https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=207&v=VbOU2fTg6cI


da comments is comedy tho lol

Again, the big question is will a moderate or a super progressive Democrat be able to win.





**********
"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"

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

What are you talking about?

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

I have no idea if he can win but I definitely think the primary is his to lose

..and he can definitely lose it because he is a gaffe machine.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

the only thing i like, which is really no different than all other dem candidates, is his economic stance. he makes some good points in the below swipe. what else does he support?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/politics/joe-biden-on-the-issues.html

Economic policy
Mr. Biden has outlined a populist economic agenda focused on income inequality and workers’ rights. He endorsed a $15 minimum wage and free four-year public college in 2015; in a speech at the Brookings Institution in May 2018, he mentioned free college as one of five policies he said would help the middle class. (The other four were progressive tax reform, more worker protections, major infrastructure investments, and incentives for venture capitalists and other investors to spend outside of major cities.) He has called for a ban on noncompete agreements that prevent workers from taking jobs at competitors, and has advocated policies that would let workers discuss how much they are paid without retaliation.

“Why are we giving hedge fund millionaires tax breaks, but we can’t find the money to give families a real tax break for child care?” he said in the Brookings speech. “Why are sandwich makers being forced to sign noncompete clauses? Why are low-wage workers reclassified as managers? What possible reason is there for why an employee can’t tell other people what he or she makes? Is there any other reason than to depress wages?”

>“Why are we giving hedge fund millionaires tax breaks, but
>we can’t find the money to give families a real tax break
>for child care?” he said in the Brookings speech. “Why are
>sandwich makers being forced to sign noncompete clauses? Why
>are low-wage workers reclassified as managers? What possible
>reason is there for why an employee can’t tell other people
>what he or she makes? Is there any other reason than to
>depress wages?”

Just kidding. I don't wonder about that at all. Here's an article about his fundraising:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/biden-takes-wall-street-from-bloomberg

WITH BLOOMBERG OUT, WALL STREET DESPERATELY TURNS TO BIDEN
A centrist nation turns its lonely eyes to Joe.

BY TINA NGUYEN
MARCH 6, 2019 5:29 PM

After months of indecision, the stars appear to be aligning for Joe Biden, the once and future king of the 2020 primary. On Tuesday, a new poll placed Biden first among equals, with 31 percent support among likely Democratic voters. On Wednesday, Politico reported that he has hired Cristóbal Alex, a high-placed alum from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the current president of the Latino Victory Fund. Meanwhile, according to Fox Business Network’s Charlie Gasparino, Biden has notified his network of Wall Street supporters that an announcement is “all but certain” in the next month. That mirrors what my colleague William D. Cohan reported last week: with Michael Bloomberg out of the way, Wall Street executives close to Biden say, the centrist-friendly lane is wide open. And there’s nobody who better scratches the establishmentarian sweet spot between Full Socialism and Donald J. Trump.

An April announcement is on the late side, but Gasparino’s Wall Street sources say Biden has little to gain by making a quick decision. He’s already got unparalleled name recognition, they argue, and that the extra time gives the public more time to dig into his rival’s downsides. Of course, it’s impossible to tell if this reflects Biden’s real thinking or is merely a post hoc explanation for his indecisiveness. Either way, standing on the sidelines while your rivals self-immolate is not an entirely irrational strategy. Kamala Harris has run into trouble with left-wing activists over her controversial history as California’s attorney general; Bernie Sanders has faced scrutiny over his past treatment of sexism within his 2016 campaign; and Amy Klobuchar is fending off reports that she’s an abusive boss with unorthodox views on cutlery.

But those stumbles seem minor compared to the money these candidates are raising and the media exposure they’ve gained in the meantime. After all, the race is long and there will be plenty of time for public scrutiny to take its toll. If he declares in April, Biden, the ne plus ultra political gaffe machine, would still have more than a year to generate sundry off-color remarks about Mike Pence being a “decent guy”, say, or how Indians run all the 7-Elevens and Dunkin’ Donuts in Delaware. You never know when another errant shoulder touch might be immortalized on camera.

Gaffes aside, Biden’s bat signal has grown progressively louder in recent weeks. The former V.P. has reportedly reached out to Hill allies and major donors, blanketing allies with calls over the holidays. As one Democrat recalled to The New York Times, Biden’s assessment was blunt: “If you can persuade me there is somebody better who can win, I’m happy not to do it . . . But I don’t see the candidate who can clearly do what has to be done to win.”

