Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Kapture1]

[hack]

Seems like it's Biden's to lose. I do wonder if Bloomberg is too stiff to campaign against Trump. I wouldn't be shocked if Harris loses to Trump. Biden certainly has the charm and gravitas to counter the way in which Trump's personality sets the tone.

[iam416]

Biden is also a bit flippant here and there and there used to be a concern that he'd say something ranging from a little off to slightly crazy. That's not much of a concern in today's new normal of PDJT.

They won't nominate him.

[Kapture1]

Warren did it to herself.

She proved that she might be the whitest person in the US Senate at 99.99%. She could have gotten a win out of this, aside from not releasing the results publicly. She could have talked about stories in her family and how they got passed around and repeated and growing up with those stories, you never think to sit down and check. Apologized for being misleading and what not, and moved on.

But she is not doing that, she is doubling down like this vindicates her. Like this vindicates her signing her name in Pow Wow Chow as a Cherokee. Misrepresenting herself on federal forms as native American while teaching at Harvard. thinks this vindicates her for her MeMaw and PawPaw story about his family being bigots because her mom was "part Cherokee and part Delaware" lol. And to think, Harvard listed her as their first woman of color on staff lmao

She's a joke, and will never be president. Nasty Woman.

[hack]

Agreed, but it does seem that the pace of those Biden gaffes really slowed.

You think it's Harris? I guess I wouldn't be surprised. I just don't see what's to like. It just seems to me she's more outwardly ambitious. Talked about as presidential material only because she's been talked about as presidential material before.

[Kapture1]

Democrats need to cut commercials of Cocaine Mitch talking about how we need to look at cuts to Social Security, Medicaire, and Medicaid in order to get the deficit under control. Raising taxes on the wealthy or corporations is apparently a non-starter. The Republican tax cut was a political bomb for them, which is why most of the R's aren't even talking bout it. Fewer than 40% of Americans approve of it and there was a Fox poll recently that indicated only about a third said that they had noticed a bump in their paycheck because of it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-16/mcconnell-blames-entitlements-not-gop-for-rising-deficits

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/23/fox-news-poll-obamacare-gop-tax-cuts/1074570002/

they're too busy with that lazer light that Trump is running up and down the wall.


You ask why he says the things he does. I told you why.

[hack]

To be clear, IMO a Biden presidency would be bad news longterm. We'd go back to the patrician nonsense that fueled Trump-voter anger -- those meaningless bromides and empty reassurances. They'd be in service of that hollowed-out, unmitigated form of neoliberalism that progressives hate. A restoration of US control and emphasis on the international organizations it uses to enhance its global power would be the primary benefit, I would guess.

[iam416]

You think it's Harris? I guess I wouldn't be surprised. I just don't see what's to like. It just seems to me she's more outwardly ambitious. Talked about as presidential material only because she's been talked about as presidential material before.

I'm just trying to work through the process of elimination.

I think you have Sanders, Biden and Warren in one group. Very well-established, huge name value politicians.

I think you have the nakedly ambitious but credible because identity: Harris, Booker and Gillibrand.

I think you have the "Outsiders" -- Bloomberg, Avenatti (lol), Steyer (?).

I think you also have the middle america sensible under the radar -- Klobucahr, the dude from Colorado, ?

So, the Ds don't run a "winner takes all" primary. So it's possible to stay in for a lot longer than the Rs -- where DJT was killing people in delegate numbers winning 35%.

IMO, the Outsiders just don't have a chance. Bloomberg isn't liberal enough for the primary electorate. And if they want a name-value white male, they're going with Sanders or Biden. Avenatti is a joke, thankfully.

Of the nakedly ambitious "identities" -- Booker, I think is, amateur how. Gillibrand has a lot of baggage from her days as an upstate NY congresswoman. Harris is way more polished than Booker and more pure than Gillibrand and it's not going to hurt that she's AA.

Of the middle America "centrists" -- I don't see it. I'm intrigued by Klobuchar. From the few moments I saw her in the Kav hearings she struck me as legitimately serious and appropriately respectful of the venue. Plus, she's Minnesota which is liberal for B10 country but not so much vis-a-vis the coasts. In any event, I just don't see the name value for anyone in this group.

