|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Bernie needs to demonstrate competency in issues beyond his standard stump speech. You've got that backwards. The other candidates need to get.on Bernie's level.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Bernie needs to demonstrate competency in issues beyond his standard stump speech. Why are we holding him to a higher standard than the rest of the Democratic Party?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:03
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Honestly, I'd like Bernie and Joe to just step out of it now, but really be the elder statesman of the party. The Obamas are obviously going to be a big force in 2020, but Bill Clinton needs to gently caress off. I think Joe and Bernie could really have a lot of impact as party elders who represent the various wings of the party united. I would agree with this, if I thought there was anyone else on the Democratic bench who could beat Trump. Unfortunately, Bernie's kind of it, as far as I can see. Yeah, he's old, but I really don't see how anyone else is going to beat an incumbent with a base that is as unified and enthusiastic as Trump's - even if they make up less than 40% of the population. KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Bernie needs to demonstrate competency in issues beyond his standard stump speech. Have you, like, not been paying attention to him at all over the past two years? Dude's really engaged quite a bit on racial issues, issues of justice, foreign policy, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:03
|
|
|
I find it difficult to imagine Bernie losing the primary. Especially if Biden and/or Hillary insist on running and utterly destroying their own political legacies forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
Gillibrand's been cozying up to the capital-L Left for a while, and really making it clear that she wants to be considered for their votes. It's easy to view this as cynical, since she's running for President and might view her path as "the candidate who is acceptable to both the left and the hashtag resistance", but hey, Senators pandering to the Left is better than Senators not pandering to the Left. She's made a lot of waves over the past couple of years by taking visible, gutsy stands: she led the bloc of women Senators who forced Franken out, she called to abolish ICE when no mainstream Dem (or Senators-caucusing-with-the-Democrats) was, picked a visible fight with the Clintons, and has been the most consistent anti-Trump vote in the Senate. Those stands haven't come for free - she's pissed off a lot of folks from Clintonworld and the male Democratic establishment. She's got the stink of Hillary to shake off, and it's not clear that she has, despite her efforts: she views Hillary as a mentor, was appointed to take her Senate seat, and there's always this suspicion that the positions she takes are calculated, not from the heart. She's been making sure to support candidates around the country during the midterms, and despite her polling in low-single digits for the moment, the last couple of years have shown she's got solid political instincts, has a great sense of where the Democratic Party is, and isn't afraid to take risks. Pinterest Mom fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I find it difficult to imagine Bernie losing the primary. Especially if Biden and/or Hillary insist on running and utterly destroying their own political legacies forever. well hillary at least has no political legacy left to lose
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
I really don't think that's good enough. They need to have someone who's a genuinely good person and has policies to reflect it, not just a Clinton-style mirror for whatever policies happen to be popular at the time, be they horribly monstrous and disgusting or humanitarian. Anyone who is strongly pro-Israel in 2018 simply cannot be trusted, they support loving apartheid for god's sake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:12
|
|
|
There is no loving way that Clinton will run. She would never make it through the invisible primary and she knows it.Majorian posted:Have you, like, not been paying attention to him at all over the past two years? Dude's really engaged quite a bit on racial issues, issues of justice, foreign policy, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
To add to the (cartoonishly) bad she was also a lawyer for big tobacco, still at least her career arc is facing the progressive direction and fundamentally I think the timely sensing of where the political winds are blowing is a quality you want in a politician.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:There is no loving way that Clinton will run. She would never make it through the invisible primary and she knows it. Those old chestnuts are completely accurate and every single Democrat politician needs to be repeating those old chestnuts constantly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:15
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:To add to the (cartoonishly) bad she was also a lawyer for big tobacco, still at least her career arc is facing the progressive direction and fundamentally I think the timely sensing of where the political winds are blowing is a quality you want in a politician.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
Like, that single message that Bernie hammered constantly is literally the reason he's the most popular politician in America and a frontrunner for the 202 nomination. Why on earth would he drop it now? Purely for the sake of novelty?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:17
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:To add to the (cartoonishly) bad she was also a lawyer for big tobacco, still at least her career arc is facing the progressive direction and fundamentally I think the timely sensing of where the political winds are blowing is a quality you want in a politician. Oh yeah, that Philip Morris chestnut seems relevant. Added it, thanks~