Biden boosters are also encouraged by the belief that other Democratic presidential candidates will trip over themselves in a breakneck race to the left, luring progressive voters with promises of a Green New Deal and Medicare for All, and leaving him plenty of room for Barack Obama’s No. 2 to sweep through the center unimpeded. The prospect is even more appealing now that Bloomberg has removed himself from the race, preferring instead to blanket the election with enough case to inhibit Donald Trump. (A Bloomberg adviser told Fox Business that Bloomberg will not endorse Biden in the Democratic primary.) As Dan Backer, a campaign finance expert, put it to Fox Business, “Biden represents a process Wall Street knows how to manage.”

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

case in point:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/25/18282870/joe-biden-criminal-justice-war-on-drugs-mass-incarceration?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_content=voxdotcom&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2uwAaz_SXtNUfOOqj3wikEm1B4GEHoq6NUEEbMRXMftSyplmuIGbwhfR4

and speaking of fundraising:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/04/25/hours-after-entering-2020-race-biden-attend-big-money-fundraiser-hosted-comcast-blue?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1pHP0TSeytg7Dphq7bKLTG1NliHxVmbcP-NIL8pEhKiDR0jnp7GFFETSA

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

That’s really all it is.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

i wonder how many voters wanted to go back to GWB when obama was in office.

That’s what it would be like except we al know Cheney ran that shit not W.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

http://time.com/5574272/joe-biden-campaign-launch/


This in particular-

“I’ve never seen anything so half-assed,” a former Biden aide said. “They’re improvising and doing last-minute planning. The guy has been running for President since 1987 and can’t figure the basics out, like where to stand on his first day? This should make everyone very nervous.”

Added a second Biden insider: “The guy’s best day is the day he announces. Everything after that gets worse.”

_____


A poorly produced video message about going backwards from a very long-term Washington insider who has gotten his ass kicked two other times?

He (and what few supporters I have seen) seem to think he has this locked up because of some polls. Its his turn.

Flashes of Hillary. In order to BE President, you have to know how to win a campaign.


If moderate is the way to go, give us Beto, etc.

shame he had to tarnish his legacy like this.

-->

in turning me against the direction they are trying to drag me as a consumer.

when I saw polling in 3 key states (that would have won Hillary the Presidency) had Sanders way in the lead, followed by a virtual tie between Biden (who had not yet declared) and Pete Booty, and then a diminishing crescendo starting with Elizabeth Warren who has been dropping firebombs of policy ideas that have wide appeal...

I learned that while I do not want to re-litigate 2016, the MSM trying to wedge a centrist neoliberal (if that's the route we're taking, Harris >>>>>>> Mayor Pete and Biden combined) in the convo when the people seem to be more interested in other candidates, particularly Sanders.

there's a real fear of the "AOC"-ing of the federal government.

and I have real concerns about Sanders. particularly his stubborn disavowement of "identity politics" (not even in the pluralist style that Stacey Abrams promotes and is an accurate way to deal with the people who actually live in the country IMO), in the name of bringing in the white working class.

but dogg. let Pete or Beto have been in that #1 slot. it'd be ENDLESS partying in the MSM. hell, when it looked like Harris was gonna usurp 'em they were doing that.

Yes, I'm mad. Let's move on.

Jays | Cavs | Eagles | Sabres | Tarheels

PSN: Dr_Claw_77 | XBL: Dr Claw 077 | FB: drclaw077 | T: @drclaw77 | http://thepeoplesvault.wordpress.com

meaning - they felt that she was the best candidate to defeat Trump (not necessarily the *best* candidate running). Even though that logic proved to be incredibly erroneous - those same voters aren't applying the same amount of pragmatism to Bernie in 2020 when it's clear that he's the strongest general election candidate vs. Trump.

That lets you know it's really not about "pragmatism" or "supporting the most viable candidate" - it's more about ideology and holding the center within the Dem establishment.

>I learned that while I do not want to re-litigate 2016, the
>MSM trying to wedge a centrist neoliberal (if that's the route
>we're taking, Harris >>>>>>> Mayor Pete and Biden combined) in
>the convo when the people seem to be more interested in other
>candidates, particularly Sanders.

The MSM hasn't had our (the general public) back in a long time - doing the public a gross disservice by slanted reporting and devaluing investigative journalism. With regards to 2016 - it's hard to re-litigate 2016 when we haven't even litigated it in the first place. But I agree that it's not a productive discussion to have - but unfortunately we never really had the opportunity to litigate it such that we could prevent what's happening right now (continued bias against Sanders in favor of the centrist neoliberal status quo holder).

>there's a real fear of the "AOC"-ing of the federal
>government.
>
>and I have real concerns about Sanders. particularly his
>stubborn disavowement of "identity politics" (not even in the
>pluralist style that Stacey Abrams promotes and is an accurate
>way to deal with the people who actually live in the country
>IMO), in the name of bringing in the white working class.

