U.S. Democratic Primary

[iNow]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I’m a firm no on Beto, Tulsi, de Blasio, and the bulk of the others

Oops... I forgot de Blasio already dropped out. Lol. It’s too hard to follow this many candidates! 
 

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

And what of these accusations made by H Clinton about T Gabbard, that may now turn out to be a misunderstanding ?
Don't know much about T Gabbard other than she is very attractive and a veteran.

I listened to the podcast with Hillary that led to this, and it was really blown out of proportion.

Clinton largely said that Russia would LOVE another 3rd party candidate who would steal democratic votes and help Trump... that they are actively working to insert one... and their trolls and bots have been working overtime to pump up Gabbard in social media beyond the support she actually has from actual voters. Since Tulsi is quite unlikely to win the democratic bid, this might convince her to try a 3rd part run. Tulsi’s campaign team then (very smartly) seized on Clinton’s passing reference to them and got a LOT of free media time out of it. 

She is an attractive veteran, though a bit weird in terms of positions... kinda like Ross Perot used to be, but without the money and business savvy. She has a weird supportive relationship with Assad in Syria, was against gay marriage and homosexuals in the military, and is generally for foreign intervention with our military, but recently is trying to correct for that by saying she’s against “regime change wars.” She seems to be another without firm principles, following the polls instead of leading them.

For me, it’s a bit too little too late with her, though TBH she’s certainly another (like Kamala) that I’d love to watch rhetorical punch Trump in the balls.

Edited October 25, 2019 by iNow

[iNow]

Beto O’Rourke has ended his presidential primary run

[J.C.MacSwell]

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

Beto O’Rourke has ended his presidential primary run

...and another one betos the dust!

[iNow]

So bad. Lol

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

So bad. Lol

Couldn't help myself...might not get to use "all warren out!"

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Couldn't help myself...might not get to use "all warren out!"

You’re just Biden your time, I can see.

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

You’re just Biden your time, I can see.

Touche! You obviously have the gift of the gabbard...

[iNow]

Can you re-Pete that? I’m unsure all onlooking by-Sanders heard it... their Harris covering their ears. 

...I’ll show myself out...

[iNow]

@J.C.MacSwell Andy Yang met with some of my neighbors tonight. According to him, one of me is worth 14,000 Californians. For a self-professed non-politician, he sure has learned how to leverage the art of the pander. 
 

 

[iNow]

Michael Bloomberg is planning to announce his candidacy for the primary. In related news, I’m planning to announce my lunch rapidly exiting my body through my mouth. 

[MigL]

Just what you need.
Another filthy rich guy who is going to represent the needs and wants of common American people.

[StringJunky]

I searched for who was going to win next year and the analysts I read think Trump will win again if he keeps the economy up. Depressing.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Just what you need.
Another filthy rich guy who is going to represent the needs and wants of common American people.

This would make another white billionaire in the primary, and this one is almost 80 years old 

 

42 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I searched for who was going to win next year and the analysts I read think Trump will win again if he keeps the economy up. Depressing.

My instinct is he’ll magically lift the sanctions on China right before the election so... voila!! The economy pops like its on steroids and meth because he removed his boot from its throat. 

Edited November 8, 2019 by iNow

[Raider5678]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

My instinct is he’ll magically lift the sanctions on China right before the election so... voila!!

The economy wouldn't respond like that.

53 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I searched for who was going to win next year and the analysts I read think Trump will win again if he keeps the economy up. Depressing.

I suspect he gets impeached, convicted by the senate, removed from office, thrown in jail, runs for reelection, wins, and voila. We're back to face palming every time we get a twitter notification from the man himself.

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The economy wouldn't respond like that.

And yet the market spikes every time the news even hints at the idea that both sides are talking. 

I’m aware that the market and the economy are not the same thing. Most Americans, however, conflate them. 

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I suspect he gets impeached, convicted by the senate,

We’re now badly off topic, but... Which Republican senators do you think will flip on him?

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

We’re now badly off topic, but... Which Republican senators do you think will flip on him?

Sorry about that. I mentioned it because it makes this topic seem somewhat hopeless. I don't see anyone on the Democratic side that has the larger-than-life persona and intent  of a Boris or Donald, which is what catches peoples eye, I've noticed.

Edited November 8, 2019 by StringJunky

[iNow]

8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I don't see anyone on the Democratic side that has the larger-than-life persona and intent  of a Boris or Donald, which is what catches peoples eye, I've noticed

There’s a ton of energy and engagement on the left. The core question with which I’m struggling is this:

Is it better to motivate huge numbers of your base to come out in droves and to inspire people who don’t normally vote to finally do so, or...

Is it better to run as a moderate to pickup votes from folks who normally vote for the other party?

Which results in more votes and higher chances in those key electoral college states?