Of the established group, I think they're all fighting for the same pool of voters an I think Biden easily beats the other two. And, look, Sanders and Warren can surely pick up progressive votes and maybe they will. But I view it more as "old blood" vs. "new blood" as opposed to centrist policies vs progressive policies. That could be way wrong.

So, I'd pick Biden as the choice of "establishment" Ds and Harris as the choice of "progressive" Ds. And ultimately, I think the Ds are really in a "new blood" mode and will eventually pick Harris. I mean, California is toward the end of the process so if she can position herself as a top 2 choice by then she will be in great shape.

Another point -- the 2018 elections may nudge the Ds in a certain direction. If, e.g., AAs in Georgia and Florida can win governor's races then you're looking at that and saying -- fuck them centrists, it's all about motivation and turnout. If they lose and the midwest goes hugely D -- as it will -- then maybe the message is ride with someone who can win the B10 states.

Finally, with the proportional delegates and so many names in the hat, it's possible we get to the convention with no candidate over 50%. Maybe Sanders runs his ass off again and sticks to the end along with Biden and Harris. That'd be some crazy as shit.

If I were running the DNC I'd focus on the B10 states. I'd focus on re-establishing the "blue wall". I'd want someone who was going to crush it in Michigan and Wisconsin, probably win Pennsylvania and be at least a coin flip in Ohio. And any candidate who can do that will also put Florida into play. That's it. They may win the B10 states regardless, but it'd be nice for them to firmly re-secure Michigan and Wisconsin. I think Biden can do that. I'm not sure about Harris. But, I tend to think the Ds eschew the bygone liberalism of Biden and go with a progressive and someone fresh and I think Harris is the best bet to be that person.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I think if Biden wanted it, he would win. I don't know if his health and heart would be up to it. Even though he's the centrist choice. He's not Hillary. He's got a generally affable personality. And him being close to Obama is enough to cause a lot of progs to vote for him.

[iam416]

Yeah, the Obama Halo Effect is pretty huge.

[Ghengis Jon]

...If I were running the DNC I'd focus on the B10 states....

I think that's a pretty accurate assessment. Unless he bows out, I think Biden will lock the nomination. But that certainly doesn't guarantee the general election. If Joe picks a Sanders/Warren type as a running mate to appease the liberal wing, it'll be 2016 all over again with the dems winning the popular vote and getting another opportunity to destroy this nation. Biden will have to pick a 2nd amendment dem like Connor Lamb to anchor the center and give the eternal fence sitting voters a reason not to vote for Putin's cock holster. The upside for Biden is that he can avoid the uber progressive choice and the BernieBots won't sit home pouting if the Orange Menace is the alternative.

I guess that underlines my fears of the current state of politics. I don't think the progressive wing will have the votes to win for another couple of election cycles. Then I expect them to be as toxic as the dumfuks we have today. Replacing one pile of steaming shit with another pile would hardly be productive.

[froot loops]

Any Senator that has ambitions about the Presidency needs to run earlier than expected.

If this year's election is any indication, I don't think you have to worry about the candidate so much for a state like Michigan. The amount of ads in 2018 for Democratic candidates dwarfs 2016. 2016 was the weirdest year for a Presidential election. For years it was a true battleground but in name only, by that I mean a lot of resources and campaign visits and the states electoral really had no bearing on the election. 2016 was the closest it has ever come to being a tipping point state and it wasn't contested on the airwaves at all until the last two weeks. Trump visited the state a lot more than Clinton. They must have believed their own hype.

[Kapture1]

I am predicting Michael Avenatti lmao

[Kapture1]

bhqa7gcj3qs11.jpg?width=644&auto=webp&s=3247111d9183548d228c9c67ebef4afe043bd8ba.jpg

[iam416]

Jon:

The Progressives can win if they jettison, or at least back shelf, their nonsense intersectionalism identity shit and focus on economic issues. Health care is a winner for them as it is currently constituted. Taxes are probably a winner for them. They can do well when it make "us for you" and they do not do well when they make "us versus them".