I'm not sure what people expect from Bernie on this. Do you expect him to echo the language of a Race/Gender/Class Theorist Professor who has been teaching critical race theory for 20 years? We can't scythe up the electorate in this kind of way if we're going to have a unified front. What's interesting is that Kamala rejected the identity politics narrative on CNN in favor of a universal message - but didn't get any criticism on that from the twitter warriors who are keen to roast Bernie on any perceived discretion.

Bernie's campaign is the most diverse presidential campaign team ever assembled - and his cabinet would feature the most diverse array of professionals ever in a White House Administration with substantive policies that would secure justice for our communities in a very real way. To me that is far more important than whether somebody passes the Joy Reid test of appeasing to her narrow conception of identity politics - which has done a poor job of exercising empathy across the board (i.e. you specialize in the needs of just one community while ignoring the plight of people in Yemen, Syria and Venezuela). Our concern for marginalized groups needs to be broadened IMO.




-->

I was initially against her because I hate political dynasties.

I got over it because I thought we would government competently and be very much an Obama third term and I really got into the idea of a woman president.

I underestimated how much people hate her.

I actually want to relitigate 2016 because I think a lot of people need to accept that she was probably the only candidate who was likely to lose to Trump Russian Meddling and winning the popular vote notwithstanding.





**********
"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"

People seemed to tolerate her as the candidate - as opposed to embracing her. Whether it was because of the novelty of her being the first woman president, or because of some perceived residual Obama effect, the fact that people had to sort of convince themselves was a clue of her inability to resonate with the electorate.

>I actually want to relitigate 2016 because I think a lot of
>people need to accept that she was probably the only candidate
>who was likely to lose to Trump Russian Meddling and winning
>the popular vote notwithstanding.

Do you think that Russian meddling was the reason why she lost the election?


-->

and making someone a star of the midterms for winning a low turnout election in a guaranteed blue district...

over people like kyrsten sinema, joe cunningham, or even lucy mcbath...who should be the true superstars of the midterms for pulling off stunning victories in hostile/competitive terrain and demonstrating the ability to win over the voters they have to work the hardest to get.

you rarely ever see the moderate candidates actually responsible for flipping seats across the country and shifting power towards democrats being given a ton of media attention.

and if there was coverage - and it was to ridicule her candidacy.

The media does what sells and gets clicks -- so of course they would cover AOC given her bold presence in Congress.

>over people like kyrsten sinema, joe cunningham, or even lucy
>mcbath...who should be the true superstars of the midterms for
>pulling off stunning victories in hostile/competitive terrain
>and demonstrating the ability to win over the voters they have
>to work the hardest to get.

They should be the true superstars - perhaps - if your sole concern is electing Democrats - but what makes somebody notable is their courage in bringing forth innovative ideas to solve the world's problems.

AOC is getting attention because of her courage in challenging the orthodoxy of the day (including that of her own party) to pioneer new ideas/policies in a frozen House & Senate. None of the names you mentioned are torch bearers for that movement. Instead, they are holders of the status quo. If that's what you feel is best for the country - then sure - they are superstars.




-->

especially a candidate with next to no political footprint in a house election that voters themselves didnt even pay much attention too. it wasnt thought to be a competitive primary.

there are over 1000 congressional primaries across the country. you cant expect media outlets to be in tune with every candidate in every race.

candidates arent entitled to attention.

you dont see folks complaining that folasade adeluola got no media coverage in her primary against bernie sanders do you? lol.

and joe crowley got largely negative coverage in the primary. like this from the nytimes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/opinion/joseph-crowley-alexandria-ocasio-cortez.html

after the midterms (and the primary really)...coverage was lavished upon aoc. despite the fact she didnt even really attract a lot voters in her own district and most the candidates she flew around the country and endorsed got dismantled in high profile competitive primaries.

meanwhile candidates who actually had to run consequential campaigns and attract voters across party lines (along with persuading independents)...the ones that actually made up the crest of the 'blue wave'...were largely ignored.

the progressive 'resistance' got overwhelmingly more coverage than the simple day-to-day nuts and bolts politics that snactched power back to the left.

so you cant really play the media bias narrative here then try to cop to subjective exceptions to also justify why the media covers aoc so much. you gotta pick one or the other.

if anything...i could easily make the case that the 'liberal media' in coastal cities (especially network talk shows like the view and colbert) made aoc their darling over more moderate candidates because of her more liberal values/positions.

I have no idea what he'll bring to the table now.

�If a fat guy falls in the woods and there is no one around to see it, do the trees laugh?

i would hope trump would be capped at 25% but i dont know how the rest would split up.

I'm only half joking too...

