2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
5,547
Brent Welder. He campaigned on M4A and $15 minimum wage while Davids was more open to compromise. And yes, Welder was a Bernie supporter.
There you go. If you're a progressive candidate and not on Team Bernie there's a target on your back from the Justice Democrats. Which will push those progressives toward the centre, with the liberals and centrists, simply to survive. Which is crazy the JD's will isolate themselves further with those tactics, particularly with rising stars like Hakeem Jeffries, who's being groomed for Speaker one day.

Seems pretty clear why AOC would go that way no?
Liking him more for things like that is fine, it's endorsing candidates like that in Dem primaries which is the problem. The dude didn't win and now AOC's got to win over Sharice in congress, someone who she otherwise would be an easy sell without this drama.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,937
Sydney
Liking him more for things like that is fine, it's endorsing candidates like that in Dem primaries which is the problem. The dude didn't win and now AOC's got to win over Sharice in congress, someone who she otherwise would be an easy sell without this drama.
Maybe but that doesn’t have anything to do with why she made her endorsement. She endorsed him because ideologically he’s more similar to her than Davids is.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,676
🇨🇦 🌎 🌌
Oct 27, 2017
288
For the record, AOC had this to say on the subject:


https://twitter.com/AngryBlackLady/status/1021139079335895040
5:05 PM - 22 Jul 2018
Why are you not backing @sharicedavids, @Ocasio2018? I’m wondering. As are a lot of people. I’m trying to maintain positivity about AOC, but like, win your race and make your own mark in Congress. I don’t understand the point of campaigning in Kansas for a white dude, especially against a native woman. I just don’t get it.
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1021151104917221377
5:52 PM - 22 Jul 2018
Hey Imani, I find Sharice fabulous and inspiring. Our teams are in touch as well. In this particular primary, there is only one candidate that has committed to Medicare for All, tuition-free college, and rejects corporate money, and those issues happen to be important to me.
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1021152422180376576
As for gender in endorsements, I believe the majority of my endorsements have gone towards women and women of color. I’ve endorsed queer women as well. And should Sharice win, she can count on my full and enthusiastic support in helping her flip this seat too.
Also, looks like this site collected some of the discussion that was taking place online at the time (haven't reviewed the piece fully, to determine if they've chosen the best or most representative advocates for either 'side', but it may still be of some interest to folks so I thought I'd go ahead and include it in this post).
 
Last edited:

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
5,547

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,676
🇨🇦 🌎 🌌
For the record, AOC had this to say on the subject:





Also, looks like this site collected some of the discussion that was taking place online at the time (haven't reviewed the piece fully, to determine if they've chosen the best or most representative advocates for either 'side', but it may still be of some interest to folks so I thought I'd go ahead and include it in this post).
AOC mentions supporting women and queers but there is no mention of support for indigenous peoples. That's where it looks like the line was drawn. It wasn't just an endorsement either, they held rallies. They worked hard against her. Proud of Kansas kicking their asses and candidate to the curb.
Especially after reading this:
Davids worked as a lawyer on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, the poorest county in America. Her supporters resent that work being characterized as "corporate" by her political opponents.
It sure doesn't appear that Bernie and AOC care about indigenous peoples unless, of course, they meet their ideological standards. If not, well, their attitude and actions say "fuck 'em. we got the more important demos covered". Then say a few nice platitudes before they try to bury them.
 

Darryl M R

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,502
AOC mentions supporting women and queers but there is no mention of support for indigenous peoples. That's where it looks like the line was drawn. It wasn't just an endorsement either, they held rallies. They worked hard against her. Proud of Kansas kicking their asses and candidate to the curb.
Especially after reading this:
Davids worked as a lawyer on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, the poorest county in America. Her supporters resent that work being characterized as "corporate" by her political opponents.
It sure doesn't appear that Bernie and AOC care about indigenous peoples unless, of course, they meet their ideological standards. If not, well, their attitude and actions say "fuck 'em. we got the more important demos". Then say a few nice platitudes before they try to bury them.
Any chance she included them in the phrasing “women of color”?
 

