* out of 40 flipped congressional seats. the other
>'progressives' won in already-blue contests.
>
>iono mayne...how do you champion the persuasiveness of your
>argument when you struggle to amass converts in ideologically
>diverse terrain? feel me?
>
>
>
>>How would that look? Because part of the issue is the party
>>runs to the center too often.
>>
>>And how can these 'progressives' take a big tent approach,
>>when they are told they aren't the "real base of the party"
>>etc?
>
>dems run to the center too often? elections are won in the
>center. its just that the center is shifting as older/whiter
>(more reliable) voters become more conservative. if younger
>voters voted at the same rates of oldheads than it wouldnt be
>as much of an issue. but dems need the center. they dont
>have a stable of backwards rural states/districts with
>disproportionate electoral power to anchor their political
>fortunes.

Again, I think they also need non-voters and young people.

I'm still salty about the "she'll pick up moderate Republicans in PA" type logic...

And my local Dem candidate in a RED district who canvassed registered Republicans...losing strategy.


>
>and 'progressives' can take a big tent approach by simply
>allowing moderation and not being political vegans. they
>conveniently do it with people like ojeda. why is it a sin to
>do it with people like hakeem jeffries?
>
>just look at the winning coalitions of clinton, reagan, obama,
>etc. they didnt do it by catering to fine print. they
>appealed to the headline.
>

Is it possible you underrate how much of an outsider Obama was considered? How many young people volunteered and voted etc?

>i admit 'true base' was a bad choice of words. what i mean is
>the larger 'mainstream' part of the base (which is
>overwhelmingly center-left).

"This is where I disagree more. A lot of people don't vote. Too many. And I really believe that if Dems were bold with their message, and worked on branding that message, they would be successful.

In other words, I think they often leave votes on the table by not effectively appealing to non voters. "


that's a bit too bold imho...the data on non-voters isn't there (in regards to what would make them vote). they don't care and personalities are really the only thing that seem to cull new voters (not policy).

it's also fairly safe to assume that non-voters that are going to vote blue are largely going to exist in already dense blue areas (and vice versa with new red voters)

as a strategy...this isn't simply bold...it's more high risk - low reward

you have data on center-lefts and center-rights...so it's easier to strategize around their wants and needs rather than to somehow defeat apathy for the first time

is it best to just go to each candidates site?

i would like to know where they all stand on issues now and get some relevant information on their voting record. it would be good to actually see something for each that shows what people like about them.

they should be laying out their vision and record in some form or fashion, so it's a good place to get the 'pros'. The obvious caveat is that they're going to highlight the good and ignore the bad, or even try to spin bad into good.

I like any kind of longer form interviews too.

Not sure where to go to get a super fair list of 'critiques' for each candidate. I straight up google that shit a lot of times, but then you have to do a lot of critical thinking to decide as best you can what's shitty hit piece vs. what's a fair criticism.

i can't stand those "to find out more about Ballot Measure S, to to vote-no-on-s.com" type commercials, and i kind of view those sites the same way.

but i suppose it's a good starting point just to see what they're proposing.

Longer interviews for sure. Short interviews tend to be full of those stock campaign speech lines for answers, and are just about always an annoying waste of time. If they're doing that in long form interviews and can't have an actual conversation it's usually a turn off.

i'm more willing to cut a candidate some slack on a position i disagree with if they can give a thoughtful and nuanced explanation of the position.

You also see the people who fall apart if they're forced to deviate from their talking points.

>i'm more willing to cut a candidate some slack on a position
>i disagree with if they can give a thoughtful and nuanced
>explanation of the position.
>
>You also see the people who fall apart if they're forced to
>deviate from their talking points.
>
>
>
>

I also occasionally google like 'Kamala Harriss podcast' or something to see if they've been on a podcast.

I work remote at a computer all day, so admittedly i have more time to listen to that type of stuff than a lot of people.

https://ballotpedia.org/Kamala_Harris

long form interviews where they are forced to think on their feet rather than uncorking canned responses. hillary had a huge problem sounding human unscripted. gotta get someone who can chop it up naturally without an insane sense of electoral calculation dripping on their every word. that's something trump got: almost all the career pols talk like they've got hanging chads up their asses

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes

and progressivepunch.org (if you wanna see their history on a progressive axis)
http://progressivepunch.org/

as far as news/up-to-date coverage on candidates, liberal/progressive issues, etc on a local, state, and federal level. my favorite site is dailykos.
http://www.dailykos.com

all of these sites are kinda wonky and not easy to navigate or digest tho.

i wish some liberal billionaire bought up most of these sites and consolidated them into one user-friendly political engagement entity. producing a more civically-informed base would reap rewards way into the future. thats something that would serve somebody like tom steyer a lot better than massive impeachment ad campaigns.

Steve Ballmer has this site for making people better informed: https://usafacts.org

>i wish some liberal billionaire bought up most of these sites
>and consolidated them into one user-friendly political
>engagement entity. producing a more civically-informed base
>would reap rewards way into the future. thats something that
>would serve somebody like tom steyer a lot better than massive
>impeachment ad campaigns.

i wish more dems would use that information in their arguments the same way sports personalities win debates with stats.

Shows the people may be ready for a more wonky nuanced debate than theyre usually given during campaigns. Could get interesting.

I wonder is there a sizeable block of voters who never vote who will vote against trump having grown concerned?

i will be checking these out.

Voting record in a way that clearly shows when the person broke with their party? A way of understanding their guts for taking independent principled stands. Or the reverse: caving to forces unusual on their side of the aisle. Thanks

https://youtu.be/o8g9I-MQl2k

after being against it while in office?

https://twitter.com/tomangell/status/949822199891939329/photo/1

That...your link...and not prosecuting Manuchin...are enough for me to pass.

geekyish write-up on how kamala and beto appeal more to more subfactions of the democratic base.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-kamala-and-beto-have-more-upside-than-joe-and-bernie/

politicians after him.

Kamala ain't progressive and nothing about her says she is for "Black" folks.

Being conveniently "Black" ain't gonna cut it.

I won't be voting for her.

you cant make this up.
https://www.twitter.com/mtracey/status/1087399297711292417


do these folks ever consider how they sound outside of themselves?

pair this with the 'cop' attack...and its clear they think their best way to kneecap her is to polarize and suppress black voters.

I did find it interesting to learn she was raised in Canada...Montreal I believe...not the US

That was good to see. What an idiot.

Sen. Kamala Harris’s 2020 policy agenda: $3 trillion tax plan, tax credits for renters, bail reform, Medicare-for-All
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/21/sen-kamala-harriss-policy-agenda-trillion-tax-plan-tax-credits-renters-bail-reform-medicare-for-all/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fac4d7e87eab

not bad. i am not sure its how i would want these things to be tackled but i do like that she is focused on them. i need to do some more research and see how other candidates want to solve these issues but i could support this.

By Jeff Stein January 21 at 11:40 AM
Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) will run for president proposing a nearly $3 trillion tax plan, billions in tax credits to low-income renters, a Medicare-for-all health-care system, and reducing cash bail for inmates charged with criminal offenses, according to her aides.

Harris announced her presidential bid Monday.

Aides said Harris’s platform will incorporate Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) Medicare-for-all health-care proposal, while also pushing enormous tax relief intended to help low-income renters and boost incomes for working-class families.

In that combination, Harris appears to be unique. Several other liberal presidential candidates are running on Medicare-for-all and new government spending programs. For instance, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) will tout her plan to create a universal paid leave program, while former Obama administration official Julián Castro will propose universal prekindergarten, funded by the federal government.

Harris, by contrast, is expected to run on both a single-payer health program projected to cost more than $30 trillion, as well as tax benefits that would dramatically reduce federal revenue. Supporters say that reflects her willingness to try to use different kinds of solutions to solve big problems.

“She understands you can change society by writing laws, or by bringing a bunch of CEOs to the table,” said Daniel Suvor, who served for three years as Harris’s chief of policy while she was attorney general of California and who considers himself a friend of Harris.

But some critics on the left, who have begun scrutinizing Harris’s record as a prosecutor in California, are likely to question whether slashing tax revenue will make it more difficult to enact the kinds of social programs that have become increasingly popular among the Democratic base. Conservatives, meanwhile, have already criticized Harris’s tax plan as being prohibitively expensive at a time when annual deficits are approaching $1 trillion.

Harris will also run on legislation to improve elections security in the United States, citing Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, as well as a proposal to reduce the racial gap in the risk of dying from pregnancy-related causes for black women, campaign aides said.

Here’s a look at the policy ideas Harris hopes will carry her to the White House:

$2.8 trillion middle-class tax plan. Last fall, Harris released a proposal aimed at enacting a tax plan for middle- and working-class families, and it will be a centerpiece of her presidential campaign, according to campaign aides.

Under Harris’s plan, the federal government would pay tax credits that match a person’s earnings up to $3,000 (or $6,000 for married couples). Those credits phase out for higher earners, and also do not offer any benefits to Americans with no earnings, in an attempt to reward people who work.

“Americans are working harder than ever, but stagnant wages mean they can’t keep up with cost of living increases,” Harris said at the time. “We should put money back into the pockets of American families.”

Harris’s tax plan was intended to contrast sharply with the Republican tax law signed by President Trump in 2017. The richest 1 percent of Americans were projected to receive about 21 percent of the benefits from the GOP tax law in 2018, and 83 percent of its benefits in 2027, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank. Only 17.4 percent of the benefits from the GOP tax cuts would go to the lower and middle classes, the center has found.



For Harris’s plan, that number is about 90 percent. But its price tag would be high, adding $2.8 trillion to the federal deficit in its first 10 years and an additional $3.4 trillion in the following decade. Harris has proposed paying for the tax cut by eliminating the parts of the Republican tax law passed last fall that benefit the rich, as well as levying a new tax on large financial institutions.


Fiscal hawks say it would cost too much, even more than the GOP tax law, and that it would drive up an already soaring federal deficit. Those on the left have said Harris’s plan should also offer benefits to the poorest Americans, and they argued it is difficult to explain to voters.

Matt Bruenig, founder of the People’s Policy Project, wrote that the plan reflects a policy design that “perversely exclude the most needy from assistance in favor of those who are on the rung just above them.”

Rental relief. In 2018, Harris also proposed legislation aimed at combating the high cost of rent in major U.S. cities.

The plan would give tax credits to renters who make less than $100,000 a year but spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent (which includes utilities) — a widely used gauge of housing affordability.

The size of the benefit increases for poorer families and decreases higher up the income distribution. The credit would also be refundable, meaning taxpayers can receive payments even if their tax liability is $0, and those in particularly expensive areas could earn up to $125,000 and still receive the credit.

Harris’s plan would benefit at least 13 million Americans and is similar to a plan written by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California at Berkeley, estimated to cost $76 billion.

Will Wilkinson, vice president for research at the libertarian-leaning Niskanen Center, said Harris’s plan to put additional money in the hands of renters may simply lead landlords to increase prices rather than address the scarcity of housing that cuts into renters' bargaining power.

“The problem with housing prices is a lack of housing supply relative to demand,” said Wilkinson, who has instead proposed creating a pot of federal funding to reward states that rapidly create new housing stock. “Cities need to build a lot more units, and fast. A tax credit for renters may take the edge off in the short term, but it does nothing about the fundamental problem and could even make the problem worse.”

Medicare-for-all: In August 2018, Harris announced she would become the first Senate Democrat to co-sponsor Sanders’s “Medicare-for-all” bill to nationalize health insurance.

Medicare-for-all is a proposal to move every American to a single government-run insurer that charges no deductibles or premiums. Doing so would massively increase government expenditures — by as much as $33 trillion by 2031, according to one conservative think tank’s estimate — while offering health insurance to the Americans who lack it and preventing millions more from being forced into medical bankruptcy. It would require enormous tax increases to finance, although supporters maintain that they would be offset by zeroing out every family’s spending on premiums and deductibles.

At least four other declared presidential candidates — Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.); Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.); Julián Castro, the former Obama administration housing official who announced his candidacy over the weekend; and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) — also say they support Medicare-for-all.

Reforming cash bail. A number of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have proposed plans to reform the current cash bail system, which disproportionately jails poor Americans who cannot make cash bail payments. According to a 2015 report from the Public Policy Institute of California, for instance, tens of thousands of inmates in the state sit behind bars simply because they cannot pay the state’s median bail amount of $50,000.

Harris has proposed legislation would create a three-year, $10 million grant program to encourage states to figure out how to find alternatives to their cash bail systems. The legislation is co-sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).


“If they’re awaiting trial and they don’t pose a risk, let’s not have the taxpayers foot the bill, especially when a similarly situated person is not in jail because they could write a check,” Harris told McClatchy.

Other Democratic presidential candidates have also proposed changes to the cash bail system. Sanders, for instance, has released a bill that would directly outlaw cash bail in the federal criminal justice system. The legislation, co-sponsored by Gillibrand, would also give states money to reform their bail systems, said Inimai Chettiar, director of the Justice Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice.

“The Harris bill would be helpful, but the Sanders-Gillibrand one is more aggressive,” Chettiar said. “The Harris bill would have an impact, but it’s hard to quantify.”

Happy to see her endorse medicare for all

But I don't see how she pays for it...or anyone proposing it really...without taxing the shit out of the rich...or other taxes/reforms

I don't see that in her proposal

Still, I'm happy that these policy items are in play

She has some work to do...and I expect this to evolve throughout the process

Feels like she doesn't want to come right out and say it, in order not to offend big donors.

https://twitter.com/OsitaNwanevu/status/1087743882270511104

I want to die

https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/1087754145145208832

And hopefully there will be no games where the issue keeps changing for righty accusers...and...the legit info abt Harris comes out to deal with the allegation ASAP. The longer there is no proof either way, the deeper the effect

dude is like if someone tried to teach current events to an old chris klein character.

I'm convinced these people have no idea how any of this works

Birthright citizenship
Immigration
None of it.

this is john kerry in 2004 or obama in 08. too many niggas in the mix


America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

https://twitter.com/existentialfish/status/1088068877769195521

looks like this is gonna be a thing now (along with citizenship/eligibility bullshit).

its fucked up that black prez candidates not only have to defend their track record and policy stances...they start off at a baseline of having to prove they are who they are.

even after Barry folks are still hung up on the bullshit.

I get Kamala and her background. At the end of the day she went to Howard and shes an AKA so thats enough for me to see that she embraces her blackness and at the same time, shes also half Indian.

We're so fucking stupid when it comes to race and losing our minds when we can't conveniently box people in.

But Brahmin, with her father's Blackness always being attached to him being Jamaican.

Then, politically as an AG, what has she done to benefit lives of disproportionately and adversely affected African Americans in CA, while she was the AG?

Yes she went to Howard, is an AKA and is attached to Willie Brown and later the Obamas. But does she claim African Americans, aside from those specific positions of exclusionary privilege? She's from Oakland, it shouldn't be difficult.

Asked in that panel, why is her 2020 campaign office HQ in Baltimore, instead of the East Bay, or more strategically convenient for the SC primary.
It's seemingly clear the campaign is working to position her as African African, because it hasn't been clear.

was on some mulatto class Caribbean tip.

https://twitter.com/cFidd/status/1088120564647186432

im honestly surprised white people like her so much. maybe our current situation got me more jaded than i need to be.

late last year...there was a story about iowa primary voters wanting to turn the corner from old guard candidates like biden to people like kamala harris. looks like theres something there.

I think folks knew she'd be a legit contender so "they" have been working on a campaign to keep hers grounded.

It seems like people are saying the same 2 or 3 points about her a little too similarly... kind of like how the conservative talk show hosts will mysteriously talk about the same topics, at the same time, with roughly the same wording.

The question is whether "They" is just the liberal wing of the party or is it some external actors (republicans or even Russia again).

The scrutiny, so far, is fine to me. These are legitimate questions and need to be addressed by her.

I'm just commenting on how consistent the messaging has been by those criticizing her. Seems like folks have been preparing their bullet points on why she's unfit for months.

like cocobrotha2 observed...theres a notable amount of consistency/synergy between the right, the left of the left, and the ruskibots.

sad to see black people falling for it too tho.

theyre just not bernie stans.

if kamala is pulling progressive voters even more than people like warren then thats trouble for everyone else.

and im noticing the same type of behavior from the same suspects you are in opposition to her.

i think these folks run the risk of turning her into a victim and polarizing centrist *and* a good portion of progressive voters into her favor.

Here. Could it be a “just declared” bump? I’m curious what the talk is in Warren’s
camp.

Is Klobuchar going to run? I wonder there is some
strategy behind NOT declaring early.

>Could it be a “just declared” bump?

i guess we will see.

Are you talking about Bernie folks? Warren?

I've been saying "kah-MALL-uh" instead.

https://twitter.com/JeroenSH/status/1087508445543116800

"Kamala Harris traveled the country on a book tour that she used as an opportunity to introduce herself – beginning with how to pronounce her name. “It’s ‘comma’ then add a ‘la’,” explaining that it means lotus in #Sanskrit.”

week, or so.

guess i have been saying it wrong

i blame vince mcmahon
https://www.ringscoops.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Kamala2.jpg

>I've been saying "kah-MALL-uh" instead.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/prowrestling/images/d/d3/Kim_Chee_and_Kamala.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20091004203631

According to her, it's pronounced "Come-A-Lah." So I've been using that for years.

https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1088169289570373632?s=20

why even need republican smear jobs when we are willing to do the work ourselves?

these fucking woke edgelords man

got me defensive and circling the wagons in a way that I wouldn't have expected just a couple of weeks ago.

past decisions are fair game. policy is fair game. but this shit?

she didnt really stand out to me from people like klobuchar, booker, etc.

im going hard for her from this point on tho.

also theres a small but significant divide in black men vs black women when it comes to voting. like 97% of black women voted for stacey abrams in georgia while only 89% of black men did (outpacing the gap that she lost by).

i wont 'sjw' the post up with the usual gender reflection points but it might be a conversation we need to start having.

but you always meet/hear about a few Black men who are GOP.

all the people on that 'my vote doesnt even really count' and 'we are just voting for different oppressors' type shit seem to all be black men in my experience.

i dont think theres a demographic group in america thats more acutely aware of the direct impact that political decisions have on their lives than black women.

how could "America's mama" be down with Ray-Gun?

maybe she had a lil bit of Evilene in her soul

types.