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:To add to the (cartoonishly) bad she was also a lawyer for big tobacco, still at least her career arc is facing the progressive direction and fundamentally I think the timely sensing of where the political winds are blowing is a quality you want in a politician. Sure, but the president of the United States is going to have to be better than that, or it's simply not going to matter. She can be a senator or member of the house or whatever else and I'm sure she'd do just fine and vote for bills that generally aren't horrible. The president isn't even that powerful domestically but they have to do a good job being a figurehead to provide an example of what the country wants and what bills and poo poo the uh, elected "representatives" of the country will actually vote for. A short-rear end four years after Saint Bernard Sanders was robbed of the presidency by the sociopaths in charge of the DNC is not enough for people to accept a candidate who helped cigarette companies give millions of people cancer and thinks that it's okay to massacre Palestinians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:19
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Like, that single message that Bernie hammered constantly is literally the reason he's the most popular politician in America and a frontrunner for the 202 nomination. Why on earth would he drop it now? Purely for the sake of novelty? Guy Goodbody posted:Those old chestnuts are completely accurate and every single Democrat politician needs to be repeating those old chestnuts constantly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
We made a rapist president because he said "I feel your pain" with passion. We made a junior Senator president because he gave good speeches. But that Bernie Sanders, he, he needs to burnish his platform, even though his policy proposals are the only reason anyone gives a poo poo about this cranky old man. Newsflash: almost no president in American history has been elected based on foreign policy. Bernie is non interventionist which makes him better on it than every war criminal who's held that office since FDR and more trustworthy than any Dem who has been in office long enough to have voted for Iraq or literally every Dem currently in Congress who voted for reinstituting sanctions on Iran, which is all of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Why are we holding him to a higher standard than the rest of the Democratic Party? Because they lost?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Like, that single message that Bernie hammered constantly is literally the reason he's the most popular politician in America and a frontrunner for the 202 nomination. Why on earth would he drop it now? Purely for the sake of novelty? See, no, Bernie's going to shoot himself in the back deliberately, because good things are impossible and if Bernie was the obvious frontrunner then the Democratic Party might yet be redeemable, and that's not possible
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:We made a rapist president because he said "I feel your pain" with passion. We made a junior Senator president because he gave good speeches. But that Bernie Sanders, he, he needs to burnish his platform, even though his policy proposals are the only reason anyone gives a poo poo about this cranky old man. ChairMaster posted:Sure, but the president of the United States is going to have to be better than that, or it's simply not going to matter. She can be a senator or member of the house or whatever else and I'm sure she'd do just fine and vote for bills that generally aren't horrible. The president isn't even that powerful domestically but they have to do a good job being a figurehead to provide an example of what the country wants and what bills and poo poo the uh, elected "representatives" of the country will actually vote for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:What the gently caress is this strawman? Are you so dense and rabid that you hear "Bernie's speech needs a little more linguistic variety" from a Bernie supporter and you scream "counter-revolutionary"? I was assuming you meant he needed to say other things, not that he needed to say the same things but in a different way Which is still wrong. This isn't a poetry contest. You find messaging that works and you repeat it over and over again. Hope and Change, MAGA. If calling out "millionaires and billionaires" works, you don't switch back and forth between that and calling out " the economically over-privileged" just to spice thinks up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Don't confuse a lack of formal powers for a lack of substantive power. The office may not have things like the absolute veto but the American presidency is the most powerful position in the world if you are capable of deploying its influence correctly. That's literally what Chairmaster said
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
"I won't listen to Henry Kissinger" was already the the best foreign policy statement in national politics and he's absolutely improved from there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:29
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:The quality you want in a politician is demonstrated commitment to principles, not being an Etch-a-Sketch. In an ideal world, right now I'll settle for defeating Trump. Gillibrand isn't triangulating, she's taking red meat Democratic positions. Bernie would be best but with the fate of the world on the line I wouldn't mind having a back up who both holds the right positions and isn't going to shoot themselves in the face like Warren just did. It's worth noting that Gillibrand may have been a blue dog in her late thirties, Warren was a Republican into her late 40s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:That's literally what Chairmaster said
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:31
|
|
|
It's not enough to beat trump if we lose to trump 2.0 in 2024 because we got another Obama who does none of the good things they talked about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:31