"Get ready....for your blessing....."
"Bury me by my Grand-Grand and when you can come follow me"

biden comes in a distant 3rd

His whole shtick is using his "compassion voice" to talk about bringing back decentness and kindness. LAME

_______________________________________

�If a fat guy falls in the woods and there is no one around to see it, do the trees laugh?

People really love the Obama-Biden bromance stories, huh?


Bigger than that, it would probably be unprofessional for a former President to endorse in the primary.

Maybe at the very end he'll make an endorsement.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Obama talked him out of running (according to Joe himself). So it was Hilary's turn, Obama didn't have confidence in Joe, some combination of the two, he didn't feel particularly "clean" that day, etc....either way the bromance didn't overcome it.

I'm sure Obama and his people will offer advice just like he has for everyone from Klobuchar to Beto.

But I really doubt he endorses/rides for Biden in particular unless/until it becomes him or Bernie.

and if I was Biden I prolly would’ve listened because it was obvious the DNC was all in on Clinton.

Obama basically told him not to waste his time or money

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

and that Obama isn't going to endorse anyone.

“So back we go to these questions — friendship, character… ethics.”

Can't see him saying ANYTHING for at least a year or so

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

I also think Bernie makes a good point. If we’re still talking about Trump, he wins another 4 years.

I like Bernie

if we're still talking about him?

“So back we go to these questions — friendship, character… ethics.”

healthcare, and climate change, and racism/sexism/homophobia, and a living wage
they cant just talk about trump, trump, trump - thats why hes not in favor of impeachment proceedings

if that were the case then hillary clinton would be president. trump never even fleshed out concrete details of anything he proposed (and the media never really asked him to).

the presidency has always been won with broad platitudes (hope/change/compassionate conservatism/thousand points of light) that appeal to a big enough electoral coalition.

if policy mattered...no repub would ever win because their actual policies are unpopular even among their own base most times (and liberal policies consistently get approved on citizen referendums when party affiliation isnt attached).

even on the left (which tends to be more educated and informed)...elizabeth warren is *killing* everyone in the policy debate. and shes not even in the top 5. even progressives arent on board with her and she is actually running to the left of sanders with a more articulate/feasible gameplan for implementing progressive policies. so its clearly not predominantly about policy.

Now Obama ran on vague platitudes, so did Reagan, so you're right that generally that works.

But after the recession, offering solutions also helped politicians gain traction. Think about how Ron Paul got a buncha support on the right by talking about closing departments and bringing back the gold standard. The same with Trump, who offered solutions like building a wall and banning muslims and ending NAFTA and supporting local industries.

Now would those policies work? I think we all agree they are shitty solutions. But they weren't vagaries and that stuff works when you mix it with populist talking points.

It's why Warren and Bernie are proposing actual policy a whole year from the election. Because times changed, and spitting out an idea, even a bad o e, makes more sense now than broad strokes of rhetoric.

-------
http://adevotedappraisal.tumblr.com - Essays, reviews, short stories and free writes on music, film and life around us.

>But after the recession, offering solutions also helped
>politicians gain traction. Think about how Ron Paul got a
>buncha support on the right by talking about closing
>departments and bringing back the gold standard. The same
>with Trump, who offered solutions like building a wall and
>banning muslims and ending NAFTA and supporting local
>industries.

There was no "policy" involved. It was an empty campaign slogan to rile up the base.

"Policies" are fully or at least partially fleshed out/mapped out platforms you can actually visualize.

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/im-calling-for-something-truly-transformational-universal-free-public-college-and-cancellation-of-a246cd0f910f

There's a big difference between that and just spewing rhetoric at rallies.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

and he was the one who was the least concerned with actual policy lol.

ron paul never cracked more than 1% of the national vote.

bernie sanders lost a primary to someone whose slogan was 'im with her'.

and elizabeth warren is currently polling behind the mayor of a college town whose population can fit in some of its opponents stadiums.

lol.

even the 'policies' you listed from trump arent policies. theyre talking points. like 'repeal and replace' (we see how that turned out). there was zero discussion about how to actually implement them or what they actually entail ('ending nafta' ended up just being re-negotiation for a slightly different nafta lol).

over 2 years in and trump *still* hasnt detailed how the actual wall will be built, who is gonna do it, the bidding process, the timetable, etc. he hasnt convened any advisory team, gotten any state legislators involved, etc.

just the bumper sticker.

even bernie...who had actual policies...knew to obsessively repeat 'medicare for all', 'billionaire class', '1/10th of 1%', 'political revolution', and so on.

thats what voters respond to.

half the people who support 'medicare for all' cant even tell you how the plan actually works lol.

Right now, focus on a bumper sticker for the masses.

I conflated policy proposal with policy explanation.