I guess the Atlantic is HOTEP now lol.

Being called out for being against body cameras on police is Hotep... lol

Being directly responsible for spike in incarceration rates for drug offenses and truancy among youth is Hotep lol.

She ain't even Black she never identified as Black.

Dancing to wack ass Cardi B ain't gonna cut it this time.

Obama messed it up for everyone after him.

No more pandering.

when they ain't wearing MAGA hats

I swear.


Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://Tupreme.com

but we both know you won't, you self hating fucking coward.

I like seeing you expose yourselves and crack jokes to get the heat off you.

Took it back to 05' LOL


Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://Tupreme.com

>https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1088169289570373632?s=20
>
>why even need republican smear jobs when we are willing to do
>the work ourselves?


Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://Tupreme.com

https://blackagendareport.com/freedom-rider-kamala-harris-destroyed-black-lives

Freedom Rider: Kamala Harris Destroyed Black Lives
Harris has spent her career locking up Black and brown people. She should not be allowed to shake hands, kiss babies or walk into black churches without being taken to task.

“Kamala Harris is no friend of black people.”

California Senator Kamala Harris shows all the signs of announcing her candidacy for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. She is giving speeches in the right states, interviewing with the right talking heads, and recently published the obligatory memoir. She has been on the Democratic funder’scasting couch for nearly two years. Only the official announcement is missing.

But Harris is highly problematic for black voters, perhaps more so than any other candidate. She served as the district attorney of San Francisco and later as attorney general of California. In both roles she did everything in her power to support the mass incarceration system and all of its foundations. That is what prosecutors do after all, but most of them don’t try to run for president and ask for black people’s votes.

Barack Obama was smart enough to choose a career path free of such red flags. As a community organizer,state legislator and United States senator he took a route that black people were able to support. Unlike Harris he was not actively involved in building the prison system, the institution that has done more damage to black people than any other.

“She did everything in her power to support the mass incarceration system and all of its foundations.”

The movement against mass incarceration and police killings is the human rights movement of our time.No one should be permitted to run for president with an expectation of black support if like Harris they played a role in worsening this ongoing humanitarian crisis.

As attorney general Harrisopposed legislation that would have required her office to investigate police shootings.When California was ordered to reduce prison overcrowding she argued against it. She said, accurately, that a low wage work force would go free. But that is the reason to diminish the carceral state, not an argument to continue it. She always sided with law enforcement, which means she acted against the interests of black people. She still does this in her memoir, These Truths We Hold: An American Journey. She says of mass incarceration, “I wanted to tear it down,” but the facts say otherwise.

“Harrisopposed legislation that would have required her office to investigate police shootings.”

One of her more disgraceful policies was to victim shame black mothers for their children’s school truancy. They were fined and when most of them could not pay, were put in jail and separated from their children.This action is the epitome of modern day chattel slavery and Harris cannot be given a pass.

She constantly hedges on issues of crime and punishment that have been so devastating. In one breath she states the obvious and says that police brutality exists. She then feels obliged to add that police, “deserve to be proud of their public service and commended for the way they do their jobs.” She now says, “We need to legalize marijuana and regulate it. And we need to expunge nonviolent marijuana-related offenses from the records of the millions of people who have been arrested and incarcerated so they can get on with their lives.” But as attorney general she actively opposed marijuana legalization.

“She always sided with law enforcement, which means she acted against the interests of black people.”

Harris shows her true colors before she even begins her campaign. She is either a cold hearted cynic who went along with the ever popular cult of being “tough on crime” or she harbors true animus towards black people. In either case she presents a great danger.

The 2020 election is already presenting dangers to black voters. The understandable desire to defeat Trump is complicated by the role of the ever duplicitous Democratic Party. The racist divide keeps black people trapped in the party that is only slightly less racist. Hillary Clinton spoke openly of “super predator” youth who must “be brought to heel.” Bill Clinton made Republican fantasies come true by ending a 60 year long right to public assistance. Obama negated the very idea of a black polity when he wasn’t telling jokes about an imaginary cousin Pookie. The only thing worse than accepting this long history of Democratic treachery would be electing someone who openly destroyed the lives of black men, women and children.

“As attorney general she actively opposed marijuana legalization.”

Kamala Harris is no friend of black people and she should be treated as such. She should not be allowed to shake hands, kiss babies or walk into black churches without being taken to task. We have seen this movie and we know how it ends. A black candidate with all the right credentials makes the case for race pride but the people end up with nothing to show for their adoration.

It can be argued that Obama’s presidency left black Americans worse off than before he took office. The already weakened black radical tradition was jettisoned in favor of representational politics that was devoid of any tangible political benefit. The only thing worse would be to elect another corporate backed Democrat ready to fool us with false notions of race pride. We must say no to Kamala Harris.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article22451643.html

Kamala Harris disagrees with statewide police body-camera regulations
BY CHRISTOPHER CADELAGO

CCADELAGO@SACBEE.COM

MAY 27, 2015 01:16 PM,

UPDATED MAY 27, 2015 09:31 PM

Attorney General Kamala Harris speaking during a ceremony earlier this year at the Crocker Art Museum in Sacramento.
Attorney General Kamala Harris speaking during a ceremony earlier this year at the Crocker Art Museum in Sacramento. JOSE LUIS VILLEGAS JVILLEGAS@SACBEE.COM
Joining fellow law enforcement officials Wednesday, California Attorney General Kamala Harris said she doesn’t believe there should be statewide standards regulating the use of body-worn cameras by police officers.

“I as a general matter believe that we should invest in the ability of law enforcement leaders in specific regions and with their departments to use ... discretion to figure out what technology they are going to adopt based on needs that they have and resources that they have,” Harris told reporters in Sacramento.

“So, I don’t think we can have a one-size-fits-all approach to this,” she added.

Harris, whose own department is the first statewide agency to adopt a body camera program, waded into an issue that has sparked intense debate at the Capitol. One measure, Assembly Bill 66, has undergone several revisions to permit police officers in most jurisdictions to review footage captured on the cameras before giving a report of an incident involving force.

Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.

SUBSCRIBE NOW
#READLOCAL

At a recent hearing, several police testified that they favored allowing each department to set their own standards.

Use of the body-worn equipment was thrust into the national dialogue following a string of officer-involved incidents, many involving young African Americans. Harris, who is running for the U.S. Senate, has established a new training protocol for law enforcement that focuses on “implicit bias” and related issues.

She said there needs to be broader acknowledgment that certain communities distrust law enforcement.

“We have a history in this country that we can be proud of and then there’s a part of the history that we are not proud of,” Harris said, adding, “But we also have to acknowledge that the relationship of trust is a reciprocal relationship, and everyone has a responsibility to be a part of leading that effort.”

Very Trumpster both sides bullshit

WTF does that even mean IRT police brutality

.

I read a wildly irresponsible article that basically let her spokespeople define her legacy in response to the NYT op-ed. The whole thing was to say the Times piece lacked context, but it just had responses to the points made, no context or countering opinions. And there were so many excuses about jurisdiction and prudence and blah blah blah. It reminded me of a time I asked Roberto Luongo about giving up eight goals in a game and he straight-faced went through each goal and explained how none of them were bad goals. I bet he could hear my thoughts as my mind screamed MAN FUCK OUTTA HERE!

is set in stone.

It ain't like you can spin a statement she previously made.

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1088529120009568263

i read somewhere else that she hasnt even really developed a digital operation.

seems kinda suspect if winning is her legit goal.

I think she is going to make a tepid run to warm up for a future one. She is an odd candidate, could see her making a serious run if partisanship breaks down and voters express more interest in a moderate. Right now I feel like moderates and centrists only play at the state level, and specifically in purple states or for candidates who want to win office in a state where the opposing party is in control (think Romney when he was governor in MA).

https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/1088690543591223296

HILARIOUS!!!

Tariq played the "far-right of niggas" card so hard there and now he can play the "WHITE LIBRULS DON'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE CARD" ... dude might be playing 3D chess with his constituencies.

Dean's "STFU" reply is hilarious though.

"STFU".

man, people gonna talk about his scream again

she been nothing but a g since her return to the throne.

I would not support her for president. Long history of playing to the middle (and, economically, the top) and so far I think she's just used the leverage she has from having the house. Nothing to sway my overall opinion of her but I hope she keeps hitting open shots and contributing in the ways she can.

She's perfectly happy where she is. And is coming out tons my aggressive than the last time she was speaker. Last time her people were in the midst of re-branding her as a kindly grandmother. This time around she's got some renewed purpose.

I'll say that I vastly prefer her to HRC.

Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://Tupreme.com

Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://Tupreme.com

Musa shut the post down, no counter to what he posted.

Anyway she is doing a town hall Monday

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/politics/kamala-harris-town-hall-iowa/index.html


Politico did a piece on her, this may been posted.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/21/kamala-harris-2020-campaign-plan-1116052

Kinda telling the 3 subsequent posts have been deflections
Tulsi
Tariq
and Pelosi

That's how I expect her campaign to go honestly

When confronted with issues in her record...spin and deflect.

+1, when Trumpster ran as the 'law and order' candidate, we recognized that as a dog whistle

When Kamala does it...why would it be different?

especially considering Time-Warner, parent company of CNN, is her top corporate donor, lol

completely anecdotal...but the various progressive sites i frequent all have her leading straw polls. and the comments sections on various articles about her are overwhelmingly positive.

the attacks on her about her identity/birthplace, willie brown, etc seem to be galvanizing these people behind her too.

i have no idea what so many of them see in her...but they see a lot of it lol.

with the political gender gap widening...the dem electorate becoming increasingly female...and a voracious appetite in the party to send women to office...it might just be her year.

>with the political gender gap widening...the dem electorate
>becoming increasingly female...and a voracious appetite in the
>party to send women to office...it might just be her year.

not being Hillary is going to give her a lot of ammo.

and most of the legit criticism about her will come from the left.

so you know what that means for a Dem nominee...

and its not even really close.

the speech she gave today was a lot stronger than i thought it would be.

and i think people underestimate just how much the news/discussion/controversy her name is organically generating right now actually benefits her as a candidate in this age of the 24/7 news cycle and social media.

people seeing your name/face a lot has a way of making them think youre a serious/credible contender. also does wonders for fundraising off the free publicity (why fundraising newsletters always send out a donation email referring to a current story).

im still a beto guy. but if he doesnt run...im most likely in for harris.

https://twitter.com/IanSams/status/1089639823327916033

trumps largest rally was 28k in the heat of his campaign. harris hasnt even really hit the national stage yet.

yeah i think dr claw is right. its hers to lose (right now).

i didnt realize she generated that type of energy.

can you imagine seeing her and michelle obama standing side by side? sheesh.

she's clearly the presumed legitimate DNC-approved candidate right now. She's also gotten predominately favorable coverage from the big media outlets.

I don't know that voters necessarily want to roll w/ a prosecutor who refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin as their candidate to topple Trump. At a time when white-collar crime is so rampant and our nation continues to lock up people at an absurd clip with a broken criminal-justice system - I don't think her prosecutorial bias is a positive. But voters may feel otherwise.

-->

cuz staffing up with hillary folks aint the move in 2019. like at all.

i see yall are already starting up with the 'media is in her pocket' stuff. failing to give an accomplished (black) woman her just due.
thats honestly some trump supporter conspiracy shit and you shouldnt be stooping to their level.

i aint the biggest kamala fan at all but lets not start drifting into breitbart territory to tear her down.

>cuz staffing up with hillary folks aint the move in 2019.
>like at all.

It's not - which is why she's been courting that support as privately as possible

https://www.mintpressnews.com/quiet-courtship-part-2-kamala-harris-schmoozes-mega-donors-rejecting-corporate-funding-part-2-candidate-kamala-harris-emulates-clintons-public-private-schi/254156/

Back when her run was first explored in 2017 - she was already having Clinton supporters/donors lining up behind her:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/342431-dem-donors-buzzing-about-kamala-harris

While aligning herself with Clinton won't happen as that's not going to be palatable - having the Clinton donor/support-base (on the low) is undoubtedly an advantage moving into primary season.

>i see yall are already starting up with the 'media is in her
>pocket' stuff. failing to give an accomplished (black) woman
>her just due.
> thats honestly some trump supporter conspiracy shit and you
>shouldnt be stooping to their level.

Actually I think just the opposite is happening. Kamala is rightfully being touted as a viable challenger to Trump, and is largely celebrated because of how accomplished she is as a black woman.

And I don't know who you're referring to by "y'all" - but I got love for Kamala as a graduate of Howard Law and a fellow bison - but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to express concern over the prosecutorial bias that dominates our Supreme Court and much of our government.

Did I dismiss you for being anti-Hindu or not wanting to give an accomplished woman of color (Tulsi Gabbard) her due when you trashed Tulsi in that other thread? No, because I feel like I know you enough to know that your concerns with her have nothing to do with her gender, ethnic, or religious identity. But if you want to act like any critique of Kamala is either a product of "Russian meddling" or alt-right racism, have fun w/ that.



-->

in lockstep with the dnc? (the same accusation levied at clinton)

>she's clearly the presumed legitimate DNC-approved candidate
>right now. She's also gotten predominately favorable coverage
>from the big media outlets.

let me know if i read that wrong.

certainly in contrast to Tulsi Gabbard.

Whether the media is "lining up behind her" is yet to be seen.

But how about we not be super basic and hurl ridiculous accusations at each other. We both obviously care and are passionate about politics - and we both clearly have different perspectives and views. We can navigate that without throwing cheap shots.

-->

i should know better than to treat you like some trolls i go back and forth with.

I do with you because I genuinely respect your opinion and perspective, even if I don't always agree with it. I'd hate for the okayplayery to spoil our discussion lol.


-->

i pride myself on being able to carry out a levelheaded debate even on combative terrain. ive been inching away from that lately.

youve never once came at me sideways in any regard.

hopefully no hard feelings brother. i gotta maintain a better standard on my end.

no hard feelings at all. I enjoy a good political spar and appreciate the exchanges. It's always tempting to throw that hayemaker on these boards lol.


-->

Did he write that?

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1089690520958382080

the delayed reaction of people behind her catching that bar was priceless.

if you wanna get a good sense of what candidates voters might prefer.

https://twitter.com/pewresearch/status/1089613347434188800

----
Most Republicans want to see their party move in a more conservative direction. 53% of Democrats want the party to move in a more moderate direction while 40% favor a more liberal direction.
----

democrats seem to trend more moderate in presidential election years. but then recede a lil bit in the liberal direction in midterms.

except in 2016. where they completely bucked the trend entirely and were more liberal by a plurality. any theories on why that was?

and i honestly dont know how you can get more conservative than the current republican party other than owning slaves and making women wear chastity belts.

is it based on actual policy changes, or is it just a matter of wanting to hate liberals more.

>is it based on actual policy changes, or is it just a matter
>of wanting to hate liberals more.

the idea of "conservatism" has gone out the window, the whole political brand is about "hating the libs"

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Sure-I-dated-Kamala-Harris-So-what-13562972.php

"Sure, I dated Kamala Harris. So what?

I’ve been peppered with calls from the national media about my “relationship” with Kamala Harris, particularly since it became obvious that she was going to run for president. Most of them, I have not returned.

Yes, we dated. It was more than 20 years ago. Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was Assembly speaker.

And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco. I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians.

The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I “so much as jaywalked” while she was D.A.

That’s politics for ya."

if the national democratic party wanted to guarantee a harris victory...why would they run (at least) 3 of the highest-powered 'establishment' congressional democrats against her and split up the 'establishment' vote? (i excluded sanders and gabbard since their supporters...i guess...consider them anti-establishment and direct opponents vs mainstreamers)

somebody make it make sense to me.

of someone coming out of the Democratic Party proper, she has the most energy, but that's it.

Unlike Hillary, I don't see that "coronation" element. Kamala, for the sheer purposes of "identity politics" (and how clumsily she has handled that part of her campaign) doesn't quite fit the "handpicked" archetype.
She also isn't part of a political family.

The same would go for Castro or Gillibrand (another one that I would expect to be in a similar category). if it's a Dem "rising star" who gets a lot of energy, that's who they'll huddle around. we're not at any primaries yet, so we don't know what happens.


that being said, I heard your boy McAuliffe's name was thrown around.

hes easily the biggest reason dems could coast through several cycles in va just off political goodwill alone. also a big reason why the va republican party is going the way of the whigs.

that mcauliffe machine is like a stronger version of the harry reid machine in nv. he basically just gave northam the keys to the cadillac while it was still rolling.

i wish dems could organize and execute in places like fl, oh, ga, nc, etc like theyve done in va.

this isnt the election for him tho. he should start prepping himself for a senate seat handoff or returning to the gov mansion when northams term is up.

and probably one of the most impressive sounding politicians i've heard interviewed in a long time locally

and relating them to the general public.

i wish more dems spoke with that type of confidence and clarity.

https://twitter.com/HoarseWisperer/status/1090132564923293696

yeah i really underestimated her. babygirl is on point.

she has great eyes (as a candidate). they make everything she says look heartfelt and sincere (as opposed to hillary staring off to the side).

such a contrast between hearing knowledgeable/competent people like her and warren speak...and trump.

Already provided in this thread

Death penalty and body cams...she's lying

You don't respond to those posts though...?

Wasn't the bail reform as a senator...?

BTW, someone in this post saying she is pro-death penalty doesn't constitute her contradicting herself you understand right?