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:It's worth noting that Gillibrand may have been a blue dog in her late thirties, Warren was a Republican into her late 40s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:In an ideal world, right now I'll settle for defeating Trump. That was the argument that was supposed to get Clinton elected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:To add to the (cartoonishly) bad she was also a lawyer for big tobacco, still at least her career arc is facing the progressive direction and fundamentally I think the timely sensing of where the political winds are blowing is a quality you want in a politician. ehh, she worked for a giant law firm (davis polk) that had philip morris as a client. it's not like she decided to advocate for them pro bono, she was just doing her job as an associate at a biglaw firm e: because someone downthread characterized her as a "tobacco attorney," davis polk has nearly 1000 lawyers. the fact that she worked on litigation for PM does not mean that she loves big tobacco any more than the fact that wilmer hale has russian clients means that robert mueller is sabotaging the trump probe goethe.cx fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:That was the argument that was supposed to get Clinton elected. I'd dispute the premise that Clinton is anywhere near as canny a politician as Gillibrand. She had major institutional support and still lost one national primary and barely eked out a win against a man who only intermittently identifies as a member of her party. KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Warren didn't hold elective office until her 60s. Gillibrand held Blue Dog positions as a Congresswoman. Biiiig difference. I don't really see the biiig difference Gillibrand was winning a blue seat in a district with 2:1 Republican registration advantage, Warren was a Harvard dilettante masquerading as a poc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Warren was a Harvard dilettante masquerading as a poc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:I'd dispute the premise that Clinton is anywhere near as canny a politician as Gillibrand. She had major institutional support and still lost one national primary and barely eked out a win against a man who only intermittently identifies as a member of her party. As big of an idiot as Clinton is, she's nothing compared to the lunatic she was supposed to beat in the general. And she didn't, she staked everything on the idea that Trump could never be elected president and everyone would vote against him even if it meant voting for her. It didn't work, and I think it's a mistake to expect people to vote for a tobacco lawyer who loves apartheid and guns based on the same argument. Like I said, the POTUS is a different position than senator or house representative, they have to be better than that in 2020. She has to be at least as good as Bernie, the candidate that most young people think of as imperfect but acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Are there any elected officials in the Democratic party that aren't ridiculous monsters (Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, etc) or complete idiots (Elizabeth Warren), and are also women or non-white? Alexandria Ocasia Cortez.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Alexandria Ocasia Cortez. She won't be old enough to be president in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Warren was an eminent law professor who checked a box on an application. The only dilettante here is you. Yes the white Republican lady checked a box and let Harvard get away with pretending they'd diversified a faculty they definitely hadn't. So much better for the cause then destroying the career of John Sweeney.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
I see you've already moved the goalposts from "the Harvard law professor was a dilettante" and "she was pretending to be a Person of Color."
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
Goddam have we got to get our poo poo unified if we expect to get *anybody* elected in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:As big of an idiot as Clinton is, she's nothing compared to the lunatic she was supposed to beat in the general. And she didn't, she staked everything on the idea that Trump could never be elected president and everyone would vote against him even if it meant voting for her. It didn't work, and I think it's a mistake to expect people to vote for a tobacco lawyer who loves apartheid and guns based on the same argument. Gillibrand is not going to run as a centrist or as a triangulator or generally on the positions she held 12 years ago, she's been very good at adopting the positions favoured by the progressive base and she's not afraid to buck the party to do so. Hillary by contrast was cautious to the point of political malpractice. Trump may not have read a book in the last 2 decades but he followed his instincts and understood the boomer FoxNews viewer mentality perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Goddam have we got to get our poo poo unified if we expect to get *anybody* elected in 2020. The whole point of primaries is to argue this out. I'm sure everyone here will vote for the Dem candidate in 2020 whoever it is as long as it's not Kamala Harris.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Like I said I vastly prefer Bernie, but I don't share the American left's preoccupation with betting everything on one great man fixing everything. A movement that depends entirely on one man is a doomed movement. If the Republicans lost Trump tomorrow, there movement would be fine (probably healthier). If Bernie is the only candidate then he's the only candidate, and others will have to be made out of younger people in the 4-8 years he has as president. It would be excellent if there was an alternative to take his place, but so far the only ones that compare to him are too young to run or older than he is. Why should young people trust Gillibrand to not pull an Obama and gently caress everyone over again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:26 |
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:The whole point of primaries is to argue this out. I'm sure everyone here will vote for the Dem candidate in 2020 whoever it is as long as it's not Kamala Harris. Biden and Booker are both worse than Harris. Otoh I'm less down on her than some other posters. She's around the point in the ranking where I switch from "I am reasonably happy to vote for this person in the general" to "I will grudgingly vote for this person in the general". and given more time in the Senate holding good positions, I might like her more, but that's not really a 2020 consideration
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:24
|
|