Helio

Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,550
It is possible that it could be under that, but it's not clear. That also doesn't excuse the attempt to primary indigenous representation over ideological purity when it sounds like they let others slide.
Ultimately, if all you care about is representation, then this would be disappointing to you. However, I and many others care about representation as well as policies because those policies ultimately will help or hinder people. We want people to be helped, so we do select for those who want M4A, free college, and a $15 min wage.

If representation was all we cared about, we’d only be endorsing minorities no matter their stances. We could be endorsing Ben Carson over Gillibrand.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,676
🇨🇦 🌎 🌌
Ultimately, if all you care about is representation, then this would be disappointing to you. However, I and many others care about representation as well as policies because those policies ultimately will help or hinder people. We want people to be helped, so we do select for those who want M4A, free college, and a $15 min wage.

If representation was all we cared about, we’d only be endorsing minorities no matter their stances. We could be endorsing Ben Carson over Gillibrand.
The most important difference, besides her being a Democrat in this comparison with Carson, is there wasn't any indigenous women in Congress at the time and none previously in the history of the nation. None. Zero. Ideology was more important to them then this fact. And it wasn't that she wasn't qualified for the job, she is and that makes it seem even worse.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
5,547
Close enough to what? Work with? Sounds like she's perfectly willing to work with her. Haven't really seen any indication Davids would hold it against her either.
To her ideology. Sharice is a progressive, the Justice Democrats don't own the trademark for that category. Whoever won AOC would be a colleague in the House with, which means AOC would be angling for her vote on things like bill and committee leaderships. The winner was Sharice, and now that might be harder because of this. People the these things personal, it's why the party doesn't do it. AOC willing to work with Sharice is at risk of being undermined because of these tactics,

Not every politician is going to say that out loud, either. That isn't proof Sharice doesn't hold a grudge, in conditions where a grudge would be a natural response. Maybe you're right Sharice is ok with it, but AOC still put that at risk anyway, which is reckless. This is how you make enemies. This is why you don't see the Justice Dems politicians doing this to their own candidates in primaries.

One is clearly more progressive than the other. That’s why she made a choice.
That comment wasn't about why she chose him over him, it was the strategy itself. The Justice Democrats are free to isolate themselves, and they have only themselves to blame.
 

Melkr_

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,739
AOC mentions supporting women and queers but there is no mention of support for indigenous peoples. That's where it looks like the line was drawn. It wasn't just an endorsement either, they held rallies. They worked hard against her. Proud of Kansas kicking their asses and candidate to the curb.
Especially after reading this:
Davids worked as a lawyer on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, the poorest county in America. Her supporters resent that work being characterized as "corporate" by her political opponents.
It sure doesn't appear that Bernie and AOC care about indigenous peoples unless, of course, they meet their ideological standards. If not, well, their attitude and actions say "fuck 'em. we got the more important demos covered". Then say a few nice platitudes before they try to bury them.
Should we support Tulsi Gabbard because she is from a very under represented minority and because she is proggresive-ish in certain areas? There is a very clear divide in the Dem Party, and that divide is not drawn in race or gender...it is a clear ideological divide between demsocs and liberals. And AOC is a demsoc. Of course she will support someone on her side. If there is an indigenous candidate that is a DemSoc she will support it. Unless you are pushing an agenda, it should be obvious.

The most important difference, besides her being a Democrat in this comparison with Carson, is there wasn't any indigenous women in Congress at the time and none previously in the history of the nation. None. Zero. Ideology was more important to them then this fact. And it wasn't that she wasn't qualified for the job, she is and that makes it seem even worse.
There has never been a woman of color in the presidency, so everyone should *ONLY* support Tulsi Gabbard or Kamala Harris.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
5,547
Ultimately, if all you care about is representation, then this would be disappointing to you. However, I and many others care about representation as well as policies because those policies ultimately will help or hinder people. We want people to be helped, so we do select for those who want M4A, free college, and a $15 min wage.