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I get HRC flashbacks from her

Just on the death penalty and body cam topics

As AG, she did one thing

Now as a candidate, she's saying the opposite

I can't get excited about a leader that says something or changes stances for convenience

We don't believe you.

I wouldn’t put her on Hillary level personally,
but all fair points.

I’m honestly surprised at the amount of supporter
enthusiasm she’s had so far based on her AG past.

Honestly at this point my main concern is who
has the best chance to beat Trump.

I’m torn on who can thread the needle to win
the primary and the general.

about as well as you could've asked her to do - but the more precise question to ask her would be why she refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin - despite considerable evidence pointing to serious white collar crime.

-->

but here's their response to this...

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/1/21/1827095/-Kamala-Harris-and-the-big-lie-that-she-didn-t-prosecute-Mnuchin

Long story short, she didn't have any standing to prosecute.

while actively trashing and going on offense against Gabbard?

Fascinating.

-->

its basically like an op ed for community members.

you or i could write one and just give our personal interpretation of some current event/issue.

While anyone can submit a story - not everyone's story is published and featured. So there can be editorial bias in what you allow to be published.

I just did a quick scan of their database for the past month with a search for Tulsi Gabbard - and found 6 negatively spun articles, not one positive one.

Everyone has a right to their opinion - but just saying.


-->

If you are scanning for positive articles on
Miss “both sides are to blame”

And, again, there are a lot of critical articles on
Tulsi because there is a lot to critique.

I know you dig her, but she’s dead in the water.

I know how this game is played - but that doesn't mean I stop advocating for the candidate that resonates.

Still, we shouldn't be so numb to the game that we don't identify when there is bias and an uneven playing field, unless you really don't care about how the DNC managed the 2016 primary (which means you're not particularly interested in a democratic process).

Tulsi was always going to be a long-shot (just like Bernie in 2016) - but the process should play out - and now more than ever - media and political administrators should place a heightened emphasis on fair play and neutrality.

That's not happening thus far.

-->

>I know how this game is played - but that doesn't mean I stop
>advocating for the candidate that resonates.

That isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you want a candidate who resonates with you to resonate with others- it won't happen.

She has way too much baggage, and her "both sides" thing was the nail in the coffin.



>
>Still, we shouldn't be so numb to the game that we don't
>identify when there is bias and an uneven playing field,

You haven't presented any evidence that it isn't an even playing field at this point. Counting Daily KOS articles isn't evidence.

Especially when, as I said, your girl just isn't liked by a lot of sub groups.

Your bias is showing. Tulsi has a ton of negatives, thus you are going to read a ton of negative write-ups. *shrugs*

>unless you really don't care about how the DNC managed the
>2016 primary (which means you're not particularly interested
>in a democratic process).

My beef with the primary was first and foremost with the lack of candidates. Really strong candidates - such as Biden, Warren, etc- were good Democratic soldiers and didn't run cuz Hilary wasn't going to miss her turn again.

THAT is where the trouble really started IMO.

But again, I'm not referring to the party. I am referring to you searching the internet looking for even treatment, when your girl is a very uneven candidate.

>
>Tulsi was always going to be a long-shot (just like Bernie in
>2016) - but the process should play out - and now more than
>ever - media and political administrators should place a
>heightened emphasis on fair play and neutrality.
>

>

Everyone gets attacked in primaries. Hillary. Bernie. Obama. Kamala. Tulsi.

The problem is that you want to find some balance for Tulsi, who just isn't an attractive candidate to a lot of liberals, progressives, etc.

Just because YOU can look past things like "radical Islam" and trying to compare both sides over a shutdown for a racist/ineffective wall, etc....doesn't mean the rest can.

>That's not happening thus far.

YOU aren't playing fair either, though. You want it to be one way (where Tulsi doesn't have a rough record AT BEST) and its another.

And, again, if you are going praise Tulsi for her "growth"...you have to praise Kamala, etc.

and supporting progressive candidates (their ability to bring national attention and massive fundraising opportunities to lesser known candidates is legendary at this point).

the fact the community views gabbard so negatively isnt a sign of dailykos bias. its a sign of tulsi gabbard weakness.

people who know her record/history.

dailykos is progressive and she gets shat on over there.

if you hit the comments sections on places like politico and the hill...its more of the same there too.

she has a passionate/vocal niche of supporters but theres pretty much an almost universal eyeroll among dems when it comes to her.

>people who know her record/history.
>
>dailykos is progressive and she gets shat on over there.
>
>if you hit the comments sections on places like politico and
>the hill...its more of the same there too.
>
>she has a passionate/vocal niche of supporters but theres
>pretty much an almost universal eyeroll among dems when it
>comes to her.

Of Hillary stans. Acting like their misunderstood, evolved candidate
is being treated unfairly because people are writing about
questionable things she said or did.

This is how elections work.

The blinders they have on are legit giving me 16
flashbacks.

giving season passes to your own side on things you wouldnt let anyone else in the arena for.

it really is baffling how they either dont see or dont acknowledge the obvious.

you get a sense of how the entire dk community feels about her. not just the authors/moderators.

dailykos has a great comments section in general too. very little trolling. a lot of great supplemental info from a knowledgeable user base. a lot of current/former campaign staff, lifelong activists, etc.

my recent comprehensive dive into the real nuts and bolts of politics was basically started on dailykos and their comments sections.

didn't know that about the comment sections though. I'll check it out.

I just found it peculiar that they were heavily covering Tulsi's primary challenger in Hawaii and just really kind of not taking her seriously. I think her dad's organization (and her embrace of social conservatism when she was 20) really rubbed a lot of people wrong - including dailykos. I just don't know if that's being particularly fair with regards to the person she is today.


-->

what would policy would she support to make sure that people like Mnuchin and banks like OneWest don't get away with obvious fraud.

Kamala reached a better financial settlement than most, but no one was held accountable - for obvious fraud and illegal behavior. If she can clearly state what the holes in the law were that made it hard to prosecute, and then also what she could do as a president (or what policies she would push for) then I can rock with it. I don't see any great explanations out there from here other than 'we followed the evidence and didn't have enough to prosecute'. OK, what was the issue and how do we fix it?


On a wider note, i feel like we have to let go of the Kamala=HRC, Beto=Obama, and Tulsi=Bernie shit (in terms of voting blocks). We're bringing a lot of 2016 baggage into this election, and it's not productive.

I'm gonna try and enjoy an actual primary and to hold these people accountable for some of their shit positions, and hopefully we find a candidate who listens, changes when necessary, and best represents your average OKP dummy instead of the wealthiest few in this country. The more I listen to Kamala and Tulsi, the more i like them both. Shit Elizabeth Warren is pretty unfuckwittable outside of her DNA Test misstep. The less i go to Twitter, and the more read about the dem candidates, the more i like them.

i'm not sure how i feel about this one

she doesn't need the black men demo with so much white women support

but this doesn't really do much to shred the hotep criticism of her being a selectively good/bad "cop"

it's good bc she focused on what she did but she's got do better to acknowledge what shit didn't do or could have done differently to grab (not hoteps) but the criminal reform hardliners which is a significant chunk of the progressive wing

I don't know, if she really wins over black women voters in huge numbers like that, it's going to be tough to see anyone beating her. We're also a year out from most of the votes being cast and I don't think the fact that the road to the nomination is going to require a lot of support from black women (and particularly older black women) is a "secret" anymore.

Gotta remember the delegates are awarded proportionally, too. So even if she gets the support of black women and literally nobody else, that's still going to net quite a few delegates, even in states she wouldn't actually win.

Just anecdotally, it seems like a lot of these "conversations with voters in early states" pieces reveal older voters lining up behind one of the bigger name candidates while younger voters could break any which way (saw a similar piece focusing on black men in SC where older voters like Biden, younger voters wanted just about anyone else.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/us/politics/kamala-harris-black-voters.html

COLUMBIA, S.C. — As Senator Kamala Harris attempts her own version of former President Barack Obama’s historic rise from first-term senator to the White House, one of her political tests will be trying to secure the overwhelming support from black voters that buoyed Mr. Obama in 2008. Ms. Harris wants that support, but it does not come automatically.

In many ways, she is well positioned: Ms. Harris is the most high-profile and politically connected black woman ever to run for president, and she can also draw on her powerful alumni networks from Howard University, one of the most prominent historically black colleges, and Alpha Kappa Alpha, the oldest black sorority.

Yet interviews with more than 30 black voters and political leaders in early primary states like South Carolina and her home state, California, show that Ms. Harris faces challenges. She will have to persuade black activists skeptical of her record as a prosecutor; overcome sexism and a bias on the part of some voters that a female candidate cannot beat President Trump; and work to gain broader support from black men, who generally expressed more wariness about Ms. Harris in interviews than black women.

She would also need to win over left-leaning young black voters, some of whom were ultimately disenchanted by Mr. Obama’s presidency and may value political ideology more than racial solidarity.

Ms. Harris is aiming to appeal to voters of all races, of course. But black voters are a core constituency of the Democratic Party, and they will be decisive in key primaries like South Carolina’s. The 2020 Democratic field is expected to be crowded and competitive, so an advantage with black voters will be crucial — as Mr. Obama found in 2008. Ms. Harris is not likely to be the only black candidate reaching out to black voters, and several white candidates are sure to make enthusiastic pitches to these voters as well.

Ms. Harris has never been in a race where black voters made up such a sizable portion of the electorate, and she is already facing some questions after just her first week as a candidate.

“Didn’t she do the three strikes stuff?” asked Tyrone Brown, a 48-year-old Columbia, S.C., resident, as he received a haircut and a shave. He was referring to Ms. Harris’s decision not to endorse a public effort to reduce the prison population by changing California’s punitive “three strikes” sentencing law. “I don’t know, I need to see her devotion to the African-American community.”

Across the country in Oakland, Calif., Kijani Edwards, 34, was also wary. “Ten years ago, I was moved by Obama. I was in tears in November of 2008, we all celebrated up and down,” he said.

But Mr. Obama did not bring the changes Mr. Edwards expected. “The banks got bailed out,” he said. “Interest rates got raised on the very citizens who bailed them out.”

“I’m tired of having the conversation of voting for the lesser of two evils,” he added, referring in part to Ms. Harris.

Ms. Harris has long drawn comparisons to Mr. Obama: Both began their political careers in urban, liberal centers and won Senate seats, becoming two of only 10 black senators in history.

Mr. Obama, too, had to win over some black voters: A year before the 2008 Iowa caucuses, polls showed him trailing his main Democratic primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, among black voters. It was not until after Mr. Obama stunned Mrs. Clinton by winning in Iowa, a state dominated by white voters, that black voters began to coalesce around him.

Ms. Harris starts out with an apparently strong base of support among older black women, the most reliable Democratic voting bloc. Black women’s votes helped propel Mr. Obama to the nomination in 2008 and helped Mrs. Clinton beat back a primary challenge from Senator Bernie Sanders in 2016.

Ms. Harris handily won a presidential poll among women of color published in December 2018 by the political group She the People. Ms. Harris’s strategists have also conducted internal polling that they say shows backing from older black women.

“Of course, I’m leaning toward us,” said Tammie Coleman, a 56-year-old health care worker in Columbia who was shopping for groceries at Walmart. “But honestly I just want a Democrat. Someone with some sense.”

But young black activists have been troubled by what they see as a criminal justice record that undercuts Ms. Harris’s claim to be a civil rights ally. Millennial voters are paying attention: They are more likely to hear about a candidate on social media, where criticism of Ms. Harris’s tenure as a prosecutor has circulated, and their political consciousness has been shaped by the Black Lives Matter movement against police brutality.

“Any black person that participates in a system that’s inherently racist, upholds it,” said Charles Lee, a 35-year-old Berkeley, Calif., resident, speaking on the day Ms. Harris announced her presidential run.

While critics have decried some of her actions like upholding convictions obtained through official misconduct and opposing statewide standards for body cameras, Ms. Harris has said she worked to change California’s system from within and started programs to divert low-level drug offenders away from prison and into schools and jobs long before other district attorneys were following suit.

Criminal justice reform and addressing issues like police brutality are not peripheral issues for the younger generation of black voters, but a litmus test for a candidate, said DeJuana Thompson, founder of the millennials-focused advocacy group Woke Vote, and Cornell Belcher, a political strategist who conducted polling for both Obama campaigns.

“I’m going to have some point of caution with anybody who used to be a prosecutor,” said LaTosha Brown, co-founder of the Black Voters Matter Fund, which mobilizes black voters.

“The entire system is flawed, the way that people are prosecuted, and the unfairness that black people experience in the court system,” Ms. Brown said.

Perceptions of candidates are fluid this early in the campaign, and Ms. Harris has a year to introduce herself to the public and defend her record before voting begins in the 2020 Iowa caucuses.

Her campaign declined to discuss the topic of Ms. Harris and black voters for this article.

Ms. Harris is not alone among current and potential 2020 Democrats who may face skepticism from some black voters. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was an architect of the 1994 crime bill that many criminal justice advocates detest, and others, such as Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, have previously taken positions on issues like gun control that are controversial on the left.

Political scientists who specialize in studying black voters’ decision-making say Ms. Harris’s presidential candidacy also represents an intriguing case study of how they may weigh race against gender on the national political stage. Research analyzing what black voters do when selecting between male and female black candidates has largely been confined to local races, said Theodore R. Johnson, a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice.

If Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey decides to run, as expected, research suggests he could siphon black male voters from Ms. Harris, Mr. Johnson said. Black men vote for black female candidates in higher numbers than their white male counterparts, he said, but the presence of Mr. Booker could upend that equation.

“Party is, by far, the controlling factor in how black folks vote, so if Kamala Harris was against Donald Trump, she doesn’t have to worry about losing black men to Donald Trump any more than Hillary Clinton had to worry about it,” Mr. Johnson said. “But in a primary, if both Booker and Harris are running and both of them have viable candidacies — which is another requirement — then black men are likely to defect from Kamala at a noticeable rate.”

“It’s the gender card that helps him with black men,” he said.

Gender came up in South Carolina last week, in interviews with black male voters about Ms. Harris in barbershops, on college campuses and at grocery stores. Several used terms — like “strength” and “aggressive” — that political scientists view as code language for questioning women’s leadership.

Ms. Harris attracted national attention grilling Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Jeff Sessions during Senate hearings, to the point that Mr. Sessions admitted he was “nervous.”

“She’s a woman,” said Nathaniel Stewart, a 58-year-old barber. “And we need strong backs right now. I don’t know if she can pull off that type of strength to take on Trump. I’d rather Cory.”

Tyrone Hutchinson, 40, said he thought it was time for a woman to become president, but he said some black men with “traditional values” would not support Ms. Harris. Mr. Brown said he preferred Mr. Booker because he did not think Ms. Harris could be “aggressive” enough to “battle with Trump.”

James Moore, a 62-year-old truck driver, said while he could vote for a black woman, he would prefer Mr. Booker or Mr. Biden, because he wondered if the country was ready to elect a black woman.

“Ms. Harris seems like a decent person,” Mr. Moore said, “but I just don’t think she’d have a chance, and I don’t want to throw away my vote.”

But nonwhite women — more than men — represent the core voting base of the Democratic primary and are arguably the most important constituency for any Democratic nominee. At Ms. Harris’s first two public appearances since announcing her candidacy, the Pink Ice Gala in South Carolina and her Oakland kickoff rally Sunday, black, Latina and Asian women turned out in droves to witness the launch of her candidacy.

Rozena Harten, of Oakland, said she did not believe Ms. Harris’s candidacy depended on black male support.

“I think black women are more involved,” Ms. Harten said. “I’m tired of men.”

Tiffany Stevenson, 44, also a member of the Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority, said she was “really energized” by Ms. Harris’s speech at the Oakland rally. “I think it shows the type of America I think America wants to become.”

In 2014, a research paper from the Center for American Progress, a liberal advocacy organization, argued that the main lesson from Mr. Obama’s victory in 2008 was that the Democratic Party needed to invest more in organizing and motivating nonwhite women, and specifically black women.

“As their numbers increase and their participation grows, women of color will increasingly have the chance to sway electoral results, influence which candidates run and win, and play a greater role in shaping the policy agenda,” the paper argued.

The author of that paper? Maya Harris, then a senior fellow at the organization.

Ms. Harris is now the chairwoman for her sister’s presidential campaign.

at least white dem women

shoot, they are probably more in the bag then black women at the moment...i think she pulls them in too

she'll get less black men but will get enough

white men...seems to depend more on just how much trump shrinks his base

criminal reform hardliners of all demos is going to be tough but i feel like most aren't going to be single-issue voters solely on that

basically, if you win there, you have a good chance of taking the nomination.

in 2016, anyone who tried to talk to me about Bernie (who I voted for) couldn't explain why he took Ls in these states.

Clinton had the name recognition. They made those votes before knowing about him. Same with my mom in NC. Most of those same folks could reconsider in 2020, depending in the final field

https://www.insidesources.com/video-of-kamala-harris-threatening-parents-with-jail-over-truant-children-sparks-backlash/?fbclid=IwAR2f_HMCI3WvnNRbfkjrls4lbwY8bEPJj0o0OLoM54AJyIE7bz1YX6PZYb0

This is my main concern about Harris and the disproportionate prosecutorial bias that exists within our government at the highest levels. I like a lot about Harris, but I just don't see how the progressive champion of 2020 will be the top cop of California in a country where the criminal justice system is so broken, and where we imprison more people (proportionally) than even China.

-->

she's doing a good enough job of pivoting away from it to the things she did well but she's gonna have to acknowledge some of this a bit more earnestly at some point...

the only good thing is that it's not exactly an angle the Repugs can leverage very well lol

but if she's going to continue passing as progressive-centrist...she's gonna have to address it head on

created his account last November.

Today he was retweeted by the Black Socialists of America.

https://twitter.com/BlackSocialists/status/1090327945514754049

https://youtu.be/o8g9I-MQl2k

I ask because your guys' defense of Tulsi was essentially "are you worried she will pass anti-gay legislation?" etc.

