|
I want the Dem primary to be as big as possible, since apparently Dems care too much about the presidency and more people need to be brought in to build new infrastructure independent if the party basically everywhere. Of course, if we're talking about it being Bernie Sanders and all his people go back to talking about how "real change doesn't come with voting, it comes with symbolic social activism" after losing like the Nader people I worked with, then gently caress it.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
The Democratic Party below Clinton and a few of those senators is so utterly hosed. The bench is empty everywhere. There's no current governor that could run, and if you wanted to make a break from Obama, that's the way to go. But it's probably a bad idea to alienate the 40% that still likes him, and Clinton is more likely not to do that. I'd be more worried about a lack of any coattails from anyone, including Clinton. Not because she's not good, but because 2010 and 2014 decimated the bench. In other words, if Clinton loses, the Dems are probably going to be a ripe carcass for picking up and driving towards anything that seems like a plan, good or bad. It could work like the Tea Party. It could be the spark of a new left party that wins. Or it could end up like the Labour Party in 1983 and the only way out will be to go even more corporate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
oldswitcheroo posted:http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/jim-webb-women-cant-fight/ On the other hand, it's probably better to have him talk about the working class and economic populism than a 70-something year old socialist who wants to run from Vermont. Neither is going to draw the female/minority vote, but only one can draw in (maybe) some of the lost white voters that they need in the rust belt. People need to realize invoking the Koch brothers does poo poo-all among these voters because the avg person doesn't read DailyKos. Those people that know who the Koch brothers are already vote reliably Dem in every election. I don't know of any significant # of activists in the base that actually do stay home, even if they hate the candidates.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Bernie Sanders probably wouldn't generate a ton of enthusiasm among minorities or women. Jim Webb will actively depress enthusiasm because it's not that he doesn't have positions specific to women/minorities, it's that he has bad positions specific to women/minorities. If I was any sort of mover or shaker on the left, I'd want anyone else other than these two to be making that argument in that case, and Elizabeth Warren is more useful in the Ted Kennedy role of crafting legislation (I said the same thing about Obama). I literally can think of no one else who would help. The bench isn't there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Gutierrez on the national stage? Hmm... he'd make Rubio or Cruz look like a Tio Tomas. That would be a hell of a way to win Latinos back into the fold. I guess you haven't caught on that MIGF thinks literally every Illinois pol is on track to be nominee for Prez/VP. See: Vice President Rahm Emmanuel, President Bruce Rauner. Either Castro (preferably Julian, let Joaquin run the DCCC) is absolutely capable and progressive enough to get low info but D-learning young and Latino voters onboard. He won't run against Hillary, though. He wouldn't want to cross the Clinton's this early in his career. De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Nov 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I would honestly love for Rand Paul to be the (R) nominee because I want to see if there's anything else hilarious that can fall out of that tree when you shake it. We've had plagiarism, we've had the Southern Avenger, we've had Aqua Buddha, and I'm hoping there's more somewhere he's been able to hide so far. - the fact that he runs his own physician certification group, that he used to certify himself. - the budget he wrote where he zeroed out the budget for basically any agency he'd never heard of (I worked for one of those agencies at the time and he never bothered to explain why he'd do that, but we had a super ambiguous name that said nothing about what we did, but losing us would gently caress up IT security something fierce). - go back to 2007-08 when no one knew who he was and he was running around on his father's campaign, I'm sure he was much closer to Lew Rockwell then. I mean, I'm sure he'll totally sanitize himself and get people like Mitch to be surrogates, but he'll lose the sort of people who inspired the creation of LF in the process, unless they've finally, inevitably sold out, too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
I don't think Sanders will be any more effective than Kucinich. The media won't treat them as anything but a protest vote since he doesn't look or act very "Presidential" and even if he's not a weird little elfin man that the media goaded into talking about UFOs (and who was an Bashir al-Assad apologist) like Kucinich, he still bills himself as a socialist, which screams "I am a candidate running as a protest, don't take me seriously." Having been through 2 Nader campaigns and Kucinich in 2004 myself, I can't say it left me very idealistic about these sorts of candidacies. Who was talking about Nader's issues after that campaign? No one new who wasn't already on board and marginalized politically by the mainstream, that's for sure But hey, might as well do it since the rest of the party is inept. Maybe it's time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