-------
http://adevotedappraisal.tumblr.com - Essays, reviews, short stories and free writes on music, film and life around us.

>I also think Bernie makes a good point. If we’re still
>talking about Trump, he wins another 4 years.

its weird to see so many people adopt that line of thinking since its completely contrary to history. its just some dc cocktail class talking point to always keep the left on the defensive (like the 'overreach' narrative).

it made sense in the midterms since dems werent running directly against trump (even tho he was baked in). people werent voting for a national candidate at the top of ticket to affect down ballot races.

in a presidential election tho? youre running against the president and his record. why wouldnt you talk about him? especially since the biggest motivating factor for dem voters picking a candidate is whether (s)he can beat trump.

we have the most unpopular president in modern history...with an established track record already of failed policy (tax cuts, immigration, tariffs in the midwest, etc) and a laundry list of corrupt behavior.

trump handed dems the rust belt (except for ohio) in emphatic fashion and giftbasketed power in the southwest to dems they havent seen in decades if ever. and he currently has shitty approval in most battleground states/districts.

dude has a 'strong economy', no real crises, no new wars...really a breeze of a 1st term in regard to external obstacles...and still has *never* had the approval of the majority of americans. why would you not capitalize on that?

one term presidents didnt become one term presidents because their opponent looked the other way. their opponents honed in, exposed, and attacked relentlessly. its a choice between me or this guy right here. the majority of voters didnt want this guy in office the 1st time and they damn sure dont want him in office the 2nd time.

so lets put a glass case around him? lol.

dems have a habit of coming up with ways of unilaterally handcuffing themselves with standards of conduct/behavior that arent even rooted in proven track record. its weird to watch.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

that’s all I’m saying. we’ve spent the last three years “talking”

the reason why even specific policies like healthcare, gun safety, etc resonated with voters so heavily in 2017/2018 was because they were a clear contrast to trump.

shit the rust belt went for trump. saw trump. then said nah lets go back the other way lol.

They over think shit.

Racism, sexism?

Man, just get this nigga out the paint.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

they come up with a million and one ways to turn themselves off.

its wall street speeches. then its medicare for all. then its green new deal. then its reparations. then its dont mention the boogeyman too much.

every election its a new standard, litmus test, etc. meanwhile repubs are shunning more and more standards and just voting for their team. they dont give a fuck if youre bought off by corporations, corrupt, criminally indicted, clinically insane, etc.

repubs are consolidating support behind one central figure/creed. dems are willfully installing more fault lines to divide themselves.

i just dont get how the left can be more educated but still be so much dumber politically.

like you could tell a liberal voter 'hey...you know that thing you did in 2000 and 2016 that helped lead to the most disastrous elections of our lifetime? you might now wanna do that again'.

and theyll reply with something like 'its a democracy man! dont try to scare me into voting for who you want me to vote for! green new deal or dieeeeeeeeeeeeee!' lol.

again. It can’t be ALL that is talked about

>
>we have the most unpopular president in modern history...with
>an established track record already of failed policy (tax
>cuts, immigration, tariffs in the midwest, etc) and a laundry
>list of corrupt behavior.
>
>trump handed dems the rust belt (except for ohio) in emphatic
>fashion and giftbasketed power in the southwest to dems they
>havent seen in decades if ever. and he currently has shitty
>approval in most battleground states/districts.
>
>dude has a 'strong economy', no real crises, no new
>wars...really a breeze of a 1st term in regard to external
>obstacles...and still has *never* had the approval of the
>majority of americans. why would you not capitalize on that?
>
>one term presidents didnt become one term presidents because
>their opponent looked the other way. their opponents honed
>in, exposed, and attacked relentlessly. its a choice between
>me or this guy right here. the majority of voters didnt want
>this guy in office the 1st time and they damn sure dont want
>him in office the 2nd time.
>

If Dems/the left are really confident in this line of thinking (his historic unpopularity, failed policies, that he handed the rustbelt back, his shitty approval, etc, etc)...

then why all the talk about we HAVE to run a moderate?


I would think that everything you just laid out is a reason the Dem voters should nominate who they actually WANT.


I'm not even sure who your top pick is still (Beto?), so this isn't about you necessarily.


But if everything you just laid out is true, then the Dems don't need to run a "safe" nominee.

In fact, doing so would be a waste.


If Trump is really this toxic (I honestly don't know, I am just deferring to you on this point), why not run a progressive and capitalize?

Just seems like the target keeps moving. To Doc's point above, it seems the target moves to suit the preferred candidate(s) (Biden).