When Tulsi was getting critiqued, it was "what are you specifically worried about with Tulsi as President?"

So...I'd like to ask the same.


What are you worried about specifically? If you can look past Tulsi's past, why can't you look past Kamala's?

I asked that as a genuine question

She renounced her earlier views on LGBTQ

But her post was getting spammed with the issue

So I genuinely was asking

You twisted it to defending her

Has Kamala renounced her truancy stance?

>I asked that as a genuine question

You weren't genuine, stop. No one thought she was going to do anything with DOMA or whatever. People don't like her past views regardless, and typically don't trust a flip flopping politician.

Your point was "well, she isn't going to pass any laws to limit rights, so why do you care?"


Just curious why that logic can't apply to everyone with something questionable in their past.


>
>She renounced her earlier views on LGBTQ
>
>But her post was getting spammed with the issue

No it wasn't. It was getting discussed. Just like Kamala's past is being discussed here.



>
>So I genuinely was asking
>
>You twisted it to defending her

I'm not twisting anything. I'm just noticing how hypocritical people are. I definitely noticed it in 2016 among Hilary fans, but I never noticed it with Bernie's people until this year.

This year its very apparent, though.

Tulsi is commended for her growth, others are attacked for flip flopping.

Tulsi's past is excused because "its not like she will pass any laws based on those views", but others don't get that pass.


Discussing Tulsi's past is "spamming" her post, but no one is complaining about "spamming" the Kamala post.

etc


And hell, "Hillary shouldn't run we need to move on" yet...Bernie is embraced with open arms.

(For the record I don't want either to run, but thats besides the point)


I am honestly not that excited about Kamala either, I just think its a little nutty how hypocritical a few Tulsi/Bernie folks are being around here.

>I am honestly not that excited about Kamala either, I just
>think its a little nutty how hypocritical a few Tulsi/Bernie
>folks are being around here.

i understand a lil hypocrisy and double standardization now and then to sell your candidate...but its becoming way too blatant (like glenn greenwald on joy reid vs tulsi homophobia).

folks are tip toeing the line on self-parody/mockery.

i think it shows how hard it is for the left of the left to effectively deprecate candidates who arent hillary clinton. i thought kamala was in real trouble based on commentary from 'notep twitter' (c). but crowd/viewership/poll numbers look like kamala may be largely unfazed by it tho. we will see.

it also says a lot when your bright young star of the next generation is tulsi gabbard but thats neither here nor there lol.

another version of her trying to fill jails with ppl who dont belong in jail, in this case knowingly fighting to keep an innocent man in jail for 2 years over paperwork.

And yes, I'm definitely worried her cut-throat attitude about imprisoning people, as evidenced in her actual job performance and decisions, would rear its head as a president.

Tulsi said some stuff about gay marriage nearly 20 years ago, never tried to jail anyone for being gay, and has a great pro-gay record where it counts: actions.

You still aren’t being consistent though.

As evidenced by you thinking you only need to defend
Tulsi for “not liking gay people 20 years ago”

As if that’s the only blemish on her record, or as if that
tells the full story of that particular blemish.

In other words, If you’re going to go hard on Kamala’s
past you might want to pick a candidate other than
Tulsi.

Both sides to blame, radical Islam, Putin/Assad praise, Bannon
co-sign, refugees, conversion therapy, etc- youre throwing stones in
a glass house.


As far as Kamala, I assume you fear what a Harris
Justice Dept would look like? That’s fair, but then
understand when some are afraid of what a Gabbard
admin would look like to certain groups and how
friendly that admin would be to Bannon types and
their line of thinking.


It goes both ways. You can’t just shrug off Tulsi’s
past and keep posting the same video.

Having had negative *opinions* on gay marriage 15+ years ago in early adulthood, but 100% pro-gay voting record since holding office...

And being someone who has RECENTLY become notorious for actually caging humans who dont belong in prison and bragging about it.

"I disagree with your lifestyle, bit here's my votes" VS imprisoning innocent people

It’s not just the gay thing. You just breeze right by
other stuff.

And again, my point is that people would be
concerned about a Tulsi admin too. She’s never
had that kind of power/influence before obviously.

Your concerns with Kamala are valid. Just like our
concerns with ms “radical Islam” are valid.

>Your concerns with Kamala are valid. Just like our
>concerns with ms “radical Islam” are valid.

this is one time where the unison of "liberals" and "left of liberal" bears fruit. Tulsi's connection to far right entities and co-signs can't be ignored. she's got that Ron Paul energy around her. and coming from Trump, in the context of government after government around the world coalescing to a far-right bend over to money-ed entities... do we really want to hear from a "Radical Islam" peddling jabroni when we ain't even ended the goddamn war we started 15+ years ago?

concern in other circles over some of the other stuff hovering around Tulsi...going as far back as 2016, when ppl first started lining up to push Tulsi 2020 and i wasn't sold yet... primarily because of the islamophobia rumors. My bad if i haven't yet expressed that here.

I have a handful of candidates i like, each with aspects that i love, who all come with some serious questions that concern me. I haven't picked my horse yet.

Yes, Tulsi's foreign policy leaves a lot of unanswered questions. I love what i hear on some fronts, and cock my head a bit at other tines...but I've yet to encounter any smoking gun obvious deal-breaker actions remotely on the level of Kamala. ...and I also have an automatic visceral distrust of the way Kamala's candidacy is being promoted. Lots of fluff to make her look cool and relatable, mainstream media fawning over her, and any challenge over substance is deflected. She comes off like a trojan horse for the donor class. And she thinks scaring ppl and jailing ppl is funny...and i hear nothing from her that makes her actually seem preferable in any way beyond image and her favorite songs...how is she favored? Oh yeah. Exactly. She's been chosen. All the other candidates on my list have something substantive that is worth being excited about. And they don't jail ppl for sport.

>Your concerns with Kamala are valid. Just like our
>concerns with ms “radical Islam” are valid.

What exactly are your concerns with respect to Tulsi Gabbard and "radical Islam"?


-->

A lot of people (myself included) do not want a president/potential president who is so comfortable throwing around right wing talking points- both sides to blame, radical islam, voting to make it hard on refugees from Syria/Iraq, etc.

She isn't getting Steve Bannon cosigns for nothing.

I don't want a president/ potential president who sounds/talks like she could be a contributor on Fox News as "that cooky "liberal" who is okay with gays marrying now but still agrees with us on Muslims."

And yeah man, at times VOTES that way.

Jon called Kamala a trojan horse...I don't see how you guys can't see the same with Tulsi.

She isn't going to win in Hawaii without the progressive label...so her "evolving" could definitely be politics to play to her state.

Hell she is going to get primaried next cycle.

I am skeptical and frankly a little scared of anyone who wants the label radical Islam so bad. Racism, prejudice, hate-filled rhetoric...that shit does real damage.



You either have serious blinders on with this woman or the only things you really care about are economic in nature or maybe you just haven't really thought about how that stuff could potentially impact people with different backgrounds.

You know any refugees man? You ever see how a woman in a hijab can be treated in Amerikkka?


So again, you guys have valid concerns about Kamala based on her past.

A lot of us have valid concerns about Tulsi's past. Take the blinders off Vex.

>She isn't getting Steve Bannon cosigns for nothing.

This again? Were you concerned with NeoCons were cosigning Clinton? Or when Republicans were endorsing Obama? The notion that you penalize a candidate's entire character because some lunatic (and yes Bannon is a lunatic) says they like one thing about you is beyond unfair.

>I don't want a president/ potential president who sounds/talks
>like she could be a contributor on Fox News as "that cooky
>"liberal" who is okay with gays marrying now but still agrees
>with us on Muslims."

Except her foreign policy in the MidEast is one that strengthens their right to self determination and preserves their society. The problem with your (and many people's) critique of Tulsi Gabbard on foreign policy is that people just skim the surface and a few quotes, and fail to understand and deal with the issues on a deeper level.

I'm still waiting for you to mention something specific about her foreign policy that gives you such cause for alarm.

>She isn't going to win in Hawaii without the progressive
>label...so her "evolving" could definitely be politics to play
>to her state.
>Hell she is going to get primaried next cycle.

She's won Hawaii by landslide margins since she ran for Congress. This primary challenge has been in the works since 2016 and is orchestrated by the DNC. All this talk about Democratic unity and the party elites are trying to orchestrate a challenge to her to take her out of the game. Unfortunately for them, she is extremely popular in Hawaii and likely won't have any problems with her primary challenger, despite all of the outside noise.

>I am skeptical and frankly a little scared of anyone who wants
>the label radical Islam so bad. Racism, prejudice,
>hate-filled rhetoric...that shit does real damage.

Nobody who has followed Gabbard's political career would refer to her as "racist, prejudice, or hate-filled." Only people who have known about her for a couple of weeks and read the strategic smear pieces say that about her.

The point about naming extremist groups "radical Islamists" is not really such a controversial issue that many make it out to be. Many of the world's leading progressive scholars on Islam - including Maajid Nawaz - also thinks it's important to call extremist groups in the region "radical islamists". What I'm more concerned about is your policy in the MidEast and whether you believe in the dignity of the people in a sovereign nation to self-determine their fate, free from our interference and regime-change.

It's funny - I guess people think Neoliberals who voted for the Iraq war and advocated for the destruction of Libya (and now Syria), and voted to directly and indirectly fund groups like ISIS are not "bigots" because they don't use the term "radical islamists" - yet their policies are a ravage to muslims all over the region.

>You know any refugees man? You ever see how a woman in a
>hijab can be treated in Amerikkka?

Yea - you're really just talking silly now. My partner is a refugee from Baghdad - and she supports Tulsi. Why? Because Tulsi's policy would've never allowed the Iraqi invasion to happen in the first place. The problem with our policy is the MidEast is not the use of politically charged terms that offend somebody who knows nothing about Islam, it's a systemic culture of perpetual war and the destabilization of entire countries so that we can help the Saudis and Israelis in their lunacy to take over the region.




-->

i know like every few years or so theres a politician threatening to jail parents in philly over their kids missing school. local news goes crazy. the parents (understandably) are in an uproar. but a lot of other people in the community are on some 'well you need to take they asses to school then!' shit.

along with the issues specifically surrounding the long term potential of the children...truancy laws are couched in crime prevention language. i think something like 80% of our incarcerated population are high school dropouts. so its presented as a way to make the community safer and also decrease a childs chances of falling into the system.

as far as i know...its mostly just been threats. i dont know of anyone that led a widespread incarceration operation against negligent parents.

on the surface is sounds more harsh than it actually is in practice....

but it's been an extremely effective program....

in an optimal situation, you have parents....schools..... service agencies...and the justice system working in partnership to maximize student success....and keeping students safe....

Children who are not regularly coming to school...students with truancy problems...holding parents accountable for that..... it helps families in a variety of ways..... so often we're seeing parents who have no clue...no help whatsoever dealing with defiant and truant students.... The process that is in place actually provides parents with access to resources that they would not have available to them, if not for the fact that their child has been put through this process due to their truancy. You involve social services, you involve different programs through law enforcement, you have parents who now have access to the help that they so desperately need with their children....

it's also a way to identify and address some very serious dangers that children may be in while they are truant. Whether in the home or outside of the home...whether the parents/guardian are aware or not of these issues.


it most certainly hasn't been a cure-all...but trust me..it makes a very impactful difference in the situation...and I'd bet that most educators here in California who deal with this issue would actually prefer an even MORE stringent and widespread policy......

now I can only speak from the experience in California...and I know that a policy like this in other states could be used as the type of revenue generating, racially biased thing.....

and I know there are legit questions related to Sen. Harris time as a prosecutor, .... and she has plenty of policies and stances she's going to have to defend and explain....

but this in particular...

it works, and you'll find a ton of educators and parents here in California that will verify it

Harris, a candidate I think is too far right to meet the challenges we've got coming to this country and planet, just offered - largely unsolicited - to melt the health insurance racket. That feels like good news to me.

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1090350496664162304

damn i think a lot of people (myself included) are severely underestimating her widespread appeal. i legit didnt know this many people were even interested in her.

including msnbc and fox news. not just cnn.

https://twitter.com/fawfulfan/status/1090411089052028928

what is/was she thinking? this thing is a dumpster fire.

Now that Bernie is going to enter the race (which was very unclear up until last week) - she is going to join that campaign in all likelihood - but Batrice has been a Gabbard aide for years. People aren't jumping ship because dailykos and Howard Dean think she's unqualified lol.

A bad sign for Tulsi right now is that she's not able to raise $ at nearly the clip of the more mainstream candidates.

-->

I'm a little surprised.

I'm not even saying I disagree with all (or much) of the criticism, but I am surprised that folks are coming for her this hard this early.

In one sense, I think people are taking out some of their frustrations with Obama on her. For a number of reasons, alot of Obama's Black critics might have felt like they had to keep quiet while he was in office because it was us against the world. And her origin story is really similar to Obama's in a bunch of key ways, so people see her as the female Obama.

cautiously/diplomatically nuance his way around black issues...black voters want a black candidates they know is explicitly and unequivocally on their side. thats what theyre accustomed to demanding at the local/state level so it looks like its being increasingly extended to consideration for federal office as well.

the messed up part tho...the 'cop' line of attack was cynically deployed by people on both the left and the right to drive a wedge between harris and black voters. and it looks like its working to some degree.

Black people can think for themselves.

"the 'cop' line of attack was cynically deployed by people on both the left and the right to drive a wedge between harris and black voters. and it looks like its working to some degree."

if i said 'a persistent line of attack against hillary clinton was a question about the clinton foundation that was generated by steve bannon allies and their clinton cash book to hurt her standing with anti-dc-status-quo liberals...and its working'.

and you said 'people have questions about issues dealing with clintons record with the clinton foundation'...

those are conflicting statements? if anything it underlines the original statement.

in the discourse. I'm not even that enamored with KH but, at this point, it's almost like people are trying to get her to atone just for being born who she is. And I agree.. there's probably more than a little residual Obama resentment.

But there's also an illogical element to some of the criticisms that don't sit well with me..

For example, the allegation that she's not a DOS. This can not actually be true since her father is afro-jamaican, can it? In fact, given the trade dynamics during the TAST era, it is likely a significant number of Black Americans' enslaved ancestors arrived in the US by way of Jamaica or other Caribbean islands. There was a documented preference for "seasoned" blacks who had already been broken into the horrible work conditions on the islands. Multiple colonizers ran depots, holding excess Africans on their Carribbean islands for expressly the purpose of meeting inter-colony demand (eg. British/Barbados, Netherlands/Curacao, etc.).

So I could see the value in dialogue about whether it's accurate to characterize her "Black American" (especially if she doesn't necessarily identify as such), but some of the other stuff I've heard is a bit... I don't know.

Then, the backlash over her m4a position. Are people "just now" realizing what single payer has meant all this time, or..? Lol. I don't get it. Especially since, for those (of us) that don't think single payer is a good move for the US and believe a public option + tighter regulation might be better suited, the lack of private sector cost-sharing is a significant reason that some think a single payer system would be unsustainable. Is it that she bluntly described in no uncertain terms what am entirely government-run system could actually mean?

I think folks need to remember universal coverage does not have to equal single payer financing. There are other ways. Especially considering recent KFF polling that showed strong support (74% of respondents) for a public option. I hope m4a doesn't become Kamala's/Dems' "border wall".

>Then, the backlash over her m4a position. Are people "just
>now" realizing what single payer has meant all this time,
>or..? Lol. I don't get it. Especially since, for those (of us)
>that don't think single payer is a good move for the US and
>believe a public option + tighter regulation might be better
>suited, the lack of private sector cost-sharing is a
>significant reason that some think a single payer system would
>be unsustainable. Is it that she bluntly described in no
>uncertain terms what am entirely government-run system could
>actually mean?
>
>I think folks need to remember universal coverage does not
>have to equal single payer financing. There are other ways.
>Especially considering recent KFF polling that showed strong
>support (74% of respondents) for a public option. I hope m4a
>doesn't become Kamala's/Dems' "border wall".

in politics...when youre explaining...youre losing.

because the general population isnt familiar with what m4a actually is...its easy for the opposition to define it in simple (and untruthful) terms. it allows repubs to 'death panel', 'clean coal', 'bathroom bill', 'job killing regulation' and 'venezuela' it.

its no surprise that dems have historically lost a bunch of political capital/offices on dramatic changes (or attempted changes) to healthcare. clintoncare, obamacare, etc.

m4a is popular in an abstract/broad sense when people are polled. once you start including more complex variables like the potential collective cost, the potential effect on private sector jobs, the potential effect on employer healthcare plans, etc...its popularity drops significantly.

andrew gillum had to back off m4a in florida to maintain support.

kamala is already tripping up on her m4a stance and eliminating private health insurance.

when you present m4a as a requirement/restraint with no alternative...people get queasy. but when you present it as an option you can test drive...people feel a lot better about it.

obama was right in trying to use public option with obamacare. opponents (like lieberman...who eventually shot it down) attacked it as a transition mechanism into single payer (which it was lol). but obama understood it was both a simple(r) and complex way to funnel people into single payer.

let people opt in. build up the rolls. get accustomed to state/federal funding needs. let it get beat up a bit by repubs. let popular opinion improve once people actually use it. let it become part of everyday life. let it become less likely to get beat up by repubs. let it be demonstrated and acknowledged as a better alternative to private insurance. let the labor market gradually adapt/optimize/transition. then keep scaling/expanding it.

then the increase in the demand for single payer (and decrease in the demand for private insurance) is more of a result of free market capitalistic forces than government mandate.

allow private insurance to still exist...but it is naturally gonna be forced to become more of a specialized discretionary offering like in canada.

not only is that a more stable path for single payer...its easier to market/defend a product as a necessary upgrade to an existing product.
by then it just seems like an improvement to an already-established 'entitlement'/benefit/right.

thats why the majority of democrats who flipped seats in the 2018 midterms werent running on m4a. they ran on obamacare...improving access, cutting costs, maintaining pre-existing condition protections, expanding medicaid. keeping it simple (and easily feasible). even some repubs late in their campaigns (disingenuously) were running on protecting obamacare lol.