About that age problem Hillary may have... http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/11/11/how_old_is_hillary_clinton_many_americans_don_t_know.html?wpsrc=fol_fb quote:Young people don’t even perceive Clinton as particularly old. According to a recent Pew survey, an incredible 69% of 18-29 year olds think Clinton is either in her 50s or younger. Just 27% accurately place her age as between 60 and 69, while only 2% say she’s older than 70.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:That's a picture from 2009 at age 61. I would hope she didn't look 69 back then! Here's how she looked stumping for Landrieu: She doesn't look any worse than Angela Merkel, FWIW.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Julian Castro seems like he'd be in line for a better cabinet post first. Not sure what. Ambassador to Mexico or the UN? HHS? He could run the DNC, but you can't go from that to President. You'd need some other high profile gig in between (ala HW Bush). Thing is, how long until his youth appeal is gone and he's no more special than Bill Richardson was?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Foyes36 posted:Didn't he show some vague signs of economic populism too that scared off more establishment figures? I have no clue what it was, if anything. He supports the FairTax, which sounds populist (end taxation on your already low income and get a prebate on part of your sales tax if you're poor!) until you think more about it (all our revenue dependent on sales tax? No way that's revenue neutral. Also, if you are in a mid-bracket, you still pay like a 20% total sales tax). http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/29/huckabee-a-tax-is-punishment.html
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Dude wrote a diet book. How can we expect him to lead by example when he can't lead himself with his own advice?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Can anyone here comment on the odds of getting to go to the convention as a delegate if you are a mere peasant or if you supported a losing candidate? I think I finally want to do this. In 2008 I was too busy and in 2004 I backed someone who got 0 delegates in my state and I just didn't try. I do know my odds are improved for the DNC now that I live in a R+12 district! De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Probably zero, but you're in North Carolina, IIRC. In that state, delegates to the DNC are awarded proportionally by congressional district with a 15% viability threshold. So work your butt off for a candidate (and also donate a ton of cash if it's a major candidate) and if you suck up enough to their campaign and they do well enough in your CD, they might put you on the delegate slate. I'm actually in VA now (I've moved back and forth). Our CD is pretty hollow. There's one real city and a lot of country. We have 8 people at meetings on a good night. I'm sure more friends of the few electeds we have will come out of the woodwork for this, but if I'm ever going to get it, nows the time. If I move back to civilization, I'm sure it'll be much harder. FYI: I do remember that, for comparison, my current district sent 65 delegates to state convention in 2012. Others sent 250+. With an open primary, I'm sure it'll change, but it's a small pond. Of course, I may waste my time on Sanders and end up with nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Remember that "Cruz to the Future" coloring book from last year? According to Vox, the creators are back with a new supplement entitled "Ted Cruz Saves America", apparently from snakes representing "high taxes", "illegal immigration" and "lawlessness" among others. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1619530945/ref=pd_aw_sims_2?pi=SL500_SY115&simLd=1 The coloring book with principals.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Are you an elected official at the local, state, or federal level? Are you employed by the city/county/state due to a political appointment? Do you seemingly switch between government offices and campaign work, based on which candidate you worked for actually won? In these cases, you have a good chance of being part of your state delegation. We have a grand total of 3 elected state delegates or senators in this district (actually only 1 seat is fully in the district, but all of them live here). The only time a Dem held this district in my parents lifetime was for a couple years post-Watergate. It has a long GOP heritage and more in common with rural PA and MD than the South. Most county positions are GOP, outside a few independents who would be Dems if it wasn't a liability. I am a precinct committeeman. The largest localities are GOP-dominated, except mine, where we still have a paltry committee despite holding the mayors office and a 4-2 advantage on council. We are the 2nd most rural district in the state and even more devoid of Dem-leaning activists when you consider that the most rural has a decent union presence. I have a shot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You forgot Eastern European, and Mid-Eastern. And NFC East
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
I was a Green Party member in college, but it was 100% because of Nader 2000. I didn't stay past 2004 because regardless of positions (many more people were there for Nader then than for the pseudoscience stuff, though being anti-nuke was common and I've changed my position on that), they were a waste of time in my part of the country. I do know that of the most involved members, most moved on to more left-wing groups. I know a couple ended up with PSL after moving to NYC. The top issues, I would say, in the state party when I was there were ballot access, weed, farmworker organizing, and above all else opposing the Iraq War. There were plenty hippies involved, but aside from I think some anti-GMO stuff (which I never cared about, really), their issues rode far behind Iraq in 2001-2004 for obvious reasons. I came for Nader and weed as an 18 year old and stayed because of the war and labor rights. I will say that, based on what I remember of our allies with the Libertarians who we worked with on ballot access, they had a sizeable pseudoscience contingent as well. A lot of why they oppose the AMA and FDA isn't just for Milton Friedman reasons, but also because they think they suppress "real natural cures."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:I thought Cornell was the dumbest Ivy League school... Yeah, I'm sure his pro-Assad activities will go over well. What bravery. Seriously, you can be anti-war without going to hang out with him and then say you trust and believe in his commitment to human rights. A better thing to do would be, for instance, nothing. De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
VA would be a great place for the parties to hold early primaries so that they can get the candidates in there and hopefully have them test their own GOTV efforts on the State Senate elections in 2015. The downside is that, with a state or federal election here every year, you risk voter fatigue and/or taking attention away from the VA elections in favor of presidential debates and events .