Democrats can run up the score all they want in states like New York and California, but if they lose Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida it’s game over

[StringJunky]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

There’s a ton of energy and engagement on the left. The core question with which I’m struggling is this:

Is it better to motivate huge numbers of your base to come out in droves and to inspire people who don’t normally vote to finally do so, or...

Is it better to run as a moderate to pickup votes from folks who normally vote for the other party?

Which results in more votes and higher chances in those key electoral college states?

Democrats can run up the score all they want in states like New York and California, but if they lose Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida it’s game over

Are they the critical swing states?

[dimreepr]

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

Democrats can run up the score all they want in states like New York and California, but if they lose Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida it’s game over

It's funny how swings work, but just after the civil war it was the democrates that were the fake news wielding white supremacists...

Sorry for going off topic, just couldn't help myself.

Edited November 8, 2019 by dimreepr

[MigL]

Depends on your primary goal, INow.

If your aim is to win the election, it is probably best to motivate your base, and get as many as possible to come out and vote.
If your aim is to form a government which is for ALL the people, it is probably best to also appeal to people who would normally vote for the other party.

I think most politicians opt for the former, and in a two party system like the US has, it has lead to the divisive politics and extreme polarization that hampers effective government and gets nothing done.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Are they the critical swing states?

Yes, absolutely critical. North Caroline is another one I didn't mention above. The next election will likely come down to just 4 states... and maybe even just one. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-2020-electoral-map-could-be-the-smallest-in-years-heres-why/2019/08/31/61d4bc9a-c9a9-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html

#abolishtheelectoralcollege

[dimreepr]

59 minutes ago, MigL said:

Depends on your primary goal, INow.

If your aim is to win the election, it is probably best to motivate your base, and get as many as possible to come out and vote.
If your aim is to form a government which is for ALL the people, it is probably best to also appeal to people who would normally vote for the other party.

I think most politicians opt for the former, and in a two party system like the US has, it has lead to the divisive politics and extreme polarization that hampers effective government and gets nothing done.

This question needs a new topic, I think, since every answer leads to both war and peace.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

There’s a ton of energy and engagement on the left. The core question with which I’m struggling is this:

Is it better to motivate huge numbers of your base to come out in droves and to inspire people who don’t normally vote to finally do so, or...

Is it better to run as a moderate to pickup votes from folks who normally vote for the other party?

Which results in more votes and higher chances in those key electoral college states?

Democrats can run up the score all they want in states like New York and California, but if they lose Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida it’s game over

I think if you are applying for President you "should" take a relatively (whether conservative or liberal) and defendably moderate position, make it clear what it is and where you are flexible; and preach that as best you can to everyone, the full spectrum including those who are unlikely or surely not to vote for you, and explain why your chosen policies and positions are important to their lives and the lives of others.

Will it work? I'm not sure it won't.

I do think a candidate like that could win against the likely candidate on either side...but they would have to be an extraordinary candidate to even get off the ground in their own party (especially the current Democrats).

But you have 300 plus million people, over half of which are eligible to run...so it is more than possible...(though and last time you guys came up with Clinton and Trump...)

So there is hope...but more concern

[swansont]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

There’s a ton of energy and engagement on the left. The core question with which I’m struggling is this:

Is it better to motivate huge numbers of your base to come out in droves and to inspire people who don’t normally vote to finally do so, or...

Is it better to run as a moderate to pickup votes from folks who normally vote for the other party?

Why not both? A lot of what appeals to the base on the left is actually a moderate position. It's just being painted as extreme by the opposition. Raising taxes on the rich is undo-ing an extreme move. A 70% marginal tax rate on top earners, for example, is actually a moderate position, in that it was the norm (or even be considered generous) for a long stretch of time. 

See also:

https://boingboing.net/2019/03/13/they-were-socialist-invader.html

 

[iNow]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Depends on your primary goal, INow.

To win. If one doesn't win, then it really doesn't matter what they support nor what policies they wish to enact.

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think if you are applying for President you "should" take a relatively (whether conservative or liberal) and defendably moderate position,

Right, but if that relatively defensible moderate position doesn't bring out enough people to vote for you, then you lose and it won't matter anyway.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

A lot of what appeals to the base on the left is actually a moderate position. It's just being painted as extreme by the opposition. Raising taxes on the rich is undo-ing an extreme move. A 70% marginal tax rate on top earners, for example, is actually a moderate position, in that it was the norm (or even be considered generous) for a long stretch of time. 

I really couldn't agree more and find your point inherently correct, but that's not the way it's being framed or even understood among the voting populace (which is the only truth that matters in these affairs of politics). 

To that end, hopefully the passionate person causes passionate voting response by advocating and clarifying their positions in a way that bring on millions more supporters (leading the polls instead of following them).

Edited November 8, 2019 by iNow