'slow and steady wins the race'. it also makes it more likely to survive court challenges and attempts to undermine it in state legislatures (roosevelt had to launch a court packing plan to save parts of the new deal that were being ruled unconstitutional by the more conservative jurists). let it get supported by ballot initiatives, reinforced by legislation at every level, enshrined in state constitutions, etc.

a strong foundation leads to a stronger structure.

candidates open to more centrist proposals (only Pete Buttigieg comes to mind so far as truly center-left, but you probably could characterize where KG, TG, etc. fall better than I could) leaves the single payer shit alone and talks instead about universal coverage, tighter regulation, etc before an independent swoops in, owns that space, and siphons votes from the left. Already, the starbucks ceo and bloomberg have pounced on this exact issue.

Furthermore, as you touched on - there are a number of factors other than financing affecting healthcare access and quality.

For example, for some reason in the current system it is not illegal for a provider to cherrypick patients based on the type of insurance they have (eg. many providers reject Medicaid patients). The ACA restricted payers from cherrypicking (eg. health insurance companies rejecting patients based on pre-existing conditions, age, etc.) but allowed providers to continue. That needs to be fixed.

Another issue - just as we've seen in the tech arena with facebook, Amazon, etc - the healthcare private sector has gone completely rogue and has way, way, WAY too much power. To the point that health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc have usurped diagnostic and therapeutic control from doctors (eg. determining treatments patients can even receive by dictating what is covered, where something is covered, pricefixing, etc.) and have the ability to exert government-level influence/interference over policy and programming (eg. pulling or threatening to pull out of exchanges). Private sector selfishly played nice for all of one minute while Obama was still in power for the extra (government-subsidized!) customers ACA would bring, but once the Repubs started destabilizing everybody showed their ass. The current situation is completely ridiculous and in dire need of correction.

But Dem leadership could definitely achieve this with the public's full support. There's no need to torch people's coverage, imho, whether it's public or private. Destroying and starting over is almost always more expensive than repairing what one has. The vast majority of the private health insurance market is B2B anyway if its mostly employer plans. And it makes sense to have a public option available for individuals, small business owners, etc instead of the exchanges (which, as we know, were a piece meal plan b solution anyway). So let the corporations duke it out with each other over the fat accounts they really care about, check and balance the shit out of them so they stay in their lane, and offer a public option for folks falling in the gaps. I know it's not that simple, but better than a scorched earth policy if you ask me.

your expertise on the subject is impressive.

experienced/observed its (potential) flaws first hand. I'm just nerdy about certain topics in general though.

But we could say the same thing about you and the politics posts! Please keep it up. I contemplated making a Reeq appreciation post once lol. Still might.

we def gotta go back and forth more on these issues.

Working towards a public option in the short term with a long term goal of single payer doesn't seem like a huge contradiction.

>Working towards a public option in the short term with a long
>term goal of single payer doesn't seem like a huge
>contradiction.

The reasonable plan is also the 'establishment' plan. And nobody's allowed to be establishment anymore.

You've just picked up on my own personal view/bias lol

My personal reservations about the viability of a nationalized single payer US healthcare system are not only about cost. For example, I question whether single payer would even be a good fit for the size and type of population the US "is". Most of the countries people like to reference as successful single payer implementations have populations substantially smaller than the US with nowhere near the rates of obesity, chronic lifestyle diseases, gun violence, etc. The US also faces demographic pressure in the sense that baby boomers are aging, living longer in their old age, carrying more chronic conditions into their old age, and sick/disabled elderly people have some of the highest healthcare service utilization in any system i.e they are a very expensive market segment. So these proposals for single payer come at a time when current and future demands on the US healthcare system couldn't be higher.

I've also experienced/witnessed service delivery issues that tend to arise in single payer systems which I think would severely debilitate the US healthcare system given its size and complexity. All that talk of longer wait times, drug shortages, physician and specialist shortages etc... is 100% for real and it happens in single payer systems much smaller and streamlined than anything that could adequately serve the US population. Can you imagine such issues at scale? It would be a mess.

But probably most constraining is the fact that healthcare service and drug pricing is higher in the US than anywhere else on the planet. The government currently has a bit of control over service pricing for its existing programs i.e. Medicaid (serving lower-income patients) and Medicare (serving mostly elderly).. plus it's better to think of Medicaid as federally-subsidized coverage that individual states provide to their qualifying residents. But nationalizing healthcare provision would only force the American taxpayer to ultimately pay for all the wild wild west price gouging the government has been letting the private sector get away with for everything else. Then, to complicate matters,forcing drastic price controls would decimate provider reimbursement and industry/shareholder profit margins and for those reasons would likely be politically intractable. So ya.. the pricing problem is a giant heap of capitalist feces but this is why, I say, retaining private sector cost-sharing and tightening private sector regulation is likely going to be an absolute must for any sustainable proposal.

I just think there's no other democracy in the world facing the unique challenges the US has in delivering quality healthcare to its citizens, but there's also no big quick fix or even any sort of precedent to look to for applicable guidance. So the US is quite literally making it up as it goes along, and that's fair. For me personally though, I think debate and reform of some of the smaller domain-specific issues makes sense but a full on government takedown and takeover would be disastrously expensive, unsustainable, and result in significant reduction in quality of care.

>Then, the backlash over her m4a position. Are people "just
>now" realizing what single payer has meant all this time,
>or..? Lol. I don't get it. Especially since, for those (of us)
>that don't think single payer is a good move for the US and
>believe a public option + tighter regulation might be better
>suited, the lack of private sector cost-sharing is a
>significant reason that some think a single payer system would
>be unsustainable. Is it that she bluntly described in no
>uncertain terms what am entirely government-run system could
>actually mean?
>
>I think folks need to remember universal coverage does not
>have to equal single payer financing. There are other ways.
>Especially considering recent KFF polling that showed strong
>support (74% of respondents) for a public option. I hope m4a
>doesn't become Kamala's/Dems' "border wall".

the backlash is real.
and it should be "the wall" for Dems. that's the ONE thing Kamala has going for her outside of the border wall.

otherwise, I need to hear some real tough talk about the private sector. make it completely non-profit and prohibit any and all denials.

that's something worth "walling up" IMO.

as for the other noise... I'll let y'all sort that out

>that's something worth "walling up" IMO.
>
>as for the other noise... I'll let y'all sort that out

https://www.youtube.com/embed/fS7qb6lbZuo?start=17?end=31

In response to a post up top claiming she didn't have the authority. She was giving Holder type plea cops. I would imagine if she didn't have the authority... she would know.

Good luck explaining those campaign donations.

FORMER CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY General Kamala Harris on Wednesday vaguely acknowledged The Intercept’s report about her declining to prosecute Steven Mnuchin’s OneWest Bank for foreclosure violations in 2013, but offered no explanation.

“It’s a decision my office made,” she said, in response to questions from The Hill shortly after being sworn in as California’s newest U.S. senator.

“We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made,” Harris said. “We pursued it just like any other case. We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.”

Mnuchin is Donald Trump’s nominee to run the Treasury Department, and served as CEO of OneWest from 2009 to 2015. In an internal memo published on Tuesday by The Intercept, prosecutors at the California attorney general’s office said they had found over a thousand violations of foreclosure laws by his bank during that time, and predicted that further investigation would uncover many thousands more.

But the investigation into what the memo called “widespread misconduct” was closed after Harris’s office declined to file a civil enforcement action against the bank.

Harris’s statement on Tuesday doesn’t explain how involved she was with the decision to not prosecute, or why the decision was made. She also would not say whether the revelations would disqualify Mnuchin for the position of treasury secretary. “The hearings will reveal if it’s disqualifying or not, but certainly he has a history that should be critically examined, as do all of the nominees,” Harris told The Hill. She added that she would review the background and history of all Trump cabinet nominees.

Senate Democrats have vowed to put up a fight over Mnuchin — even creating a website inviting homeowners to list their complaints against OneWest. And yet not one senator has commented publicly on the leaked memo, which received media coverage in Politico, Bloomberg, the New York Post, CBS News, Vanity Fair, CNN, CNBC, and other outlets.

The Intercept has reached out to half a dozen Senate Democratic offices, including those of Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and leading Mnuchin critics Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, receiving no response.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., retweeted the story, as did the Twitter account of the Democratic National Committee. But another DNC tweet just hours later hinted at the bind Democrats are in when it comes to using the information against Mnuchin. That tweet praised Harris’s swearing-in. Her decision not to prosecute may make her new colleagues wary of pursuing it.

Progressive groups have not been so reluctant. Three groups — the Rootstrikers project at Demand Progress, the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up Campaign, and the California Reinvestment Coalition – have called for a delay of Mnuchin’s confirmation hearing until he publicly discloses all settlements and lawsuits OneWest has faced from its foreclosure-related activities, responds fully to all questions submitted by members of the Senate Finance Committee, and publicly discloses his role in obstructing the California attorney general investigation, or any others.

The California Reinvestment Coalition followed that up on Thursday by asking OneWest to release the obstructed evidence, which involved loan files held by a third party then known as Lender Processing Services (it’s now called Black Knight Financial Services). “That’s something the Senate Finance Committee should ask him for, prior to scheduling their hearing with him,” said Paulina Gonzalez, executive director of the California Reinvestment Coalition.

Mnuchin has already declined to answer a detailed list of questions from Finance Committee member Sherrod Brown, which Brown sent before the release of the leaked memo.

After The Intercept story was published, Mnuchin spokesperson Barney Keller called it “meritless,” and highlighted OneWest’s completion of a foreclosure review with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (which involved completely separate issues from the California inquiry) and what he claimed was OneWest’s issuance of over 100,000 loan modifications to borrowers.

“Memos like this belong in the garbage, not the news,” Keller said.

Meanwhile, the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, an organizing group that made headlines in 2010 by protesting on Mnuchin’s front lawn over OneWest’s foreclosure practices, expressed disbelief that he could now become treasury secretary. “My family lived first hand the fraud and unethical behavior under his leadership when I was told to default before they could help me, and (was) instead pushed into foreclosure,” said Peggy Mears, a OneWest victim.

ACCE plans to ask incoming California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to take up the prosecution of OneWest based on the newly released evidence. And the group vowed to fight the Mnuchin nomination. “No one who oversaw the defrauding of thousands of homeowners should be allowed to serve watch over our country’s money,” Mears said.

(On the CNN town hall.)

EDIT: just noticed a lot of similar discussion has already been had in posts 377, 380, 384...


Seemed like a case-in-point of how so many of the Sanders 2016 promises went unchallenged in the press, and that if they become litmus tests for progressive candidates (which they pretty clearly will), they'll be a huge drag on the eventual nominee.

Tapper pointed out that M4A would mean the end of private health insurance. She basically said "yeah."

Sounds good to me, and I'm sure to most of us around here in the bubble. But there's a reason Barack Obama had to say "If you like your plan you get to keep it." It's way too easy for Republicans to spin any change as a loss.

It would also mean hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs. M4A is a more efficient system, and this is the downside of that. Most of the people in the health insurance industry are not CEOs, or even particularly well off. Most of the money that private insurance wastes, goes to the salaries of regular people. In an ideal world those people would quickly find new work, but obviously that's not how it happens.

Polls have shown that the apparent popularity of M4A plummets when someone points out that it would end the existing insurance system.

The response Kamala should have had ready, I think, would have been along the lines: "There would still be a place for private health insurance as a supplement if you want it. Nations like the UK still have private health insurance for people who don't feel they get enough coverage from the public system. You could still buy supplemental insurance and companies could still offer it as a perk of employment. Moreover, it would be far less expensive, because it wouldn't have to cover all the things already covered by the public plan." Then again, just as I typed that I saw a few more cans of worms threatening to open up.

It's a shame we've forgotten about the "public option" from Obamacare, which we were supposedly going to keep fighting for. That was functionally equivalent to M4A, just packaged in a way that's less disruptive and harder to make scary. But I guess it was 'establishment' or something.

The REAL answer, of course, is: "Oh don't worry. It's not a serious policy proposal. No policy proposals, from the right or the left, are serious anymore, because the country is hyperpartisan and neither party will have a 60-seat Senate supermajority in our lifetimes (certainly not the Democrats!). So while it's fun to talk about imaginary domestic policy, all we're really doing is listing ways that we'll be disappointed in a few years. Really I'm only running to be a hiring manager, to determine who staffs the federal agencies and the courts. And that's important too!" But unfortunately a campaign that admits that, will not be long for this world.

>The response Kamala should have had ready, I think, would have
>been along the lines: "There would still be a place for
>private health insurance as a supplement if you want it.
>Nations like the UK still have private health insurance for
>people who don't feel they get enough coverage from the public
>system. You could still buy supplemental insurance and
>companies could still offer it as a perk of employment.
>Moreover, it would be far less expensive, because it wouldn't
>have to cover all the things already covered by the public
>plan." Then again, just as I typed that I saw a few more cans
>of worms threatening to open up.

the reason why services like fedex and ups cant completely price gouge you...is because the usps exists. and price controls are mandated for usps to keep the costs low for citizens. so the private services have to keep their costs low too to stay competitive.

usps is also legally obligated to provide delivery to all americans. even fedex and ups have to transfer some packages to usps en route to cut delivery cost and/or transit time. as established and refined as the private services are...they still dont have the same level of infrastructure the government service does.

this is how dems should describe whatever healthcare plan they put forward. the government provides the backbone to guarantee every american has access to healthcare at controlled prices. but youre still able to seek whatever offerings from secondary providers you want to.

*guaranteed* healthcare (maybe better phrasing than 'free'). low prices on that guaranteed healthcare. and low prices on optional healthcare due to market competition.

punching bag for public services.

"You want to make ______ work like the Postal Service?"

A public good that applies to every citizen, pays for itself and still manages to fuck things up less than their private competitors? Yeah, I do.

Talk shit about the DMV all you want, fine, they suck. But despite being gutted in funding, the USPS still gets their job done. Going to the Post Office to have to pick up a package isn't always fun, but it beats having to drive out to the middle of nowhere (as opposed to having one in just about every town) to go to a UPS/FedEx facility that still has all the same byzantine rules you have to go through just to get your damn package.

Like, when did it become understood that every Regular American definitely hated the USPS (don't answer, it was when skin tone of the average postal employee got too dark.)

>Like, when did it become understood that every Regular
>American definitely hated the USPS (don't answer, it was when
>skin tone of the average postal employee got too dark.)

Good, important middle-class jobs that make society function; employ a lot of black people; and what (seem like - I'm happy to be corrected here) pretty good benefit/pension packages are like blood in the water for bad faith attacks.

I'll add that the same is true of the DMV, and two of the last three cities I've lived have had extraordinarily pleasant, effective, and efficient ones. Nobody ever likes going to the DMV, but I've never had any real gripes in Chicago or DC. My last two trips to the ones in DC have been downright pleasant. Nashville's wasn't great, but Tennessee seems to have a pretty different attitude toward funding and supporting public services.

But they cut/consolidated a lot of the ones in Hennepin County, so now it kinda sucks. There's now one IN the mall at Southdale, and it's not nearly a big enough space for how many people it services. And if you need an enhanced ID drivers license, there's like 9 or 10 in the whole Twin Cities metro that even offer it.

All of these problems could be fixed by actually treating these like vital services that citizens need, instead of an object of scorn.

>All of these problems could be fixed by actually treating
>these like vital services that citizens need, instead of an
>object of scorn.

This is typically what Minnesota does better than almost every other state. I guess everybody has their blindspots.

Weirdly, I wouldn't know. Minnesota is the only state I've ever lived in for more than a year without having an in-state license. Kept my Maryland one through college and then for several years later, by which time I'd moved to Chicago.

And I've never had a package or letter get lost in the mail.

Yet after nearly 40 years on this planet, I STILL don't know how exactly to send something via UPS or FedEx. I appreciate overnight shipping on Amazon, but oh yeah, the final delivery of those packages is usually handled by USPS!

It's just a meme that's taken hold. And I think you're right about the cause.

Then again, like you said above, when you're explaining, you're losing.

But this is worth expending some political capital over.

I can also already hear the Fox News cries of "They want it to work like the POST OFFICE!!!" The simple response to that, of course, is that we'd all rather spend a half hour at the post office than an evening playing phone tag with Blue Cross.

but with replies like this, "Liberal Viewer" Reeq is probably my favorite OKmakeover, LMAO

>>The response Kamala should have had ready, I think, would
>have
>>been along the lines: "There would still be a place for
>>private health insurance as a supplement if you want it.
>>Nations like the UK still have private health insurance for
>>people who don't feel they get enough coverage from the
>public
>>system. You could still buy supplemental insurance and
>>companies could still offer it as a perk of employment.
>>Moreover, it would be far less expensive, because it
>wouldn't
>>have to cover all the things already covered by the public
>>plan." Then again, just as I typed that I saw a few more
>cans
>>of worms threatening to open up.
>
>the reason why services like fedex and ups cant completely
>price gouge you...is because the usps exists. and price
>controls are mandated for usps to keep the costs low for
>citizens. so the private services have to keep their costs
>low too to stay competitive.
>
>usps is also legally obligated to provide delivery to all
>americans. even fedex and ups have to transfer some packages
>to usps en route to cut delivery cost and/or transit time. as
>established and refined as the private services are...they
>still dont have the same level of infrastructure the
>government service does.
>
>this is how dems should describe whatever healthcare plan they
>put forward. the government provides the backbone to
>guarantee every american has access to healthcare at
>controlled prices. but youre still able to seek whatever
>offerings from secondary providers you want to.
>
>*guaranteed* healthcare (maybe better phrasing than 'free').
>low prices on that guaranteed healthcare. and low prices on
>optional healthcare due to market competition.

because that's exactly the route she should take (and could ward off the "socialism!!!!!" call)

Not to mention, I'm scared M4A will suck all the energy/attention away from other very important issues that would also help Dems stabilize their power...such as voting rights, etc.