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:If all the states allotted EV's proportionally, would Romney have won? Yes. It was the first time the winner of the popular vote lost a majority of CDs. http://cookpolitical.com/story/5606
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Remind me, is Represent.us the group that that stupid guy was trying to promote on the forums? I got invited to some event for a new chapter here. I know this group is Lessig-related, and I think his was too? What was the problem with them? The release promotes them working with Occupy and the Tea Party, which is basically about the worst combination of people I can imagine trying to work with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:That was MayOne. Unless they're both related, of course. I can't keep them straight. Lessig is related to both, and they had some link to Aaron Swartz's group, and there's the "Super PAC to end Super PACs," but there's the "Anti-Corruption Pledge" and the "Anti-Corruption Act" and "Move To Amend" and I have no idea. Apparently the person to contact here is a former PIRG staffer which I'm down with but it all seems so drat convoluted right now. This group claims credit for passing local anti-corruption bills. Maybe that's their thing, and not electoral work?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
I'm generally skeptical of "lobby reform" because it seems to be assumed by liberals supporting them that a neutral state of governing w/o lobbyists would favor them. As if only money is influencing and it only moves things towards Wall Street because it's money. Sure those groups have more money, but at least if you allow lobbying and regulate it, someone passionate about a little-cared about cause like homeless youth or an odd regulation on local watershed maintenance or some random steel mill has a voice, too. They're more likely going to listen to a lobby group than a bunch of obnoxious letters. At the heart is this assumption that without money, people are naturally logical.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
It's actually a good book, esp if you're from Appalachia. I'm assuming he'll be more pointed in his economic criticisms of Clinton, probably from a populist perspective, possibly more left-leaning. At least someone will talk about someone that's poor and not The Middle Class, even if it's just as some sort of cultural identifier that probably won't work since the Democrats are pretty solidly seen as the coastal liberal party and that's where the $ is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Being in Virginia, Jim Webb stuff has started showing up on FB. People either are apathetic or hate him (more often because of his environmental stances?). There's one guy who's excited about him. He posts at least 3 things a day about police brutality. I guess that's his constituency because of his support for sentencing reform?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Jeb Bush was railing against teachers' unions again. He's primarily responsible for our awful education system here in FL (which he overhauled as governor). It always makes me both chuckle and cringe when a politician in a RTW state with no unionization history tries going after POWERFUL UNIONS. Politicians in NC run against teacher unions...despite their being effectively banned. Good luck convincing Iowa evangelicals to buy in on CommonCore.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Someday, someday the Party for Socialism and Liberation will put enough fear into the Democrats to drive them to be a anti-Israel left wing party. That right kind of class consciousness will hit like a bolt of lightening. It's scientific. Til then, I hope that Law and Order candidate is Lindsey Graham. Or Fred Thompson.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:What, precisely, is the difference between the Tea Party and the Silent Majority? The Silent Majority was a reaction to hippies and privileged college kids spitting on their privilege by seizing colleges. The SM was largely working class and saw kids with better life chances than then pissing on their gift in the name of supporting communists in Vietnam or militant blacks who were given the "gift" of Affirmative Action as petulant babies. The SM phenomenon must not be confused with backlashes against Civil Rights in general, better associated with Dixiecrats and Goldwater. Nixons exploitation of this came after the peaceful King-led movement had died down in the media in favor of militants and the war in Vietnam was center-stage. SM-associated politicians still in many cases supported deficit spending and "big government" intervention in the economy (See: Scoop Jackson, Nixon, Rockefeller). While the Tea Party is a purist movement, the Silent Majority was a cynical exploitation of working class resentment against certain perceived "privileges." It would eventually be fused with more purist principals under Ronald Reagan's leadership, though he had long been of this ilk, just not as a GOP-standard bearer.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Why, some may say that an empty suit like Romney stands for...nothin' at all!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Get ready for the yoogest, classiest Presidential campaign ever! The Donald is "very strongly" thinking about running. I'm trying to be less upset and angry about politics, but goddamn can this man please be kidnapped by African warlords and forced to perform manual labor for them for the rest of his years or something? Just so we can see him break down and kill himself over working for a black man?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
