Yeah, this is a weakness he needs to be wary of. It hurt Obama badly and Dems want a fighter now.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Beto O’Rourke Enters the 2020 Presidential Campaign
- Thread starter ThisThingIsUseful
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, this is a weakness he needs to be wary of. It hurt Obama badly and Dems want a fighter now.
so, it sure doesn't seem like a great sign that Beto's campaign hasn't reported a Day 1 fundraising total
obviously that's not reason enough to write him off this early, but wasn't the notion that his small-donor fundraising prowess would carry over from his Senate race one of the main rationales for his candidacy?
obviously that's not reason enough to write him off this early, but wasn't the notion that his small-donor fundraising prowess would carry over from his Senate race one of the main rationales for his candidacy?
Reid J. Epstein ✔
reidepstein
Of the 40 TX donors who gave <$2,500 to O'Rourke's 2012 campaign and other federal candidates, 26 contributed to other Republicans but just one Democrat—him. Seven gave to other Ds but not Rs. Another seven gave to other candidates from both parties.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/beto-orourkes-past-gop-ties-could-complicate-primary-run-11552621743
Reid J. Epstein ✔
reidepstein
One of O'Rourke's 2012 GOP donors owns an El Paso civil engineering firm that now has a contract to help build the fence along the US-Mexico border near El Paso.
She's a Trump supporter in the 2020 election.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/beto-orourkes-past-gop-ties-could-complicate-primary-run-11552621743
reidepstein
Of the 40 TX donors who gave <$2,500 to O'Rourke's 2012 campaign and other federal candidates, 26 contributed to other Republicans but just one Democrat—him. Seven gave to other Ds but not Rs. Another seven gave to other candidates from both parties.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/beto-orourkes-past-gop-ties-could-complicate-primary-run-11552621743
Reid J. Epstein ✔
reidepstein
One of O'Rourke's 2012 GOP donors owns an El Paso civil engineering firm that now has a contract to help build the fence along the US-Mexico border near El Paso.
She's a Trump supporter in the 2020 election.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/beto-orourkes-past-gop-ties-could-complicate-primary-run-11552621743
Yes. This might be why he should have announced earlier this year, like Kamala did.
yeah i noticed that too, things must not be going that well then
there's also a ton of negativity about him on social media
i hope he rises in the polls only to cancel Biden tbh, people will see him as a younger, more attractive Biden anyway
Last night Lawrence Odonnel ran a montoge of FOX news "pundits" on beto. They be scurred.
who gives a fuck where a US liberal ranks on the spectrum compared to other countries? We don't get to run politicians from other countries here.
OP
OP
I'm curious how the optimism part plays out. Trying to be Obama in 2019 could work (though for reasons I stated earlier in the thread, Beto has a lot of work to do to impress me as Obama did), but the optimism worked at the time in 07/08. Nowadays, I feel many people want someone elected who tells them that they have a right to be angry and, post-2008 post-recession, actually punish people with means who normally get away with everything. That was part of Sanders' appeal: that we need to be active, but people have a reason to be angry of the oligarchy forming. I wish a Democrat would really seize on that.
Many people give many fucks, which is why the idea that some of them are liberal is weird. For much of the first world, the debate isn't whether climate change is real; it's what to do about it. We're skewed so far-right that saying climate change is happening makes someone a "moderate Republican," and we don't have time for that to be a centrist position. The "centrist" position needs to be proactive in what to do about climate change, not simply accepting it. Simply accepting it should just be it; there's nothing moderate about accepting science.
I'm pretty sure this board supports the ACA almost top to bottom. Plenty of "moderates" opposed the public option -- and the ACA in general -- 9 years ago, and looking back, a public option would be reeeeaaaallllllyyy nice for areas with less competition/choices for insurance, and in general to compete with private insurance. "Moderates" now support the ACA. Wouldn't it be nice to make sure the "moderate" position is that universal health care is a right so we can really nail down policies so people aren't paying thousands on prescriptions and bankrupting themselves? We had to fight for the ACA to become law, and now removing Medicaid expansion is horrifically unpopular.
One of these days, it's going to feel weird that many of these things weren't common sense positions, and as history in the US shows, we many times go toward the "far left" position anyway (anti-Iraq War, gay marriage legalization, marijuana legalization, Medicare, Medicaid). So I no longer care what is considered "far left" in the media or to Republicans because that's just a way to try to halt progress (not to mention many supposed far left positions are popular). I do care, however, that many Republican positions are considered conservative or center-right when it's almost all far-right.
Many people give many fucks, which is why the idea that some of them are liberal is weird. For much of the first world, the debate isn't whether climate change is real; it's what to do about it. We're skewed so far-right that saying climate change is happening makes someone a "moderate Republican," and we don't have time for that to be a centrist position. The "centrist" position needs to be proactive in what to do about climate change, not simply accepting it. Simply accepting it should just be it; there's nothing moderate about accepting science.