'just get it over with' isnt something that people are just gonna get behind lol.

m4a hamstrung dem candidates up and down 2018 and its looking like its going to do the same in 2020.

one of your flagship proposals shouldnt be something your own party is intensely split on. we are about to see why.

shit not even remotely feasible

What is the substantive reason why so many people suddenly prefer her to Warren, Bernie, Booker, Yang, Tulsi, Biden, Beto, Nina (if she runs), etc?

What stands out and sets her apart?

She likes Tribe and P-funk? She's hip and sassy?

The sheer vapidness of her rise in popularity is what gets me.

Its like Joan Ferguson and Hillary Clinton had a much more photogenic baby who likes to party and knows how to network.

And suddenly media outlets press a few buttons, and boom, she's in the lead.

The same things that appealed to the people that voted for Trump. The same things that helped Obama get elected.

Whoever wins the crowd, wins. Ochlocracy.


No politician even bothers to talk concrete Xs and Os anymore because then they've created a solid target for their opponents.

Like "is a wall even feasible, what would be the total costs, environmental impacts with building materials and techniques, the effect or migratory animals, can the land even be purchased, what about rivers, creeks and other bodies of water, how much is maintenance, how many people are needed, how long will it take, how long will it last," etc.

Can't blame Mrs. Harris for this, she's just the next one up.

Especially in Presidential politics.


I would say its been this way for a looonng time.


Who do you think was the last President to be elected on Xs and Os?

Maybe never. I wouldn't be surprised if it was always a dog & pony show.

The huge cultural shift that is the Internet didn't exist (in modern form) before Clinton/Bush, and the even larger shift that is social media didn't really take off before Obama/Trump.

It's frustrating to me because of all this arguing and emotions and government shutdown about an idea that hasn't even been proven feasible yet.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693488.pdf

Dead on about this:

>No politician even bothers to talk concrete Xs and Os anymore
:
This is what i crave more than anything else in politics. Thats why im getting very interested in Andrew Yang the more i listen to him. Its not even about his particular proposals so much as his analytical X's & O's problem-assessing, problem-solving disposition. Im not saying he's my favorite, and his chances dont look great, but I wish we could apply some actual thinking caps to the challenges we face, and do away with the BS politics and cool-kid contests.


>Like "is a wall even feasible, what would be the total costs,
>environmental impacts with building materials and techniques,
>the effect or migratory animals, can the land even be
>purchased, what about rivers, creeks and other bodies of
>water, how much is maintenance, how many people are needed,
>how long will it take, how long will it last," etc.
:
Lol precisely

Or had a better presence or whatever you want to call it.


I get your point, but likability/image matters. Ask Hillary. Or Kerry.


It sucks. And I think it especially sucks for Warren, cuz it seems to me she (her policies/proposals/etc) could please "both sides" of the left so to speak.

>It sucks. And I think it especially sucks for Warren, cuz it
>seems to me she (her policies/proposals/etc) could please
>"both sides" of the left so to speak.

Haven't heard anything from any candidate I like as much as her tax plan.

Warren is likeable, she's just not cool. She isnt hip and sassy. Her playlist is boring. She's not as photogenic. All she does is study what makes ppl poor and look for solutions. Borrrring. Gimme that fly 90s chick who laughs about scaring ppl with cages. Her voice is sexier.

Btw, i clarified some of that Tulsi stuff further up around 396 ... you're definitely right about there being some concerns there too (just not on the same level for me as of yet)

I assume her campaign is looking for an opportunity to recreate that dynamic, because it's incredibly fun to watch.

I really don't like that she's deviated from her "brand" as it is.

that whole beer drinking thing.
the DNA test.

EFF all that. You are the candidate that wants to move back to a progressive tax code and attacks the bankers, protects consumers.

Lean on that.

(Though as I've been saying policy proposals are actually irrelevant, because nobody is gonna pass any significant laws about anything during the rest of our lifetime. All a President does now is appoint people to positions, and on that front, all Democrats are equal.)

A lot of the "likability" stuff is just the same sexist nonsense that went against Hillary, and that aspect of it will be there for Harris, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, and any other woman who runs. That McSweeney's article was dead on.

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-dont-hate-women-candidates-i-just-hated-hillary-and-coincidentally-im-starting-to-hate-elizabeth-warren

THIS component of the "likability" issue is something we shouldn't just accept. We should fight it out, and I think we can.


But there's another part of it with Warren, and I'm sad to say it's exactly the reason I like her so much: she's very smart and very educated. This has long been a problem, for male and female candidates, especially in the Democratic party. Warren has spent most of her life as an academic, she talks and works like an academic, she knows a lot, and more important, she knows that there's a lot that she DOESN'T know, and that there are others out there who know more about those things. You'd think this would be a benefit. It would be a benefit once someone is in office (it was for Obama). But people are suspicious of intelligence and education in this country. I'll admit it hampered Hillary, and Obama (though for him it was mitigated in part by competing racist stereotypes).

The thing about claiming Native American heritage was a huge misstep, but for the vast majority of people (especially Trump) it was never about heritage. It was about the fact that it all happened on a form for OMG Harvard University OMG, and so many people are used to thinking of academia as a haven of "political correctness" (as if that would be a bad thing), too obsessed with diversity or whatever. The "Pocohantas" taunt isn't about Warren the clueless white person; it's about Warren the effete academic.

she kinda lost her spark a bit after she went to congress...and she really started to lose me when she wasted all that time and energy bickering with Trump on Twitter over utter nonsense.

But I'd still enthusiastically vote for her in a GE, and she has a chance to win me over in the primaries.

>(Though as I've been saying policy proposals are actually
>irrelevant, because nobody is gonna pass any significant laws
>about anything during the rest of our lifetime.

Damn, you really think that? I'm cynical as hell, and I don't know if even I think that.

All a
>President does now is appoint people to positions, and on that
>front, all Democrats are equal.)
>
>A lot of the "likability" stuff is just the same sexist
>nonsense that went against Hillary, and that aspect of it will
>be there for Harris, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, and any other
>woman who runs. That McSweeney's article was dead on.

>
>https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-dont-hate-women-candidates-i-just-hated-hillary-and-coincidentally-im-starting-to-hate-elizabeth-warren
>
>THIS component of the "likability" issue is something we
>shouldn't just accept. We should fight it out, and I think we
>can.

The likability issue isn't new, and it isn't specific to women (though they clearly have it worse).

Please point to a modern Presidential election where the more likable/relate-able candidate lost.

Look at the past 50-60 years without a partisan lens. The more likable, relate-able candidate wins. I admit '16 was a fucked up case, but idiots hated Clinton and didn't even know why.


We can talk for years about how unfair and how fucked up it is, but we (Dems) would be foolish to just say "we can fight this out"...okay, how?

In this specific case, how would dems get Warren over that hump?

I'm not saying we give in/give up. But we have to consider it.


And I really do wonder if Warren could overcome it by (as Doc said up above) leaning into her brand and hitting Trump back.

I also think there are female candidates who do have "it". Look at the buzz Kamala has and no one really even likes her past...lol. She just has a presence.


I do wonder about Klobuchar though, too. I think most people, especially in the rust belt, would rather have a beer with Amy than Donald. We shouldn't discount that.


I go back and forth, but lately I've been thinking Amy would definitely beat Donald in the GE.

>
>
>But there's another part of it with Warren, and I'm sad to say
>it's exactly the reason I like her so much: she's very smart
>and very educated. This has long been a problem, for male and
>female candidates, especially in the Democratic party. Warren
>has spent most of her life as an academic, she talks and works
>like an academic, she knows a lot, and more important, she
>knows that there's a lot that she DOESN'T know, and that there
>are others out there who know more about those things. You'd
>think this would be a benefit. It would be a benefit once
>someone is in office (it was for Obama). But people are
>suspicious of intelligence and education in this country. I'll
>admit it hampered Hillary, and Obama (though for him it was
>mitigated in part by competing racist stereotypes).

I agree here, and it is batshit insane that education can be a negative.

>
>The thing about claiming Native American heritage was a huge
>misstep, but for the vast majority of people (especially
>Trump) it was never about heritage. It was about the fact that
>it all happened on a form for OMG Harvard University OMG, and
>so many people are used to thinking of academia as a haven of
>"political correctness" (as if that would be a bad thing), too
>obsessed with diversity or whatever. The "Pocohantas" taunt
>isn't about Warren the clueless white person; it's about
>Warren the effete academic.

Agree here too. I wish she would have clapped back at him on some "why are you more worried about my DNA than Russia messing with our elections" and/or "I'll release my DNA when you release your tax returns" and/or a slam about Trump University or some shit.

or...something.

Something about tweeting from his golden toilet too, for good measure.

>>(Though as I've been saying policy proposals are actually
>>irrelevant, because nobody is gonna pass any significant
>laws
>>about anything during the rest of our lifetime.
>
>Damn, you really think that? I'm cynical as hell, and I don't
>know if even I think that.


Yup. I definitely think that. Obama got a lot of important laws passed when he had 60 seats in the Senate. He got no important laws passed after that. It was all executive actions, (some) judicial appointments, and bureau policies.

We will likely never see Dems have a 60-seat supermajority ever again, short of a depression-level economic catastrophe. The Constitution favors the rural states too much for that.

Now all bets are off on this if the filibuster is ended entirely and the Senate goes over to simple majority rule. And things are clearly going this direction. But to be honest, despite my hyper-cynical view, I think ending the filibuster entirely would be an even worse outcome, because it cuts both ways. When the GOP holds the WH and simple majorities in both houses, they could do whatever the fuck they want. End Social Security, ban contraception, defund every fuckin thing, whatever. I think both sides see the danger that the other poses if there's no filibuster, so I doubt it'll ever go there. What's happened so far (ending the filibuster for judicial appointments) is different, because seats were actually going unfilled, there was a serious and growing problem for the courts. But if we just can't pass new laws, we just won't pass new laws. The Presidency will become more and more a matter of, like I said, a hiring manager, and it will determine how the executive bureaucracy does its job, and that'll be pretty much it.


>All a
>>President does now is appoint people to positions, and on
>that
>>front, all Democrats are equal.)
>>
>>A lot of the "likability" stuff is just the same sexist
>>nonsense that went against Hillary, and that aspect of it
>will
>>be there for Harris, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, and any other
>>woman who runs. That McSweeney's article was dead on.
>
>>
>>https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-dont-hate-women-candidates-i-just-hated-hillary-and-coincidentally-im-starting-to-hate-elizabeth-warren
>>
>>THIS component of the "likability" issue is something we
>>shouldn't just accept. We should fight it out, and I think
>we
>>can.
>
>The likability issue isn't new, and it isn't specific to women
>(though they clearly have it worse).

I never said it was.

>Please point to a modern Presidential election where the more
>likable/relate-able candidate lost.

I never said they did. It's a very significant issue.

>Look at the past 50-60 years without a partisan lens. The
>more likable, relate-able candidate wins. I admit '16 was a
>fucked up case, but idiots hated Clinton and didn't even know
>why.

A lot of it was because she's a woman. A lot of it was because she's educated and therefore "boring." Any part of it that people "can't put their finger on" is probably because it's one of those two and they don't want to admit it.

>We can talk for years about how unfair and how fucked up it
>is, but we (Dems) would be foolish to just say "we can fight
>this out"...okay, how?

With regard to the issues of sexism, by pointing it out, calling it out, helping people to see it and correct it. Most people don't want to be sexist. It's an issue of implicit bias, and if it's not treated like some kind of moral failing (which it really isn't) then people can try to overcome it. I'm not saying it's easy, or that it will come quickly, but it's something we need to come to terms with. I'm not ready to throw my hands up and say "Women just shouldn't run for office. It's a shame, and it's totally unfair, but people just don't like them as much, statistically."

>In this specific case, how would dems get Warren over that
>hump?

The sexism issue? Like I said above. But my point is that the (separate) anti-intellectualism issue is a lot more fundamental and we probably won't overcome it anytime soon. (Maybe under the right circumstances, but not in our lifetime.)

>I'm not saying we give in/give up. But we have to consider
>it.

I agree.

>And I really do wonder if Warren could overcome it by (as Doc
>said up above) leaning into her brand and hitting Trump back.

That's her best bet, clearly. But the public is never gonna be more anti-banker than they are anti-intellectual. Part of WHY people are anti-banker is because of their anti-intellectualism.

>I also think there are female candidates who do have "it".
>Look at the buzz Kamala has and no one really even likes her
>past...lol. She just has a presence.

She's in a far better place than Warren, because she's not an academic. But I guarantee Kamala will have just as much trouble with "likability" as Hillary did. Because it's coming from the same place. (And it may be worse for Kamala, because of the added, and very complex, racial element.) Again, that's not a reason not to support her. Quite the opposite, it's a reason to defend her (which most people failed to do for Hillary).

>I do wonder about Klobuchar though, too. I think most people,
>especially in the rust belt, would rather have a beer with Amy
>than Donald. We shouldn't discount that.

I think Amy could be a very strong candidate if she survives the primary. Again, she'll see the same challenges Hillary did, but that "Minnesota nice" thing will help defuse it. At the same time, she'll get the other side of the sexism trap, with people wondering if she's too nice to lead the military.

>I go back and forth, but lately I've been thinking Amy would
>definitely beat Donald in the GE.

Very possibly. I'm just afraid she'll get backlash from self-appointed "progressives."

She's the most purely populist progressive out there, and has been for some time...

and she doesn’t sound like a Disney character like Warren.

her "brand" was built in the Trump Presidency

I thought she came off as good as any Democrat in her inquiry of Kavanaugh.

She has a very refreshing style and really knows how to talk to people (and about people) in a way that resonates.

I'm just not sure what her substantive polices are as of yet - I'd like to see more clarity. I liked that she mirrored Bernie's Medicare For All policy in Iowa - but what's her stance on Venezuela? China? UBI? MidEast policy? Legalization? Wall Street Corruption? Environmental policies?

For all the crap people give candidates like Bernie & Tulsi - they are clear on these issues and aren't calculating to see which way the wind blows.

-->

Shit was foul.

If he had a strong scream who knows how his career plays out

Politics is petty as hell.

>Shit was foul.
>
>If he had a strong scream who knows how his career plays out
>
>Politics is petty as hell.
>
>

I obviously didn't pay this much attention then, but I remember I was "whats the big deal?"


I'm cry-laughing at the idea that had Howard Dean had a better scream his career and the world would be much better off.

remember the Dukakis helmet photo?


https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/backfire_5.jpg?w=1280

Doesn’t take much to lose it all

like it was so obvious she was going for her moment


and Kavanaugh was just side-stepping her questions

They all seemed a little...off.


Specific to Kamala I had memories of Clinton's twitter nuclear code joke in that debate that completely bombed.

The average voter didn’t even watch that shit. They just saw the clips and heard people saying her name.

Fox News and them started about how she would prolly run for President as soon as it was over.

I’m sure she will defend it and say overall truancy rates dropped so it was effective but folks are already cherry picking and finding people negatively impacted by it.

If overall truancy rates dropped as a result of dropping a draconian hammer on even one vulnerable person whose kid didnt show up to school, its not worth it, and doesnt justify it. There are other ways to solve education and drive up attendance than gutting families and caging parents.

educators and parents in California who have seen it work effectively can speak on it for her..


I can literally tell you specific young people what policy likely saved their life..... and I'm sure I'm not alone in the state with those examples

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-anti-war-campaign-donations_us_5c530708e4b093663f5bfa69

taking corporate money from military contractors while claiming to be anti-war and against neocon foreign policy?

is there anything she *hasnt* flipflopped or been completely hypocritical on?

seriously someone needs to look into why she just uprooted her entire political identity and became 'progressive' across the board in 2017.

for an added bonus...here she is speaking to a right wing zionist group just a few years ago...taking pride in arming the israeli government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxXcUNct18Q

https://www.rollcall.com/politics/harris-was-the-only-democrat-in-2016-to-receive-cash-from-mnuchin

She still voted against him, and notes that dude has donated to Clinton AND Obama as well.

Not sure how this is the same.

Miss "both sides" is selling herself as anti-war, anti-intervention, etc. At least in speeches. Still taking that bread, though.


We could also compare amounts if you want to go there ($2k to $100k right?)


Tulsi stans got me defending Kamala. Wild.

Reeq deflecting in Kamala's post...porque?

There's a dedicated Tulsi post

Feel free to read through it

I gave her the Aloha means goodbye reply

Let me know who on Okay is voting for Tulsi?

Just keeping the Kamala post focused on Kamala

So...you're okay with her getting campaign contributions from Mnuchin?

My bad I thought you were a big fan...she is the only one I recall you defending like this, but I get it now.


>Reeq deflecting in Kamala's post...porque?

Take that up with Reeq, but as I've said before, this has kind of become the candidate thread at this point.

>
>There's a dedicated Tulsi post
>
>Feel free to read through it

I have- a lot of bullshit in there too. But, again, is each candidate going to have their own thread?

>
>I gave her the Aloha means goodbye reply

That was you? My bad man, for real. That was funny as hell too. My bad.

>
>Let me know who on Okay is voting for Tulsi?

Vex for one. I think he jut has a crush though, cuz there is no other rational explanation.

>
>Just keeping the Kamala post focused on Kamala
>
>So...you're okay with her getting campaign contributions from
>Mnuchin?

2 grand? I'm not really concerned about 2 grand man. I think she has much bigger issues than a relatively small donation that didn't impact her vote. *shrugs*

There have been any number of issues raised in this post about Kamala's candidacy

Reeq deflects...something something about Tulsi, Pelosi, etc...

...and the Kamala candidacy post gets derailed away from those issues...