If representation was all we cared about, we’d only be endorsing minorities no matter their stances. We could be endorsing Ben Carson over Gillibrand.
Why wouldn't we care about representation? Democrats are all about this, it's a strength in the party. One that has benefited AOC herself, and numerous other minorities in the party. The party who doesn't care about this is the Republicans. Surely you'll find many things she's said with interviews on her policies positive. She's very impressive, reminds me of AOC in some respects and won election in Kansas.

Sharice Davids' is a progressive Democrat, not a Republican.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,937
Sydney
To her ideology. Sharice is a progressive, the Justice Democrats don't own the trademark for that category. Whoever won AOC would be a colleague in the House with, which means AOC would be angling for her vote on things like bill and committee leaderships. The winner was Sharice, and now that might be harder because of this. People the these things personal, it's why the party doesn't do it. AOC willing to work with Sharice is at risk of being undermined because of these tactics,

Not every politician is going to say that out loud, either. That isn't proof Sharice doesn't hold a grudge, in conditions where a grudge would be a natural response. Maybe you're right Sharice is ok with it, but AOC still put that at risk anyway, which is reckless. This is how you make enemies. This is why you don't see the Justice Dems politicians doing this to their own candidates in primaries.
That’s politics. Sometimes you have to bury the hatchet and focus on a common enemy. You got to work with what you get.

A lot of people currently in Congress and positions of power and influence, endorsed Crowley over AOC too. And Pelosi will have to try and work with people who opposed her Speakership. And Clinton worked for Obama as Secretary of State after a long and challenging Primary.

It’s just the nature of the beast.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
5,547
Should we support Tulsi Gabbard because she is from a very under represented minority and because she is proggresive-ish in certain areas? There is a very clear divide in the Dem Party, and that divide is not drawn in race or gender...it is a clear ideological divide between demsocs and liberals. And AOC is a demsoc. Of course she will support someone on her side. If there is an indigenous candidate that is a DemSoc she will support it. Unless you are pushing an agenda, it should be obvious.
No-one is suggesting minority candidates only being supported because of their race, this is a frame I typically see from Republicans to undermine minorities. Disappointing to see someone from the left use it. Sharice isn't a liberal, she's a progressive. But they won't support an indigenous candidate that is a progressive, they have to be ideologically pure or they get primaried.

There has never been a woman of color in the presidency, so everyone should *ONLY* support Tulsi Gabbard or Kamala Harris.
This is disingenuous, as we're not for diversity alone, the candidates being qualified on their own in default - unless it's for candidates like Tulsi, but that's about her policies, not her being Samoan-American.
 

Helio

Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,550
The most important difference, besides her being a Democrat in this comparison with Carson, is there wasn't any indigenous women in Congress at the time and none previously in the history of the nation. None. Zero. Ideology was more important to them then this fact. And it wasn't that she wasn't qualified for the job, she is and that makes it seem even worse.
So you’re just arguing for tokenism and don’t care about policy.
the Justice Democrats don't own the trademark for that category.
No one said that the Justice Dems are the arbiters of who is progressive or not. It also doesn’t matter. What matters is how policies affect people and one candidate had better policies than the other. Simple as that.


Why wouldn't we care about representation? Democrats are all about this, it's a strength in the party. One that has benefited AOC herself, and numerous other minorities in the party. The party who doesn't care about this is the Republicans. Surely you'll find many things she's said with interviews on her policies positive. She's very impressive, reminds me of AOC in some respects and won election in Kansas.

Sharice Davids' is a progressive Democrat, not a Republican.
I said if all you care about was representation. And her policies were good, just not as good as her opponents.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
5,547
That’s politics. Sometimes you have to bury the hatchet and focus on a common enemy. You got to work with what you get.

A lot of people currently in Congress and positions of power and influence, endorsed Crowley over AOC too. And Pelosi will have to try and work with people who opposed her Speakership. And Clinton worked for Obama as Secretary of State after a long and challenging Primary.