I'm not even of the opinion that we "need" a moderate candidate in order to win ... just saying I think that'd be the reason someone would be of the opinion that it's a safer bet to field someone closer to the middle, than an uber-progressive just because Individual 1 is historically terrible & unpopular.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

"trump handed dems the rust belt (except for ohio) in emphatic fashion and giftbasketed power in the southwest to dems they havent seen in decades if ever. and he currently has shitty approval in most battleground states/districts."


Based on this, why this rush to be "pragmatic" and vote for the most center Dem we can find?


See my point? I know you are souring on Biden, and think too much stock is being put in elect-ability.


I go back and forth on elect-ability. I'm not nearly as confident as Reeq sounds here.


But if there Dems out there who are as confident as Reeq sounds here in Trump losing, why not run a better candidate?


Nah. The argument is "Trump is soo awful, so toxic, that Joe just needs to drop Obama's name and he's got it sewed up.He doesn't need a message."

Me- "Cool. Can Warren(or any candidiate) run and just drop Obamas name and win if they hate Trump that bad?"

"Whoa, slow down. Nothing is guaranteed"


WTF?


Another example-

Me- "Biden's run reminds me of Hillary, I'm worried he'll lose."

"Nah Stadiq, people hated Hillary don't sleep"


Me, in another convo- "Hillary ran an awful campaign and missed the fucking dunk."


"I guess if you call winning the popular vote in record numbers a loss."


The target moves man.

>"trump handed dems the rust belt (except for ohio) in
>emphatic fashion and giftbasketed power in the southwest to
>dems they havent seen in decades if ever. and he currently has
>shitty approval in most battleground states/districts."
>
>
>Based on this, why this rush to be "pragmatic" and vote for
>the most center Dem we can find?

center dems win there. thats the case lol.

why should our thinking be 'we should run a national candidate that least looks like the type of people who won in the places we need to win in'?

is it not common sense to put people on the ticket that appeal to the broadest set of voters?

im still not following the logic.

you seem to be operating under the assumption that running further left makes someone a better candidate by default...regardless of actual election results from 6 months ago.

all you have to do is attack Trump isn't true. Dems need to have a message as well- no matter how far left or center the candidate is.


I'm also pointing out that this idea that attacking Trump is the biggest key is only used by some (that I've seen) to justify a Biden run.

In other words, I express my concern that Biden offers nothing other than "not Trump"

The response to that is "Trump is so awful, thats all you have to do to win"

But that same logic isn't used for other candidates.


Basically, I'm saying the bar is a lot lower for Joe Biden.

I'm not advocating for a far left candidate.


I am pointing out the double standards. The far left candidates messages will "turn off voters"

But Biden doesn't need a message because he's not Trump...

So, according to Biden defenders, we are currently living in a sweet spot where only Biden can beat Trump, yet all Biden has to do is not be Trump.

Basically, I'm already sick of Biden and him being forced on us. lol


If a centrist white dude is the best way to win, lets at least run someone that knows how to run a campaign- like Beto.

>RE: no I'm not. I'm pointing out this idea that
>all you have to do is attack Trump isn't true.

All that was originally said was that IGNORING Trump is a mistake, in response to Trin who initially said that if the Dem nominee is still talking about Trump he wins.

Reeq just responded and said putting Trump is a glass case is a mistake, he never said anything close to "all you gotta do is attack Trump". I don't believe anyone did. Where are you seeing this ??



Dems need to
>have a message as well- no matter how far left or center the
>candidate is.
>
>
>I'm also pointing out that this idea that attacking Trump is
>the biggest key is only used by some (that I've seen) to
>justify a Biden run.
>
>In other words, I express my concern that Biden offers nothing
>other than "not Trump"
>
>The response to that is "Trump is so awful, thats all you have
>to do to win"
>
>But that same logic isn't used for other candidates.
>
>
>Basically, I'm saying the bar is a lot lower for Joe Biden.
>
>I'm not advocating for a far left candidate.
>
>
>I am pointing out the double standards. The far left
>candidates messages will "turn off voters"
>
>But Biden doesn't need a message because he's not Trump...
>
>So, according to Biden defenders, we are currently living in a
>sweet spot where only Biden can beat Trump, yet all Biden has
>to do is not be Trump.
>
>Basically, I'm already sick of Biden and him being forced on
>us. lol
>
>
>If a centrist white dude is the best way to win, lets at least
>run someone that knows how to run a campaign- like Beto.
>
>
>

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

out of respect, I'm going to PM you

But my point is that you're underestimating just how centrist these areas are. The rustbelt and southwest shifted to Dem because even *they* are not (necessarily/totally) as extreme right-wing as Trump and his cult are. But just cause they voted Dem in the midterms doesn't mean they're suddenly uber-progressive, enlightened voters lol.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

1- They are actual convos I've had here. Summarized, but not hypothetical. The target moves for the preferred candidate.