None of which have yet been addressed by claimed supporters

I just want to know if you see what he is doing?

see reply 462

when you just whataboutted my tulsi reply with a kamala link? lol.

Who is posting in this thread about Tulsi, other than you and Vex replying

?

Who replied in the Tulsi post that they are excited about her candidacy and plan on voting for her

?

i.e. What's the point of posting something something about Tulsi in the Kamala post...repeatedly...?

You also haven't addressed any issues raised about Kamala in the thread

?

You just K.I.M. = deflect.

it's a long-standing pattern

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re72di5phM0

My bad

I honestly haven't taken it as Reeq deflecting though. I could be wrong, I don't think Kamala is even at the top of his list, but I can't speak for him. I think he is waiting on Beto though...

***Reeq? Who you got right now? Is Kamala your favorite at this point?


I just took it as he doesn't like Tulsi, and I tend to pile on because I agree with him there


I just took it as this is the candidate thread now, but to your point maybe that is just cuz Reeq, Vex, myself, and others keep bumping it over Tulsi.


I haven't really talked about Kamala myself much because I'm not that interested, frankly. I am surprised at how much attention she is receiving in polls, etc. I think it is a just announced bump PLUS people have just missed someone who can speak intelligently, etc.- but we'll see.

Anyway, like I've said- my bad man. Aloha means I'm sorry right now.

dude thinks hes killing my candidate or something lol.

an individual contributed to her campaign as a private citizen and it didnt sway her vote during his nomination for a position in government.

thats the type of stuff candidates brag about in their own speeches.

was that supposed to be a gotcha?

She decided to terminate the investigation into One West...despite uncovering 'thousands' of violations before the investigation was complete

Cool...she didn't vote for him as a Senator

But as AG, she let dude skate.

big positive would be Trump being out of office and a chance to flip the Supreme court back liberal.

Prosecutors are gonna prosecute.

I mean, he's an elderly game show host who starts sundowning around 11am. Maybe the question shouldn't be "Can this person defeat Trump?" and assuming a competently-run campaign from any of the three or four Dem frontrunners should do the trick, instead should be "who will be the best president?"

That there's one and only one D candidate who can win and the only thing that matters is picking the person who can say the magic words that will banish Trump to his home dimension. Based on nothing but their own preferences.

Warren could beat him
So could Harris
And Sanders
Beto could, too
Probably even Biden!

Pick who you think would be the best, this "here's the person who would definitely lead to the fewest losses in the 2022 midterms" or whatever.

when you step in the cess pool, your gonna get shit on you.

OP was talking about Kamala tho....

Donald Trump is the POTUS. Think about that.

I remember vividly telling my wife "He won't win the nomination. He has a group of crazies who love him, but no one else likes him. As others drop out, guys like Bush and Rubio will pull ahead"

I remember it like it was yesterday. Basically, I never thought in a million years he would win the nom, let alone the actual Presidency.


Now, I grant you (and said then, too) that the Dems honestly ran the absolute worst candidate against Trump for a variety of reasons- yes, some unfair.

But even then, I didn't really think he would win. I was worried as shit, but I just...I never thought it possible.


So, I guess my short answer is I'm paranoid and I'd prefer a slam dunk. Like, if you told me "Sherrod Brown has a 90% chance to beat him, Warren has a 60% chance..." or whatever, I'd take Brown.

And nobody knows how the campaign is going to unfold until it happens.

But it's not as if he won overwhelmingly, it came down to less than 200k votes in three states. His party has won a majority of votes in a presidential election ONCE since 1988. We can't get too scared of them replicating something they were barely able to do the first time.

that had to happen for trump to get elected. the entire chain of events.

birtherism shooting him into the national political spotlight.

clinton email investigation.

loretta lynch meeting with bill clinton on the tarmac...which necessitated her recusal and handing the investigation over to james comey (might be the dumbest bill clinton gaffe of all time).

comey exonerating clinton but publicly slandering her and promising repubs he would notify them if any new information came forward.

anthony weiner busted for sexting underage girl. laptop confiscated.

bernie sanders running for president...after 30 years of being lowkey nationally with no aspiration to higher office...with a campaign ran by paul manaforts old partner (i still dont know how or why this came about).

dnc hacked by russia.

1st round of wikileaks emails released from dnc hack causing riff between sanders supporters and dnc/clinton.

john podesta clicking on a phishing link. personal email hacked. 2nd round of wikileaks emails released.

general russian/cambridge analytica social media disinfo campaign all throughout.

republican voter suppression on steroids after supreme court gutting of key part of the vra.

'new' clinton-related emails found on anthony weiners laptop fwd'd from his wife who happened to be a clinton aide. investigation 'reopened' and republicans notified by comey (as promised).



like damn dude really ran a royal flush just to lose the popular vote by 3 million and eek in with 1% or less in 3 crucial states.

is he really that hard to beat without the same magic and lost support/fallen approval ratings since the election?

SMDH at Wisconsin and Michigan especially.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McK8bPR8pzU

This is really disgusting. She is pandering so hard to an extremist, apartheid regime in Israel and is falling in line to kiss the ring. This is not leadership.

She has also been secretly meeting w/ Israeli lobby to court their support:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De7WnKWcOes&t=622s

Blind support for an apartheid regime is not the Progressivism that we need in 2020.
-->

Same.

"Having grown up in the Bay Area..." pause.

"Where I took on mortgage fraud..." P P PAUSE!!!

where she calls for ramping up arms to them and brags about an israeli missile factory being named after her zionist mentor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxXcUNct18Q

thats a zionist right wing organization that typically only gets supported by republican hardliners.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgzcZROW4AAI60q.jpg

tulsi looking kinda clintonish fam lol.

Gabbard slammed Israel for live fire use in Gaza:

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/996154499898077185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E996154499898077185&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jns.org%2Frecord-at-a-glance-hawaii-rep-tulsi-gabbard-on-the-middle-east-in-her-bid-for-president%2F

https://www.timesofisrael.com/democrat-gabbard-who-slammed-israel-for-live-fire-use-in-gaza-to-run-in-2020/

Tulsi slams Pence & Trump for fomenting war in Syria to further Saudi & Israeli interests:

https://www.thenation.com/article/tulsi-gabbard-on-the-administrations-push-for-war-in-syria/

Why do you think she has pro-zionist groups issuing scathing criticism on her?

I didn't like that speech she gave that you referenced, but I'm also not mad at her supporting Israel (with measure). We should be supportive of Israel in some respects, but the favoritism we give them lacks balance and principle, particularly when you factor in the hard-line extremism that has taken over Israel's government (with the help of our blind support).

So, her record is mixed on Israel - which is the far more appropriate stance to take (supporting Israel's right to exist and thrive in peace and security - but not supporting its apartheid regime and disastrous intervention in the mid-east to further its hegemony over the region).

She's far superior than any other candidate on providing a real check to Israel and not just blindly supporting them, like virtually every other mainstream politician.


-->

she switched up her whole style.

none of this strikes you as suspicious or possibly disingenuous? you never consider that at all?

like i think bernie and warren are the real deal and true to form (minus warrens peace pipe lol). harris, gillibrand, and some others are amenable/opportunistic in some areas but pretty consistent on a lot of the broader liberal ideals i subscribe to.

tulsi is the only one that just seems completely fake to me. any way the wind blows on any issue for any reason.

im not even sure what the goal is here. she doesnt need to change to keep her safe congressional seat. and she isnt gonna ride the progressive base into the presidency.

>none of this strikes you as suspicious or possibly
>disingenuous? you never consider that at all?

Why would she develop the *less* popular and more controversial on these issues? Why would she criticize Israel at a time when all of the other candidates are silent or blindly throwing support behind Israel? Why would she visit Syria and call out our interventionist, regime-change wars when it's more politically safe to just be vague about foreign policy? Why would she visit Standing Rock when no other mainstream candidate would do so?

She's the real deal when it comes to these issues - and just because she didn't feel this way when she was 21 doesn't mean she legitimately holds these issues now as grown woman (who is still only 37 years old).

Again, foreign policy is at the top of my list -- and her foreign policy is thoughtful, principled - and most importantly: a viable challenge to the military industrial establishment that has had a carte-blanche from both parties for decades.

>like i think bernie and warren are the real deal and true to
>form (minus warrens peace pipe lol). harris, gillibrand, and
>some others are amenable/opportunistic in some areas but
>pretty consistent on a lot of the broader liberal ideals i
>subscribe to.

I would agree with that.

>tulsi is the only one that just seems completely fake to me.
>any way the wind blows on any issue for any reason.

I feel like that would be a valid criticism if she was opportunistic and trend-riding - but she often is doing just the opposite.

>im not even sure what the goal is here. she doesnt need to
>change to keep her safe congressional seat. and she isnt
>gonna ride the progressive base into the presidency.

She actually deeply cares about these issues more than she cares about being President. That's why she's running. You can still impact the larger body politic through a campaign even if you lose (look at how successful Bernie was in 2016 despite falling short).


-->

(im just gonna root against her quietly lol)

but honestly with trump, schultz, and the constant assault against the policy proposals of the democratic party...ima transition away from tearing down democrats to just boosting the candidates/ideas i really like.

anybody is better than trump. flaws and all.

im done criticizing allies we need in this fight (including 'progressives'). its time for me to focus on team building (even in the heat of a hotly contested primary).

>but honestly with trump, schultz, and the constant assault
>against the policy proposals of the democratic party...ima
>transition away from tearing down democrats to just boosting
>the candidates/ideas i really like.
>
>anybody is better than trump. flaws and all.
>
>im done criticizing allies we need in this fight (including
>'progressives'). its time for me to focus on team building
>(even in the heat of a hotly contested primary).

I genuinely like a lot of the candidates already announced. I think it's productive that we let them primary it out and compete - which will only sharpen the candidates and give the people a real opportunity to thoroughly assess.

We need a big tent moving into 2020.


-->

All the pandering she's doing is great but where are the tangible benefits?

Every community gets something but us and I'm tired of being the odd man out.

I need programs and initiatives targeted towards black Americans.

one of the things that you have to credit bernie and his supporters for...they have a list of flagship policies they want people to commit to.

what are we demanding that politicians deliver to us?

or are we just waiting for them to give us something and then decide whether we are satisfied or not?

like i hear black people say stuff like 'we need jobs' but government doesnt create jobs. so what policies are we pushing for that do encourage job creation in our communities?

we gotta start organizing more on policies and not just principles.

Show up to the next meeting next time, anywhoo:

Land allocation
Resources to start businesses
Enforcement of Indian treaties, with a shout out to Claude Anderson
A tarp fund for black people
The same benefits packages world war 2 vets got: Free home, free education/skills training, and money to start a business.

An end to sanctioned killing of black people.

medicare 4 all
federal job guarantee
educational funding reform

>medicare 4 all
>federal job guarantee
>educational funding reform

Criminal justice reform is a means of getting black people to shut up as pretext for advancing white supremacy.

Criminal justice is not the major issue as it benefits white drug addicts.

Medicare 4 all and increased education funding go towards non black people. I want great policy for black people only.

The rich got tax cuts.
LGBTQIA got marriage legalized.
Conservatives got religious freedom.
White women got affirmative action.
Racists got Trump.
Latin Diaspora about to get immigration reform

Where are our rewards?

Roe v Wade gonna be gone within the month.
Brown v Board, coming up.
17th amendment coming up.

let it all burn to hell, if our needs ain't addressed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx5m6DDFupg

him and his ad coming off like one big consultant invoice.

Another day...

ive been posting about all candidates in here.
instead of starting a post for every single one.
and other people have been doing the same.

we were doing the same thing in the beto post when it was on page 1.

You've decided to make this the 2020 candidate post

YOU.

The rest of us are discussing Kamala's candidacy

Which isn't easy weeding through almost 500 replies littered with your deflections about other candidates.

+1, this isn't even a post you started...but decided to make it something else...and I'm the hall monitor...?

OkayPlayer

nigga tryna tell everybody else what they can and cant discuss lol.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/2/4/1832106/-Daily-Kos-Democratic-Straw-Poll-February-4

looks like kamala and liz firmly at the top at the moment.

Was Klobuchar on the list last time? I don't recall.


Is she running or nah?

**edit- my bad just read they added her. Still curious if she is running tho.

i believe she is mulling a run but pretty non-committal (so prolly not).

i wonder if bernie will get a boost once he officially declares and kicks off his campaign. cuz if not...

Did he not announce? I get confused with these "I'm running" but wait for the kick-off in a few months lol.

Comments so far are pretty pro-Harris and pro-Klobucher, a few anti-Bernie.

To your point, though, I just don't think this will be close to '16 for Bern and his people. He is facing a lot of strong candidates and, at this point, the party has essentially adopted a lot of his platform. Seems to me he is spinning his tires here.

I am still surprised at how well Kamala does on Dailykos.

I really think locking in the midwest is cruicial, which is why I tend to focus on Brown and Klobuchar.

>the party has essentially
>adopted a lot of his platform. Seems to me he is spinning his
>tires here.

a lot of progressive candidates get neutralized in primaries when the more 'establishment' candidates just adopt some of their policies and basically give people no reason to vote for a weaker candidate with (initially) stronger policies.

like when andrew cuomo adopted some of cynthia nixons stance on issues surrounding the enforcement of marijuana laws and public education...he basically killed her campaign in the cradle and had her stuck in the 30s.

one of the advantages to not being a political puritan is that you can modify your platform/message to fit the mood of the electorate and your base doesnt shun you for it.


>I am still surprised at how well Kamala does on Dailykos.

it looks like this analysis by 538 that i posted somewhere earlier on here is bearing out.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-kamala-and-beto-have-more-upside-than-joe-and-bernie/

i think we often get caught up in the minutiae of policy and ignore the advantage of just broadly appealing to several large voting blocs.

this is why i keep saying that progressives best way forward is to concentrate on moderation and coalition building...instead of clubhouse politics where you just constantly try to delegitimize candidates/voters who dont adhere to your strict list of edicts.

progressivism used to be an expansive view based on a broad set of over-arching values/principles. now its based on constriction/elimination/exclusion according to a specific checklist of membership criteria.

>I really think locking in the midwest is cruicial, which is
>why I tend to focus on Brown and Klobuchar.

after seeing how dems performed in the rust belt for the midterms...im bullish on just about any dem doing well there. theyve obviously turned on trump and stopped buying what he was selling.

they didnt need to run 'populist' candidates to do it either. just basic non-super-lefty middle of the road candidates like tony evers, gretchen whitmer and tom wolf.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/poll-dems-want-electable-challenger-who-can-beat-trump-values-n966636

looks like we are finally learning.

this would bode well for somebody like biden who can credibly claim to be the only national dem who can appeal to voters in all 50 states (and isnt a liability to other dem candidates there).

i think he might be the only dem leading trump in early iowa polls too.

He will throw his hat in if his numbers are that good.

The IA poll doesn't do much for me. Its early, and Biden is the most recognizable name.

Not sure how Biden builds a coalition when he would turn away (or least turn down enthusiasm) for young people, women, the left, folks wanting to move forward, folks not wanting an old white man, and folks who didn't love the Obama admin. (for instance, those Obama voters who went for Trump in areas like the midwest? Biden won't win those back man)

I'm not saying he wouldn't have his fans, but if Biden got the nom a ton of enthusiasm from these groups and more would go down. That leaves the dead center, folks who think "we just need to work with the GOP more" (lol), party drones, and folks who think the answer is "lets just rewind 4 years"...so basically old centrist dems and party drones.

And the Dems would AGAIN be nominating a candidate who can't credibly attack Trump on things.

How is Biden going to check Trump on how he and the GOP treat survivors, or women in general?


Again, I'm sure he can help in certain areas by stumping for the winner. But Biden 20 is basically a repeat of Clinton 16.

No thanks.


Even if you want to run a centrist that badly, there are much better candidates. Hell just run Beto with Klobuchar as VEEP.

the way we do.

biden has a +71(!) favorability rating among democrats.
https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/1092467991772565506

biden is the *only* democrat favored to beat trump in iowa.
https://twitter.com/AndyGrewal/status/1092521114541215746

in another poll...he leads all candidates in favorability among af ams, whites with college degree, *and* whites without college degree.
https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1086020730867859461

how exactly is that not building a coalition?

youre speculating he would turn off different segments of voters when that clearly isnt the case.

a candidate that does well with black voters *and* the white working class voters dems may have lost *and* the college educated suburban voters that dems need to maintain their new gains?

why shouldnt he throw his hat in the ring?

I could sum everything up by saying its way too early and pointing out that Bernie Sanders is second in pretty much everything you posted.

Biden/Bernie ticket for Reeq or nah? lol

>the way we do.
>
>biden has a +71(!) favorability rating among democrats.
>https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/1092467991772565506

I tried to dig into who exactly took this poll, etc.

But I'd encourage you to just scroll down on the tweet lol. The attacks write themselves, dog.

That said, if Biden doesn't run, you all in on Sanders? He's second.

>
>biden is the *only* democrat favored to beat trump in iowa.
>https://twitter.com/AndyGrewal/status/1092521114541215746

Like I said it is early. I also want to make a joke about 6 electoral votes, but I won't.

If you are putting so much faith into this poll, though...does this mean Sanders is your second choice?

>
>in another poll...he leads all candidates in favorability
>among af ams, whites with college degree, *and* whites without
>college degree.
>https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1086020730867859461
>
>how exactly is that not building a coalition?

I said he'd have fans, man. It is the people that would lose enthusiasm. This poll doesn't cover the groups I mentioned.

Plus there are others in that very poll with solid numbers- you act like no one is even close.

Again, is Sanders your second choice? Cuz based on these polls that you are using...

>
>youre speculating he would turn off different segments of
>voters when that clearly isnt the case.

All you did was post blacks and whites. Not a very specific breakdown.

You really think young women are going to turn out for Joe Biden, Reeq?

I can't say my point is "clearly the case" but neither can you- especially at this point.