It’s just the nature of the beast.
Politics is also about picking your battles and trying to not implode. You don't do whatever you want and not expect reprisals. If AOC and the Justice Dems don't want enemies this is a horrible path to accomplishing that. These people don't owe the Justice Dems anything.

Pelosi knows how to that, AOC has a long road to get to her level. Another difference is that Pelosi has leverage with her relationships in the House and being Speaker, AOC is a freshman with no leadership assignments.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,937
Sydney
Politics is also about picking your battles and trying to not implode. You don't do whatever you want and not expect reprisals. If AOC and the Justice Dems don't want enemies this is a horrible path to accomplishing that. These people don't owe the Justice Dems anything.

Pelosi knows how to that, AOC has a long road to get to her level. Another difference is that Pelosi has leverage with her relationships in the House and being Speaker, AOC is a freshman with no leadership assignments.
Yeah but on that metric you can hardly say the decision particularly hurt AOC or that she’s imploding. So far she’s done quite well for herself since entering Congress.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
5,547
No one said that the Justice Dems are the arbiters of who is progressive or not. It also doesn’t matter. What matters is how policies affect people and one candidate had better policies than the other. Simple as that.
They're acting is that they do and if you're not a progressive on their team you're an enemy to be destroyed during elections. Their justification is irrelevant. Sharice's polices would make her natural ally anyway, now they've potentially ruined that positive relationship from taking place. Over a guy who lost.

I said if all you care about was representation. And her policies were good, just not as good as her opponents.
Her being a minority wasn't enough for the Justice Dems to hesitate to take her out. Her politics were so good AOC wanted to make sure she never got elected in the first place.

Yeah but on that metric you can hardly say the decision particularly hurt AOC or that she’s imploding. So far she’s done quite well for herself since entering Congress.
She's barely done anything in congress. Her first bill died, as well.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,676
🇨🇦 🌎 🌌
Should we support Tulsi Gabbard because she is from a very under represented minority and because she is proggresive-ish in certain areas? There is a very clear divide in the Dem Party, and that divide is not drawn in race or gender...it is a clear ideological divide between demsocs and liberals. And AOC is a demsoc. Of course she will support someone on her side. If there is an indigenous candidate that is a DemSoc she will support it. Unless you are pushing an agenda, it should be obvious.
There has never been a woman of color in the presidency, so everyone should *ONLY* support Tulsi Gabbard or Kamala Harris.
My motivation in this is against indigenous suppression.
Congress has a lot of seats unlike the Presidency and a different argument. Is it worth working hard to suppress qualified Democrat indigenous peoples over an ideological standard for a seat in Congress? Bernie and company seem to think so.
To bring this back around again to his statement, it doesn't seem he wants a partnership with indigenous peoples he wants token Native Americans that meet that standard.
So you’re just arguing for tokenism and don’t care about policy.
No one said that the Justice Dems are the arbiters of who is progressive or not. It also doesn’t matter. What matters is how policies affect people and one candidate had better policies than the other. Simple as that. I said if all you care about was representation. And her policies were good, just not as good as her opponents.
I'm arguing against Bernie's apparent tokenism and attempt to shift that attribute to "opponents" as revealed in his statement and, it seems, by the behavior of some of his supporters.
Nah, her policies aren't only good they were better and she was also more qualified, according to the people that voted for her.
 

Helio

Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,550
They're acting is that they do and if you're not a progressive on their team you're an enemy to be destroyed during elections. Their justification is irrelevant. Sharice's polices would make her natural ally anyway, now they've potentially ruined that positive relationship from taking place. Over a guy who lost.
She was wishy washy in Medicare for All, says the centrist slogan of “access to affordable healthcare”. To me, she doesn’t sound committe to M4A and I’m sure it sounded that way to the Justice Dems. When asked whether or not ICE should be abolished, she didn’t even give a yes or no answer. She wasn’t for debt free college.

