|
Who do you want to be the 2020 Democratic Nominee? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe "the liberal who fights busing" Biden |
|
27 | 1.40% |
| Bernie "please don't die" Sanders |
|
1017 | 52.69% |
| Cory "charter schools" Booker |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Kirsten "wall street" Gillibrand |
|
24 | 1.24% |
| Kamala "truancy queen" Harris |
|
59 | 3.06% |
| Julian "who?" Castro |
|
7 | 0.36% |
| Tulsi "gay panic" Gabbard |
|
25 | 1.30% |
| Michael "crimes crimes crimes" Avenatti |
|
22 | 1.14% |
| Sherrod "discount bernie" Brown |
|
21 | 1.09% |
| Amy "horrible boss" Klobuchar |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Tammy "stands for america" Duckworth |
|
48 | 2.49% |
| Beto "whataburger" O'Rourke |
|
32 | 1.66% |
| Elizabeth "instagram beer" Warren |
|
284 | 14.72% |
| Tom "impeach please" Steyer |
|
4 | 0.21% |
| Michael "soda is the devil" Bloomberg |
|
9 | 0.47% |
| Joseph Stalin |
|
287 | 14.87% |
| Howard "coffee republican" Schultz |
|
10 | 0.52% |
Jay "nobody cares about climate change  " Inslee |
|
13 | 0.67% |
| Pete "gently caress the homeless" Butt Man |
|
17 | 0.88% |
| Total: | 1930 votes | ||
|
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1088086228547842049quote:“Last year, in 2017, 72,000 Americans OD’d on drugs. In 2018, more people than that are OD-ing on drugs, have OD’d on drugs, and today, incidentally, we are trying to legalize another addictive narcotic, which is perhaps the stupidest thing anybody has ever done," he said, according to WBNG.com.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
Luckyellow posted:What do you guys think about Buttigieg? He’s not going to win and he should do something useful instead of wasting a bunch of peoples’ time and money on a pointless presidential campaign. Also I do not care for his “I know how to win in a red state” BS when he’s the mayor of South Bend. That would be like the mayor of Austin saying he knew how to win Texas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:It's both. Requiring a supermajority to pass anything is undemocratic. But it's not really a requirement, the Senate can amend it's own rules and get rid of the filibuster with 51 votes at the start of the next session, they won't need the President's permission and that may even be counterproductive. Democrats should get rid of it if they actually care about their legislative priorities when they control the chamber but right now the filibuster is just another Senate rule enforced by the other party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:He’s not going to win and he should do something useful instead of wasting a bunch of peoples’ time and money on a pointless presidential campaign. I very much agree with this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
100's of millions dead due to Karl Marx's invention: legal weed
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:100's of millions dead due to Karl Marx's invention: legal weed The hilarious thing about this guy is he’s so rich he could buy the best experts, the best polls, and he’d see just from a political angle how stupid it is to say poo poo like this in 2019. But because he’s paid people to blow smoke up his rear end instead, he just goes with his old spiel because that’s what the yes-men tell him to do. What a loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/rl_miller/status/1088119873463451649?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:The question of ending the filibuster doesn't really seem like a matter of principle but a matter of tactics, and the correct tactical answer really depends on the seat count. Agreed. Especially considering we won’t have the votes to enact progressive legislation even if we took the senate and abolished the filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
selec posted:The hilarious thing about this guy is he’s so rich he could buy the best experts, the best polls, and he’d see just from a political angle how stupid it is to say poo poo like this in 2019. If those "experts" are so great why aren't they rich like him Obviously rich people are the best people
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
Increasingly convinced a third party Bloomberg run actually BENEFITS the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Increasingly convinced a third party Bloomberg run actually BENEFITS the Democrats. If Bernie ever won the nomination, Bloomberg or Schultz or someone like that will definitely run as a 3rd party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
From Buttgiegs wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Buttigieg quote:In 2012, Buttigieg demoted the first African American police chief of South Bend, Darryl Boykins, and fired police communications director Karen DePaepe, following the revelation of taped telephone conversations between four white South Bend police officers and the spouse of an officer. The tapes were alleged to contain "racist content".[41] Buttigieg elected to settle suits brought by Boykins, DePaepe, and the four officers out of court.[42] The Common Council of South Bend sued the Mayor to release at least some of the tapes; this suit is still pending in state court.[43]
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:From Buttgiegs wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Buttigieg  Goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