In what world is there a significant part of the active Tea Party that isn't also part of the Religious Right? Much of Paul's outreach is on homeschooling and I don't know of any way Huckabee differs on economics, aside from knowing how to better make it sound like compassion. I think some of you are forgetting how well Huckabee did at being affable and getting earned media off of that in 2008. Santorum sounds like a prick. Huck sounds like your favorite kind uncle. Cruz is the guy everyone hated in debate. Paul taaaalllkkkss liiike thiiiis. Huckabee is the closest thing to a Reagan-like communicator the GOP has. Someone can say he did xyz as gov and he can brush it off and say "there you go again" and turn to talking about working hard when he was a young man at American Values and free markets for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and everyone will say "he's so nice sounding!" De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Would McCoy be McCrory? The guy who called Charlotte the capital of the state he governs and whose one big issue he touts is how he cut unemployment benefits solely so he could officially have more people not count against his unemployment numbers? Yeah...why?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
With regards to the "you don't need white working class voters": while I suppose you could reproduce 2012 in 2016 easily, trying to ignore or even alienate them beyond that is tough, especially for House races in the near term without some momentous court case that bans gerrymandering (it won't happen). Right now there are still a number of "blue wall" or even swing states states that are shrinking and becoming older and whiter (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania). If the counterbalance is Texas (good loving luck), this might be an issue. It is possible to be pro-working class of all types and not alienate the parts of the "base" that don't already alienate easily anyway ("no full coal AND nuke ban? Not my President!") and are pretty irrelevant. I mean, Webb is going nowhere, but I've seen a lot of people say his environmental stances are the biggest issue and there are big chunks of the Obama Coalition for whom those issues are not at the top (recent immigrants, Hispanics, poorer African Americans). I don't expect that Hillary will be running that far away from Webb's positions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Oh, see, when I talk about Webb alienating the base, I don't mean self-described progressives or environmentalists, I mean the actual base - new Americans, women, Hispanics, African-Americans. I get that about Webb, but beyond that, it seems like the entire "ignore the white working class" strategy is prefaced on "demographics as destiny" and especially on strategies like assuming Texas, Arizona, and Georgia are on the way and will replace or be added to shrinking, whiter states like in the MW. They're still gonna need seats and votes in areas where you can't win on War on Women and the DREAM Act. They'd be better off focusing on more cross-categorical stuff. I think Hillary gets that, more than Webb whose looking to get anti-Obama voters (though his criminal justice reforms are something that could be cross-categorical if anyone will listen) and Sanders whose just being an old socialist. De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Are you dumb because almost every moderate democrat lost in 2014 while the "crazies" did pretty well. The democrat problem isn't one of policy, it's one of messaging. Although it is pretty funny now that the party has shifted farther to the left thanks to 2014 it means that when the party gets back in power it will be TAXES, TAXES, TAXES as opposed to retarded neo-liberal poo poo. Crazies that won? He's talking about red districts. Candidates that were far to the left won in very blue districts, unless you can show me a red or even purple district where "crazies" or Progressive Caucus types won. Crazies have to run in red districts (like mine) because no one sane wants to waste their time. Voters don't reward that sort of "bravery." De Nomolos fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:If she's not on drugs, she is seriously deranged. That made no loving sense, and yet, people are hailing it as a slamdunk on the Dems. An 800 pound Elephant? What the hell. I just... We're gonna smash them liberal Democrat Party of the tax n spenders with a tiny elephant! This guy's going to be the Pawlenty of 2016, but it doesn't mean he can't be weirder in the process: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...pm_politics_pop quote:But Jindal's keynote address at the event came as he has been courting Christian conservatives in advance of a possible run for president, meeting with pastors in the early battleground states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Former Texas governor Rick Perry hosted the same event, known as "The Response," in 2011, just before announcing he was running for president. Hell of a track record there. And here's one of his co-participants: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cindy-jacobs-i-have-power-revive-dead-children quote:The bible says the same power is in us that raised Christ Jesus from the dead. I see someone; you literally had a child that just died. And I speak to the spirit of death in that child in the name of Jesus and I command you to lead that child. I speak to the spirit of infirmity that caused the child’s death and I say “Live in Jesus name! Live!’ And I see a child coughing, waking up, oh we saw that in Pakistan, we saw a little boy raised from the dead, just like that He's going to get high on painkillers and use the exorcism stuff as a part of his pitch, isn't he? I really hope he runs because I really think he can outweird Santorum with their weird Catholic-Millenarianism hybrid. Throw in some "NOT MY POPE" bashing and you've got yourself a stew going.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Palin-Bobby Jindal 2016, but Bobby has to come riding onstage for all events on a tricycle with that crazy circus music theme playing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
I support the idea of picking cabinet members, big city mayors, and other non-electeds for any slot because the Dem electeds bench sucks. Obama's picks were terrible from a standpoint of opening up vulnerable or GOP-leaning seats. They were a Christine ODonnell away from losing Diamond Joe's seat.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
Non-Controversial opinion: Cheney was the most consequential VP of all time and will likely never be matched. He belongs alongside Metternich in the annals of consequential ministers in the Western world.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2015 16:13
|
|