>
>a candidate that does well with black voters *and* the white
>working class voters dems may have lost *and* the college
>educated suburban voters that dems need to maintain their new
>gains?

See above. Still early. Nothing you posted makes me feel better about how women, especially young women, young people, etc feel about creepy Joe.

And again, name recognition at this point.


>
>why shouldnt he throw his hat in the ring?

Can I be honest? Sometimes it feels like you have you mind made up, then you spend some time volunteering with the party or talking to folks in the party or something, and go back.

Didn't you also post a poll saying "I guess Dems DO want a fresh face" and it had Biden in like 6th or something? lol You cherry picking polls on me?


You also didn't address anything I said in specific terms. Not only did I not see a poll from young people, etc but


How would Biden overcome creepy Joe and Anita Hill in the general?

How is he going be the moral compass/leader on sexual abuse survivors?


I get Hillary 16 vibes man. I got yelled down by a lot of Hillary fans and party loyalists when I expressed my doubts about her ability to win. Got yelled at with polls, told I was wrong, she has this locked up, etc.

Joe Biden in 2020 gives me flashbacks man.

im not sure why youre asking if bernie is my 2nd simply because he is 2nd in polls.

my 1st choice is currently buried in like 4-6 in most recent polls (beto).

all i said was early polling bodes well for biden. that wasnt a personal endorsement over all of the candidates below him.

most of your reply is based on this assumption so you should revisit/reevaluate it.

>im not sure why youre asking if bernie is my 2nd simply
>because he is 2nd in polls.

I was being tongue in cheek. That said, if you are going to use these polls to say "Nah, Stadiq you're wrong...Biden is popular" etc...then you have to do the same for Bernie.



>
>my 1st choice is currently buried in like 4-6 in most recent
>polls (beto).

I guess I was referring more to your confidence in Biden as a candidate.

If the polls give you confidence in Biden, then they should also give you confidence in Bernie.

>
>all i said was early polling bodes well for biden. that wasnt
>a personal endorsement over all of the candidates below him.
>

Got it. Sometimes it feels like it though.

>
>most of your reply is based on this assumption so you should
>revisit/reevaluate it.

Certainly didn't mean to offend or assume.


Just seems you have faith in Biden as a candidate. I don't.


I don't put much stock in these polls because a) its early and b) these same polls bode well for an 80 year old socialist.

Feel me?

the only question was whether he was going to maintain the type of support he had in 2016...but with clinton out of the race, more dem candidates splitting up various demographics, his 'shine' possibly wearing off, etc.

ive always treated him as if he could win (which i dreaded lol). if i didnt...i would simply dismiss him (like castro, booker, etc).

and i dont necessarily have 'faith' in any candidate right now. i dont know. and im doing my best not to just base my assessment of them on my own personal opinion (which a lot of people on here do). im looking at the aggregate input of others (which we all should be doing). thats why i was suprised/impressed with kamala doing so well on dailykos. i personally would not have anticipated progressives being drawn to her like that (especially over progressive heros like liz warren).

most of the stuff i post on candidates is fairly neutral commentary based on the numbers i see. for some reason...folks on here default to thinking im posting my personal views/desires. then they get up in arms when i say something they dont like (while admitting im 'right' lol). im not sure why folks on here continue to do that but they do.

i encourage people on here on to 'leave the nest' and try to gather as much information from as many sources/viewpoints as possible. thatll give you a better developed picture of how people are reacting on a broader scale. not just among people like us.

electability is starting to enter the forefront of the conversation for democratic voters. this is a good thing. it shows that we are maturing as a party and becoming more informed/disciplined in our choices. thats one area republican voters have had us beat for a while and im glad we might be narrowing the gap.

it doesnt necessarily mean that anyone is guaranteed to be right or wrong (especially this early out). i mean...repub pundits thought marco rubio was one of their strongest candidates due to his youth and appeal to hispanics. we see how that turned out lol.

>the only question was whether he was going to maintain the
>type of support he had in 2016...but with clinton out of the
>race, more dem candidates splitting up various demographics,
>his 'shine' possibly wearing off, etc.

I agree with you man. My point was if you think Bernie is going to slip, its reasonable for others to think Biden will slip too.

>
>ive always treated him as if he could win (which i dreaded
>lol). if i didnt...i would simply dismiss him (like castro,
>booker, etc).
>
>and i dont necessarily have 'faith' in any candidate right
>now. i dont know. and im doing my best not to just base my
>assessment of them on my own personal opinion (which a lot of
>people on here do). im looking at the aggregate input of
>others (which we all should be doing). thats why i was
>suprised/impressed with kamala doing so well on dailykos. i
>personally would not have anticipated progressives being drawn
>to her like that (especially over progressive heros like liz
>warren).
>
>most of the stuff i post on candidates is fairly neutral
>commentary based on the numbers i see. for some
>reason...folks on here default to thinking im posting my
>personal views/desires. then they get up in arms when i say
>something they dont like (while admitting im 'right' lol). im
>not sure why folks on here continue to do that but they do.
>
>i encourage people on here on to 'leave the nest' and try to
>gather as much information from as many sources/viewpoints as
>possible. thatll give you a better developed picture of how
>people are reacting on a broader scale. not just among people
>like us.

Well sure, but it cuts both ways. Which is why I pointed out the unlikelihood of young women, etc turning out for creepy Joe. And folks who were disappointed with the Obama admin. Etc.


>
>electability is starting to enter the forefront of the
>conversation for democratic voters. this is a good thing. it
>shows that we are maturing as a party and becoming more
>informed/disciplined in our choices. thats one area
>republican voters have had us beat for a while and im glad we
>might be narrowing the gap.

I don't know man. They nominated Trump. No one thought he was electable.

>
>it doesnt necessarily mean that anyone is guaranteed to be
>right or wrong (especially this early out). i mean...repub
>pundits thought marco rubio was one of their strongest
>candidates due to his youth and appeal to hispanics. we see
>how that turned out lol.

Right- '16 kind of fucked everything up.

"People Who Want To Vote For Democrats But Are Worried They Don't Care Enough About Entitlement Reform" isn't really a big national constituency. The only thing he has going for him electability-wise is name recognition, which won't hold as the year goes on. Also, the second he declares, he's no longer a hypothetical candidate and his flaws get more apparent.

It's not the 90's anymore, there's no reason to assume the most conservative candidate is the only one that can win.

objectively he is polling higher than hillary without fbi/state/congressional investigations hanging over his head.

clinton also polled in the same realm of untrustworthy as donald trump. even a significant portion of her own base distrusted her.
something biden isnt anywhere near.

these were 2 of the most unpopular candidates to run for president in american history. please point me to any data that shows biden is unpopular.

im not sure how any honest interpretation of those details can lead you to definitively reach the conclusion that he is a worse candidate than hillary.

Look at Hillary's numbers from before she announced to after. right now, people think of him as Obama's buddy and the gruff talkin Uncle Joe persona he has.

Let him actually run and have to deal with questions about Anita Hill, the crime bill, the PATRIOT ACT (which he used to brag about voting for,) Iraq, the deep ties to the financial industry, all his drug war shit, the plagiarism from 1988, the general sexism. Like, he's got all of the negatives of every other candidate (he's a weird old guy like Bernie, but with policies that excite nobody! He's got the same questionable record on criminal justice issues as Kamala, only with a record stretching back decades instead of just to the late aughts! If you don't like how Elizabeth Warren was a Republican in the 80's, you'll love that Biden was campaigning for a Republican Congressman in 2018!) with none of their redeeming aspects except name recognition, and as this goes on other candidates will catch him on that.

Honestly, it's WAY too early to care about what polls are saying right now. No states are voting for anything for at least 11 months. There's no reason to suggest that we should support who's on top of the polls in February 2019.

their running. some big like harris. some not as big like warren. but it was a boost nonetheless.

the fact that biden hasnt even announced and he is still among the top of the heap doesnt seem to support your claim that he is a weak candidate objectively (unless you have an alternative theory that contradicts recent history and popular logic?).

and hillary didnt have particularly strong numbers at this point before the election. she had high marks as secretary of state. but by the time she officially announced her candidacy (april 2015)...she was already sub-50 and trending towards 40 in the early months of 2015.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/XO7plzL-nTjK4d4QrqxGg8dP-FRDhMjFh8S08Cyr9vAx_MOG0TdSGctjYSf4EdR3Co8-x7pzvpR9PYSwvt05FaHlmTjCpMo2uRqNASuzf0VT3smEwC23TrE2aD5gBQa7lqUjmTWE
(she actually got a slight bump up towards 50 again when she announced...the same trend i mentioned above).

theres a flip side to the 'biden is just coasting off name recognition' coin. 'name recognition' (and positive/negative association with that name) doesnt just come out of nowhere. that long history you talked about? people are pretty familiar with it...watched it unfold and lived through it...and still like him. more than most other dems in a lot of states.

as far as it being too early to care about what polls say...why care about anything this far out then? all of this is just an exercise that is purely academic in nature.

nobody is saying who we should all herd behind or we should all quarantine based on early polls. we are just taking constant readings of the barometer and giving our opinion on the conditions/factors that lead to those readings.

is that not a part of the discussion at least as worthy as a candidates racial/ethnic identity?

>
>theres a flip side to the 'biden is just coasting off name
>recognition' coin. 'name recognition' (and positive/negative
>association with that name) doesnt just come out of nowhere.
>that long history you talked about? people are pretty
>familiar with it...watched it unfold and lived through
>it...and still like him. more than most other dems in a lot
>of states.

So this also must apply to Bernie, correct?

>
>as far as it being too early to care about what polls
>say...why care about anything this far out then? all of this
>is just an exercise that is purely academic in nature.
>
>nobody is saying who we should all herd behind or we should
>all quarantine based on early polls. we are just taking
>constant readings of the barometer and giving our opinion on
>the conditions/factors that lead to those readings.
>
>is that not a part of the discussion at least as worthy as a
>candidates racial/ethnic identity?

I can't speak for others, but here is my take-

As previously said, people hear Biden and think "Oh, Obama's VEEP and buddy"

They don't know where he actually stands on shit.


He also has yet to be really called out (as he would be in an election) for his questionable creepy behavior and Anita Hill.


Folks who get the post announcement bump probably get it because their name recognition is relatively low.

Still, even if he did receive a bump, I think it would fade as the actual campaigning started.

I don't think the base turns out for an old, white, "buck up youngins" "lets be friends with the GOP", man. I just don't.



Also, Dems do better historically when they run a fresh face.

Who was the last Dem President to be elected with a history of running for president in prior years? Obama, Clinton, Carter- none of these are "try again" candidates.

Now that I'm thinking about it, who was the last Dem President who tried previously to be President?

I don’t know if he can win but that shit would be entertaining to watch

Pre-Trump Biden was too goofy. He had too many bonehead moves.

Maybe now folks would forgive. Then again, the bar is higher for Dems- especially with the news.


The news media would compare Biden doing that with Trump's "good people on both sides"

Chuck Todd would be saying " here are two guys cut from the same cloth" within months.


Its a set up for false equivalencies that would no doubt trick some dumb motherfuckers out there.

>Now that I'm thinking about it, who was the last Dem President
>who tried previously to be President?

Entered the campaign late as a sort of last-ditch anti-Kennedy candidate and was not successful, then became his running mate.

But I think that's the closest we've had to someone who tried one year, then came back another year and won both the nomination and the presidency. Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr all did the same on the other side.

>Also, Dems do better historically when they run a fresh face.
>
>Who was the last Dem President to be elected with a history of
>running for president in prior years? Obama, Clinton, Carter-
>none of these are "try again" candidates.
>
>Now that I'm thinking about it, who was the last Dem President
>who tried previously to be President?

in a traditional/fair election without unprecedented external obstacles...without foreign interference, comey, rampant voter suppression, etc...clinton would have won.

in fact...without some manner of normalized illegality...a dem is the winner of every presidential election since 1992 but 2004. and prolly every election going forward.

I'm not a moral victory kind of guy.


And had the Dems ran a better candidate/campaign, they win 2016...cuts both ways.


Yes, she had a lot of obstacles.

She was also an awful candidate who ran a poor campaign. Both can be true.

Not to mention, she faced a terrible candidate herself. You yourself have pointed out how Trump under performed when compared to Romney.


So, again, who was the last "try again" Dem to actually sit in the Oval Office? I don't even think LBJ counts here, due to the circumstances.


Running Biden would be moving backwards, man.


He would also give Trump someone to run against. He could switch up and run against the Obama admin...even if it meant making up shit.

"Economy is better under me, unemployment is down, our allies are paying, blah blah blah...why let you drive again" etc etc

Gives him a way to deflect.


Run a fresh face, Trump is on the defensive. Has to run on his record, etc.

I'm telling you, Biden would be a mistake.

my response was that dems elected a re-tread...assuming they were actually allowed to vote without any tampering.

youre claiming a pattern of dem voter behavior.

im saying that analysis of dem voter behavior is technically inaccurate. because only (often illegal) structural hurdles made it true. not the real behavior/will of the voters.

feel me?


as far as short record vs long record...theres another side to that coin too. a fresh face also gives the opposition an easier chance to define them.

elizabeth warren had only been in congress for about 3 years so trump was able to reduce her political identity to basically just her (lack of) native american heritage. he would have a much harder time dictating the terms of engagement with somebody like bernie sanders.

neither way is an absolute guarantee to work imo.

>my response was that dems elected a re-tread...assuming they
>were actually allowed to vote without any tampering.
>
>youre claiming a pattern of dem voter behavior.
>
>im saying that analysis of dem voter behavior is technically
>inaccurate. because only (often illegal) structural hurdles
>made it true. not the real behavior/will of the voters.
>

As far as Dem primaries, yeah they elected Hil.

The only real other choice was a socialist though.


But I’m actuslly referring to the general.

Name the last democrat Pres who was a retread.

So, I’m saying the Dems would be smart to elect
a newer face.

So, I hope Biden doesn’t run. I could see him
squeaking out a primary win and losing the
general.

>feel me?
>
>
>as far as short record vs long record...theres another side to
>that coin too. a fresh face also gives the opposition an
>easier chance to define them.

I’m not talking about a generic hypothetical- I’m talking about
Biden vs Trump.

Trump would run against the Obama admin again
and folks would fall for it.

You like to say step out of our bubble. Step out of
the pro-Obama bubble for a second.

He’d have those Midwest white folks convinced
they upgraded.

You really can’t see that risk??

Then add in the base wouldn’t be hyped (again), women,
Etc.

Think it through man. Biden is a 16 repeat.
>
>elizabeth warren had only been in congress for about 3 years
>so trump was able to reduce her political identity to
>basically just her (lack of) native american heritage. he
>would have a much harder time dictating the terms of
>engagement with somebody like bernie sanders.
>
>neither way is an absolute guarantee to work imo.

Don’t be so stubborn lol.

I know there are no guarantees. But in this specific
situation, can you at least see my point?

ran the table in the rust belt twice.

obamacare was the single most effective policy issue for democrats in the 2018 midterms. his immigration (daca) and environmental legacies were also big factors.

im not sure his presidency would be the drag on a democratic candidate that you think it would be. especially with the benefit of hindsight when comparing it to the results of trumps 1st term (like tariffs killing the farm belt).

trump benefited heavily from a 'grass is always greener' campaign.

but he couldnt even come through on his 2 biggest campaign promises...repealing/replacing obamacare and building the wall. and he had unified control of govt for 2 years.

hes basically been an abject failure by his own (previous) standards but convinced his base to judge him on consolation prize policies they didnt even ask for (tax cuts for the rich, de-regulation, etc).

if he wants to pin his re-election on attacking a president who left office at least 10 pts higher than him in approval...have at it.

Who knew you were such a Joe Biden fan lol you
won’t even admit facts. Don’t do me like this.

Reeq, there are absolute facts that you won’t even
cop to in this discussion. You at least have to see/consider
my point. Things that you have to admit-

There are Obama/Trump voters- especially
in the rust belt. They went to Trump for a reason. Assuming
they realize their error and will line up for Biden is
risky as fuck.

There are people on the left who were disappointed
in Obama and will be even less forgiving of his 80
year old white VP who is to his right.

Obama’s poll numbers don’t always reflect satisfaction
in his presidency. In other words, some folks just like
Obama the man more than the president.

Joe Biden would be a retread- a retread Dem has never
won in our lifetime.

Biden would have even more baggage than in 08-
Me too, creepy joe, etc.

Again, he is old as fuck. “Buck up, let’s get along with
the gop” etc. is the creepy cranky uncle really the play?

He is living off recognition. In every poll you posted to
back up your Biden point, Bernie was second. Yet, you
think Bernie would be a bad candidate in the general- it doesn’t
jive.

Biden would look like a hypocrite attacking Trump on
survivors, professionalism, and general creepiness.

The media would make false equivalencies out of
every gaffe.

Biden running would at least give Trump the chance
to deflect and attack the previous admin for not
doing more. Hell he could blame them specifically
for any shortcoming and it would get play.

Biden is not as likeable as Obama.

These are facts Reeq. You can say that these things
don’t bother you, but you at least have to see why
someone would be concerned.

A career politician, failed presidential candidate, favored by the party, to Obama’s
right, doesn’t excite the base, taking the Midwest for
granted, who can’t credibly attack Trump on many of
his weaknesses, who has a long political record and ties
to the previous admin for Trump to attack....

And I’m being told to “trust the polls” and “don’t worry look how
popular Obama is”


Sound familiar???

I’m having fucking PTSD just talking about this.

Obama’s popularity better not end up being the strategy
here. If the party of progressing is going to run on
“Let’s just go back four years” we are all fucked cuz
they will lose.

Yeah the last 2 years have been awful, but you can’t turn
around and run “No seriously- let’s make things okay
again”

I think you gotta step out of that Dem party bubble man. You
won’t even engage me on facts. You breezed right by
my point that a retread Dem has never won- you even
tried to popular vote me. Cmon man.