Warren dragged Biden in a book she wrote a few years back https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1088077111133392901?s=21 quote:The point is not to discredit other worthy causes or to pit one disadvantaged group against another nor would we suggest that battered women deserve less help or that subsidized day care is unimportant. The point is simply that family economics should not be left to giant corporations and paid lobbyists, and senators like Joe Biden should not be allowed to sell out women in the morning and be heralded as their friend in the evening. Middle-class women need help, and right now no one is putting their economic interests first. theblackw0lf fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jan 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
I can't wait to see Warren on the same debate stage as Biden slamming him for the bankruptcy bill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:If Bernie ever won the nomination, Bloomberg or Schultz or someone like that will definitely run as a 3rd party. No, I know, but I'm saying I think (given the way they're talking), they'd appeal as much, if not moreso, to centrist/NeverTrump Republicans as they would to centrist Democrats. Like, the die-hard Hillary folk I know would still grudgingly pull the lever for Bernie, but my NeverTrump father-in-law, who couldn't bring himself to vote for Hillary, would be downright enthusiastic about voting for Bloomberg.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
Buttigieg's best play is to get his name shortened to Butt and hope people vote for him just out of novelty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Buttigieg's best play is to get his name shortened to Butt and hope people vote for him just out of novelty. Or change the spelling to “Buddhajudge”, that oughta turn some heads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
I think Buttguy is a good example of someone who would be qualified to be president if they could successfully run the campaign and win. Running as an insurgent and winning requires some combination of leadership, management, personal communication, and political acumen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RuairiWood/status/1088105834704445441
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Hey, they probably met at that Martha's Vineyard meeting!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Nothing ensures us that Harris will lose more than that
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:Nothing ensures us that Harris will lose more than that yea i basically cheered when i saw that
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:No I think the plan is just "M4A will be better and cheaper therefore people will move off private insurance." This is not "secretly planning to strangle it via regulation" unless you're a Republican political consultant. I feel like people have not fully internalized the fact that any attempt to improve the lives of the majority of Americans is going to generate a massive freakout. The plan can't be to avoid the freak out. The Democrats are paying a steep price for having deferred all these questions so long. Decades of concessions have left a much deeper hole to climb out of but the climbing has to start somewhere. This notion you can improve some people's lives without engendering a massive social conflict that is going to be massively controversial is ludicrous. theblackw0lf posted:I don't know that was just off the top of my head. There's probably a better way to respond. Although I do think using a person's arguments against them is effective. But that just seems more desirable than starting in a position where you've weakened your chances of the plan getting passed. I understand that you have this intuition but I'm sad to say that it's incorrect. In the context of a televised leadership debate 'using a person's arguments against them' is not effective and the entire notion that you go to a debate like that to actually convince the other side is incredibly wrongheaded. This entire strategic calculation that you will ease passage of the bill by convincingly eviscerating the Republican talking points during a live debate is very dangerous and needs to be abandoned. The focus needs to be on building up the pro-M4A side, identifying allies, creating networks, scoring small victories to build momentum and in particular investing in turning out more voters during elections. You don't get any closer to that goal by intentionally watering down your rhetoric and objectives and making preemptive concessions. Politics is all about conflict. Time for Democrats to embrace that the same way Republicans have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:yea i basically cheered when i saw that AsInHowe posted:Nothing ensures us that Harris will lose more than that ....Hillary won the primary you guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:....Hillary won the primary you guys. lol Not because of her communication strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:....Hillary won the primary you guys. Yeah but it wasn’t on the backs of her social media campaign. efb
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:....Hillary won the primary you guys. Not cause of her communications manager lmao e: lol that was quick
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
Helsing posted:lol But what about her Communion strategy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
Pokemon go to the polls is a passable grandma joke and everyone on Twitter flipped out about because they already didn’t like her imo Ashley Feinberg agrees with me