For the Justice Dems, AOC, and Bernie, there was a clear choice.
 
Last edited:

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
5,547
I’d say being put on Oversight and Financial Services is pretty good for a Freshman.

Yeah she may implode as you say but if not backing Davids was a risk the downsides of that risk not paying off don’t appear very tangible.
That is at the pleasure of the leaders like Pelosi and Rep. Cummings, don't count on that lasting forever when they're pushed too far by reckless stunts like the JD's have done with the primaries. This is why it's vital they make allies in congress outside their sub-group, especially long lasting and deep ones.

There were no downsides to not endorsing anybody, that's why it was a needless risk. Not doing anything meant once Sharice won their relationship could start fresh whereas now there's a danger that's been poisoned.

She was wushu washy in Medicare for All, says the centrist slogan of “access to affordable healthcare”. To me, she doesn’t sound committe to M4A and I’m sure it sounded that way to the Justice Dems. When asked whether or not ICE should be abolished, she didn’t even give a yes or no answer. She wasn’t for debt free college.

For the Justice Dems, AOC, and Bernie, there was a clear choice.
Fair enough, the question is - will the JD's be able to get her vote? Because that's less of a sure thing now.

They could have made that choice without endorsing anybody.
 

Melkr_

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,739
So weird people think AOC is in danger or imploding or anything like that. She is a superstar. Only Donut Twitter might believe that, and they are as disconnected of the current political realities as it can get.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,937
Sydney
That is at the pleasure of the leaders like Pelosi and Rep. Cummings, don't count on that lasting forever when they're pushed too far by reckless stunts like the JD's have done with the primaries. This is why it's vital they make allies in congress outside their sub-group, especially long lasting and deep ones.

There were no downsides to not endorsing anybody, that's why it was a needless risk. Not doing anything meant once Sharice won their relationship could start fresh whereas now there's a danger that's been poisoned.

They could have made that choice without endorsing anybody.
Yeah it’s risk v reward, and when the reward is bigger than the risk you might take the risk.

I mean that’s she got Pelosi’s favour and is supporting her Speakership thus far sort of demonstrates she isn’t just going 100% purity test and opposing anyone who isn’t in line with her policies.
 

Rael

Member
Oct 26, 2017
499
Ichthyosaurus has been concern trolling about aoc for weeks now, I don't know how they haven't been called out more about it
 

Deleted member 9986

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,248
Politics is also about picking your battles and trying to not implode. You don't do whatever you want and not expect reprisals. If AOC and the Justice Dems don't want enemies this is a horrible path to accomplishing that. These people don't owe the Justice Dems anything.

Pelosi knows how to that, AOC has a long road to get to her level. Another difference is that Pelosi has leverage with her relationships in the House and being Speaker, AOC is a freshman with no leadership assignments.
Why would you NOT want enemies? If you do not have enemies then you do not have integrity.
Do you even have experience in party politics? Because let me tell you that creating alliances and fighting internal battles is part of party politics and the way to change the course.
For a matter of fact just yesterday I was at a meeting with party members to push for a more open migration policy by organising within my own party and creating opposition to the board. This is how it works in real life.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
5,547
Yeah it’s risk v reward, and when the reward is bigger than the risk you might take the risk.

I mean that’s she got Pelosi’s favour and is supporting her Speakership thus far sort of demonstrates she isn’t just going 100% purity test and opposing anyone who isn’t in line with her policies.
While the risks of failure are greater than doing nothing, like primaries progressives like Davids. Which she lost.

That's simply the start of her relationship with Pelosi, she needs to maintain it like everybody else. Pelosi isn't giving her everything with just that, that's not how congress works. This isn't about purity testing, it's making sure you keep on the leader's good side, and don't anger her too much or she'll drop you. The one with the power in this dynamic is Pelosi, not AOC. It's like any other job you have at a company or an organisation.

Get her vote on what? They're not the ones putting bills up to vote.