2- I'm not underestimating swing states. In fact, I am far less confident than Reeq sounds. He is literally the one who said Trump handed the rustbelt back. The problem is that statement is only used to defend Biden not having a message.

3- My point is basically this- people saying "Biden doesn't need a message because Trump is so awful" aren't being consistent. If that were truly the case - that Trump is so awful that Dems only need to present a candidate who can attack Trump- then we could also run a progressive to attack Trump.

I don't agree with that, because I don't agree that Dems don't need a message.


My point isn't "run a liberal ass candidate"- my point is "okay, attack Trump for sure- but you better also have a message"


My secondary point, is stop having lower/double standards for Joe Biden.

He's getting praise for going at Trump in his video. Okay, cool. But he better have more than that.

I've seen criticism for Beto and Mayor Pete not having any specific proposals. I've seen criticism for Warren being boring and unlikable. I've seen criticism for Amy's treatment of staffers. There is Kamala's record on crime.

But Biden? "Look how he went at Trump"

Cuz I guarantee if one of the other candidates I mentioned started focusing only on attacking Trump, the narrative would be "he/she better have more than that"


And if he wins the nom, he better get his shit together. Hell, he's already fucked up the Anita topic and it hadn't been 24 hours.

I'm telling you Brew, I'm having '16 flashbacks. People are over-looking Biden's flaws/issues etc and underestimating Trump to prop him up.

are you asking why not run a more risky/extreme (politically) candidate since the opponent is vulnerable and likely to be beat anyway?

thats kinda like asking why you need an accurate qb to face a team with a bad pass defense...since theyre gonna give up yards anyway lol.

despite the vulnerabilities of your opponent...your candidate still needs to be able convert the most voters.

vulnerable incumbents (at all levels) have often been thrown a lifeline when the other party nominates a candidate more 'out of the mainstream'. ask red state dems in 2012 like claire mccaskill.

you dont 'have to' nominate anything in particular. the voters choose. but moderates handed dems victories in the rust and sun belts (or came extremely close in deep red territory) and dragged a lot of other dem candidates for other offices across the finish line with them. sounds like a recipe for success...doesnt it?

just look at places like arizona and texas for the most illustrative case study. moderate candidates did well in senate races while more lefty candidates got blown out in gov races.

in this case...the 'safe' candidate is the type with a proven track record of likely success in a competitive environment.

if you can point me to the big slate of progressive (or further left of center) victors in swing districts/states in 2017/2018...id like to see them.

My basic point is this-

I've heard something similar to the argument you made in here several times recently. Trump is so horrible, so unpopular, and therefore vulnerable/toxic, that the all the Dems need to do is attack him. To present a "Not Trump" option.

Setting aside this is essentially what Hillary ended up being (and lost) and assuming that is MORE true this time around due to buyers remorse...

Why is the conversation so focused on elect-ability? Specific to Biden, that is literally the only argument to support him that I've seen. "He's most likely to beat Trump"

But...if Trump is in fact so toxic/vulnerable, why don't Dems just support the candidate they'd like.

For instance, below you seem to like Warren. I do too. If Trump is really as vulnerable as you say, are you voting for Warren in the primary?



If your answer is "no, we need a slam dunk/not worth the risk/etc"...I might even agree. But I think if you say this, then Trin has at least *somewhat* of a point in that the Dem candidate better offer something other than "not Trump."


I'm not saying don't attack him. But that can't be it.


Or, if he really is that terrible and all we have to do is attack him, lets run someone else.


>are you asking why not run a more risky/extreme (politically)
>candidate since the opponent is vulnerable and likely to be
>beat anyway?

It wouldn't be risky/extreme if Trump is unpopular as you say. You even said he handed the rustbelt back to dems.

>
>thats kinda like asking why you need an accurate qb to face a
>team with a bad pass defense...since theyre gonna give up
>yards anyway lol.

Not exactly. I'm not saying put just any QB in, in this analogy. But maybe put one in who runs the offense you prefer or whatever. I don't know man I'm not a football guy, can we switch to b-ball? lol

>
>despite the vulnerabilities of your opponent...your candidate
>still needs to be able convert the most voters.

Right, but you are saying voters are/or will be converted based on how bad Trump is.


>
>vulnerable incumbents (at all levels) have often been thrown a
>lifeline when the other party nominates a candidate more 'out
>of the mainstream'. ask red state dems in 2012 like claire
>mccaskill.

This is where you cherry pick history though. In the context of Biden (since its his thread and I assume you still like his chances), when is the last time a "try again" Dem won the white house?

When is the last time someone who has been in Washington for 30 years or whatever won the Whitehouse? Hell, for either party?

When was the last time the Dems message was fear, and lets go back to how things used to be?