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I feel like people have not fully internalized the fact that any attempt to improve the lives of the majority of Americans is going to generate a massive freakout. The plan can't be to avoid the freak out. You can run on a "I will cut taxes on you, raise taxes on them and give you free healthcare." to avoid the freakout. Avoid this false "we need a broad base of taxation and sacrifice" bullshit. Reduce taxes on the poor, increase taxes on the rich and use the difference to provide healthcare to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Helsing posted:
Not going to respond directly here because I agree with others that this probably is better to discuss in another thread so we don't derail this thread too much, but I might take this up in the health care thread. I will say though that based on comments from people (especially Main Painframe) I'm reconsidering my views. Which is why I do want to continue this discussion (but in another thread). To get advice from others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:But what about her Communion strategy? I would vote for a Catholic candidate who ran on banning Catholicism, for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
Sure lol I don't mean it's a GOOD thing... just that it's weird to leap to "so she's for sure gonna lose"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
karthun posted:You can run on a "I will cut taxes on you, raise taxes on them and give you free healthcare." to avoid the freakout. Avoid this false "we need a broad base of taxation and sacrifice" bullshit. Reduce taxes on the poor, increase taxes on the rich and use the difference to provide healthcare to everyone. That's... Sanders' plan for M4A. A few hundo in payroll taxes per year vs. $12,000 in premiums + out-of-pocket costs for insurance are gonna be preferred by like 100 percent of people making $30,000/year--but only if Dems point out the cost savings instead of yapping about "tax increases." eta: A payroll tax by workers would prolly fit into your "broad base of taxation" bullshit but it'd be far preferable to the vast majority of workers to pay that tax than to face ever-increasing insurance + out-of-pocket costs. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jan 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
But in a broader sense, this issue also is part of something I brought up in the uspol thread: Dems need to move away from tax cuts/stasis for "middle-class" people making $250,000/year. Like sure, we need to tax richies more, but we also need to raise the social security pay-in from its current $116k, and we need to tax cap gains as ordinary income.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:That's... Sanders' plan for M4A. Raising taxes on the poor via a 2% payroll tax is not cutting taxes on the poor. The income that would be provided by a 2% income tax in people who make less then 30k a year would only raise 17 billion dollars. That is a rounding error for the cost of M4A so why the gently caress are you so insistent on taxing the poor when we could give them money?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
Yeah, why the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
karthun posted:You can run on a "I will cut taxes on you, raise taxes on them and give you free healthcare." to avoid the freakout. Avoid this false "we need a broad base of taxation and sacrifice" bullshit. Reduce taxes on the poor, increase taxes on the rich and use the difference to provide healthcare to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 21:52 |
|
|
karthun posted:You can run on a "I will cut taxes on you, raise taxes on them and give you free healthcare." to avoid the freakout. No you can't. There is going to be a freakout when you dramatically change something like healthcare. It's unavoidable. The Republicans have huge parts of the population locked into their own closed media environment and cultural environment and there's literally no way to prevent feverish opposition to any expansion of government in America. Any strategy that claims to have a magical rhetorical or policy solution that somehow will make it non-controversial to redistribute wealth in America is selling a bill of false goods. The point is to actually win the resulting conflict by entering it on the right terms, not to fool yourself into thinking you can avoid it. And the main way to win is through organizing and movement building, not triangulation. quote:Avoid this false "we need a broad base of taxation and sacrifice" bullshit. Reduce taxes on the poor, increase taxes on the rich and use the difference to provide healthcare to everyone. I'm not advocating raising taxes on the poor, I completely agree the goal should be to redistribute the wealth of the rich. My issue here is that you're crazy if you think that isn't going to be extremely controversial. You seem to expect that people are actually going to debate these policies rationally and form their opinions based on calculated self interest but in practice a lot of people are going to simply revert to whatever the appropriate attitude for their political tribe is supposed to be. It's more important to focus on building up your ability to turn out your own supporters than it is to strategize about how to assuage the fears of the people who are never ever going to vote for you in large numbers anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 23:02
|
|