Are you peeved that they decided to endorse someone in that race?
For leadership positions for committees, and bills she makes and supports, like the New Green Deal.

That's what this debate has been about, and this isn't about me - it's about politicians in the Democratic party. Her duties don't end at her district.

Ichthyosaurus has been concern trolling about aoc for weeks now, I don't know how they haven't been called out more about it
This is disingenuous. Why is that your candidates are not allowed to be critiqued but it's open season on everybody else? I've made sure to be logical, in depth, genuine, thorough and fair in all my posts - including actively agreeing with supporting her repeatedly because I do like her. It's like constructive criticism against AOC is a step too far, when all candidates go through that. Seriously, what did you think would happen when she hit the big time?

Why would you NOT want enemies? If you do not have enemies then you do not have integrity.
Do you even have experience in party politics? Because let me tell you that creating alliances and fighting internal battles is part of party politics and the way to change the course.
For a matter of fact just yesterday I was at a meeting with party members to push for a more open migration policy by organising within my own party and creating opposition to the board. This is how it works in real life.
She'd have plenty of enemies without making ones like Davids. AOC and the JD's need allies more than they need enemies in congress, why bother creating unneeded ones who are natural allies? What good does that help their causes? Internal battles are, of course, unavoidable but how you go about it can be make things worse when it's done incorrectly. Because I can guarantee you there are plenty of experienced Dems in congress who are organised in greater numbers with alliances and deeper relationships than the JD's have.

Creating alliances is very important, which is why I'm frustrated when the JD's are determined not to do that to anyone not in their club. Changing an organisations course is not just fighting, it's doing it smartly - you don't make enemies of everyone you find, or deliberately go out of your way to antagonise people who you'll need their vote one day.

I assume you didn't antagonise your own allies or potential allies needlessly while doing so.
 
Last edited:

Helio

Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,550
For leadership positions for committees, and bills she makes and supports, like the New Green Deal.

That's what this debate has been about, and this isn't about me - it's about politicians in the Democratic party. Her duties don't end at her district.
No, this isn’t a debate about that. It shifted from debating Bernie and AOC using intersectionality to back progressive candidates to you being overly “worried” about how this could hurt AOC in the long run. It’s what you fall back on time and time again. If AOC does something you don’t like, you start “worrying” about how it’ll affect her assignments and positions. You “worry” about how she will pass bills. To be honest, your worrying is going to get us no where and if anyone actually followed your advice, they’d just be a useless drone yes-manning their way through the Democratic Party instead of being a leader in their own right and pushing the party left. Which one do you want?
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
6,656
Minnesota
Listen, if AOC had a general problem with endorsing people that reflected the diversity of representation of minorities, I'd be all over that criticism. But she doesn't, so that narrative that she does just because of one particular candidate that she didn't endorse is just absurd. If you have FACTS, by all means bring them, but I'm not interested in concern trolling. Ain't nobody got time for that shit.
 
Stay on the topic of the 2020 Primary

Finale Fireworker

Love each other or die trying.
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
5,433
ResetEra
Official Staff Communication
This thread isn't about Nancy Pelosi or AOC. This thread is for discussions surrounding the 2020 primary. Please get back on topic. If you want to talk about the political landscape in general please use another thread.
 
Ojeda Drops Out

Mercury Fred

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,079
Goodbye sweet prince.
Former West Virginia State Sen. Richard Ojeda on Friday dropped his long-shot bid for the White House.

“I don’t want to see people send money to a campaign that’s probably not going to get off the ground,” the Democrat said in a video provided to The Intercept. In a subsequent statement posted to Facebook, Ojeda lamented how big money still dominates politics and, as such, it was difficult for him to gain traction and attention.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/richard-ojeda-becomes-first-2020-democrat-to-drop-out-of-race
 

lenovox1

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,002

B-Dubs

Oh well, what the hell?
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
14,447
Just a head's up, when someone drops out or gets a big endorsement or something like that please report the post and ask for a threadmark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.