This is that moving target I'm talking about.

>
>you dont 'have to' nominate anything in particular. the
>voters choose.

I was referring to voters who are being "pragmatic" and picking the "electable" candidate. Such as yourself.

but moderates handed dems victories in the
>rust and sun belts (or came extremely close in deep red
>territory) and dragged a lot of other dem candidates for other
>offices across the finish line with them. sounds like a
>recipe for success...doesnt it?

But Reeq, you just said above that it was due to Trump being toxic, etc.

>
>just look at places like arizona and texas for the most
>illustrative case study. moderate candidates did well in
>senate races while more lefty candidates got blown out in gov
>races.

Okay, but that is AZ and TX. I know you think running a moderate wins the white house, but do you really think folks thought Obama was a moderate?

In '08 especially?


Of course not. McCain was seen more as his party rebel/moderate at the time.

And if Trump is dubya-like toxic, why 'settle/be pragmatic' ?


If he isn't that toxic, why not *also* have a message?


>
>in this case...the 'safe' candidate is the type with a proven
>track record of likely success in a competitive environment.
>
>if you can point me to the big slate of progressive (or
>further left of center) victors in swing districts/states in
>2017/2018...id like to see them.


As I said, your point was basically "Nah Trin, we have to attack Trump because he is historically unpopular, ineffective, with unpopular policies, etc. He is so awful he handed us the rustbelt back"

It just seems that line of thinking is only used to justify a candidate who has no real message of their own (Biden).


So Trump is just toxic enough that Dems don't need a message, but not toxic enough that anyone other than a moderate can win?

Biden doesn't need a message to beat Trump, but he is the only one who can beat Trump? Damn.

Lucky Joe.

it's silly.

“So back we go to these questions — friendship, character… ethics.”

that they paid too much attention to history, numbers, data, etc.

now they arent paying any attention to history, numbers, data, etc lol.

I think it's part Obama Nostalgia, but for him, I also think that he is the Candidate he most would like to sit and have drinks with.

I think this is true with a lot of older black people.

His ideal ticket is Biden/Harris.


Thinks Elizabeth Warren is boring.

We both aren't fans of old ass bernie.

Anyway, I think the idea that people can't see how anyone would like Biden is extremely online (did I use it 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"

or even really care to become informed about it.

they just react on their impression of candidates.

which is why you have working class swing voters who went clinton-bush-obama-trump despite the actual differences in their policies.

yall better get off this “let’s have a beer together” shit and hire some one thats articulating their ideas...

**********
"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"

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Even when she is killing it on policy it’s so damn bland it makes you wonder if she believes what she is saying.

She says all the right things but the way she says them makes me believe none of that shit is actually possible.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

she literally created an agency from scratch to protect the same people she claims to fight for and has put action behind all of her rhetoric going back to her career in academia.

theres no better principle to policy candidate in this race.

shes a grownup bernie.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

but we won’t.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

does your bro know his record? Crime Bill, etc? Two other failed runs?


Because I think its pretty obvious people like Biden. Even I'm not arguing people don't like Biden.


the question is- will as many people like him as they learn more about him?


I know the argument is most people don't pay attention, and I get that.

But more and more people pay attention in a Pres election. My worry is that by November 2020 enough people will not like/not be excited about Joe to stay the fuck home to reelect individual 1.

Thing is I wouldn't hold it against any of the democratic candidates for being tough on crime in the 90s. I lived through the 90s. Everyone was talking that shit. How many reviews of Menace to Society praise the movie for being authentic and a true depiction of young black men? I can't even watch that cartoon of a movie now.

Anyway Biden more than any other candidate so far is a known element. So I don't know if there is alot more to learn about him. Even though what he was known for back in the day is being a doofus blowhard.

But I do think that most people will think that dude at least has his heart in the right place and will fight for middle class people.





**********
"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"

He doesn't want to run on his actual record.

The name recognition advantage isn't going to be as big nine months from now. Other candidates have been doing a better job fundraising. There's no way he makes it through every debate without accidentally/on purpose saying something awkward to Kamala Harris (take your pick if it's going to be sexist or racist, or both.)

I don't know, if the economy dives off a cliff in the next year "a return to 2016" might be a winnable message. NOw, though? I just don't see it.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

even repubs dont run against obama anymore. they run against clinton, pelosi, schumer, aoc, etc.

shit they dont even attack obama on obamacare now. by the end of 2018...repubs were basically running on obamacare vs medicare for all lol.

martha mcsally in az...after voting to repeal obamacare multiple times...ended up saying shit in 2018 like 'im leading the fight on saving pre-exisiting conditions' and 'we cant go back to the days before obamacare' lol. shit was surreal.