I'm pretty sure this board supports the ACA almost top to bottom. Plenty of "moderates" opposed the public option -- and the ACA in general -- 9 years ago, and looking back, a public option would be reeeeaaaallllllyyy nice for areas with less competition/choices for insurance, and in general to compete with private insurance. "Moderates" now support the ACA. Wouldn't it be nice to make sure the "moderate" position is that universal health care is a right so we can really nail down policies so people aren't paying thousands on prescriptions and bankrupting themselves? We had to fight for the ACA to become law, and now removing Medicaid expansion is horrifically unpopular.
One of these days, it's going to feel weird that many of these things weren't common sense positions, and as history in the US shows, we many times go toward the "far left" position anyway (anti-Iraq War, gay marriage legalization, marijuana legalization, Medicare, Medicaid). So I no longer care what is considered "far left" in the media or to Republicans because that's just a way to try to halt progress (not to mention many supposed far left positions are popular). I do care, however, that many Republican positions are considered conservative or center-right when it's almost all far-right.
you heard it here folks, vote Beto because he is the literal reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln
JFC
And HW got elected President not right after losing two state races but right after serving two terms as VP to one of the most idealized GOP Presidents ever, and he got his ass voted out after one term.
Literally every Congressperson/Governor is going to have donations like that of business people donating to their local reps to try to build a favorable relationship.
Could also be the they don't want to seem crass with the news coming out of New Zealand this morning.
The purity tests really are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Beto is one of the cleanest politicians to run for office.
I 100% agree. Beto is a perfect average of Democratic positions and is a Democratic candidate for the US Presidency. The whataboutism of US politics compared to international ones has virtually no relevance to the topic.
When Beto supporters say "Beto is what people want", I actually interpret that to mean "most Democratic Americans don't actually want stuff done and just want to talk about how they want to do all these great thing" and I find it hard to disagree on this point.
I'm a Bernie stan all of a sudden?
lol good point
Nope, confused you with someone else. I still don't see how a couple tiny quotes, most likely taken very out of context, knowing how much Beto likes to talk, makes him a hard pass.
So my dad told me one of his friends (a regretful Trump voter) said, i'd vote for Beto. Out of the blue, no previous discussion about him. Just mentioning politics. I feel like us more active people get so into the weeds on stuff and forget that most of the country does not give a crap about half of what we complain about and they are the deciding factors.
I haven't really been too involved in a primary without a clear front runner, when do we usually see the candidates start winding down to the top 2-3 choices? The first debates?
I haven't really been too involved in a primary without a clear front runner, when do we usually see the candidates start winding down to the top 2-3 choices? The first debates?
medicare 4 all or single payer health care is one of the bigger issues for me going into the primary. This a big field of candidates and a lot of them support medicare 4 all and single payer so why should I stick around beto then?
Kamala Harris or Andrew Yang would be my choice for President right now, but I'm not sure they would beat Trump in the general election.
I stand by my opinion that Beto might be the best nominee if we want to actually win in 2020.
I stand by my opinion that Beto might be the best nominee if we want to actually win in 2020.
Beto will perform well in the Midwest and potentially help us in battleground states there. I think if it's anyone other than Biden, Pete, or Beto that doesn't happen
I would just like to see people actually engage on the topic of whether or not we should care about where a candidate receives their contributions. Going "blah blah blah purity tests" doesn't help your case
From what I've read, Bernie likes to conflate single payer with Medicare for All. From comments I've seen Beto make, he seems to be gravitating towards Medicare for All (vs. Bernie seems to like the single payer approach). I'm sure this stuff will become more clear as the weeks/months go on.
medicare for all is just branding. When Bernie says it we know he means single payer. when another dem says it they could mean a public option in conjunction with private insurance or expanding the aca. Beto is choosing to step away from that branding all together.
Medicare 4 All is a catch all term that sounds good on paper but doesn't commit to any single implementation.
Bernie's preferred implementation is single-payer. There's also multi-payer, expanded ACA, etc.
No. Him moving away from single payer does not mean moving away from M4A. Just yesterday he said he wants guaranteed healthcare for every American. What exactly that means on paper will be borne out as the days go on, I'm sure.
Makes sense. Thanks!
I'm conflating pass interviews and statements of his with recent comments.
Nickname hes been called since childhood. It's Hispanic, he's not.
It's just a nickname for Alberto (which isn't even his name). His real name is Robert Francis O Rourke
https://youtu.be/uAlUS8yw7qs?t=133
Listening to his response, I glean two things from it. One is that he wants to expand ACA and supplement existing insurance. The other is that he wants to guarantee healthcare to everyone, but that is going to take a lot more to get implemented. It comes off to me as a pragmatist response where I know there's a decent number of people who want M4A Thursday, January 21st, 2021. For better or worse, his response comes off as more realistic.
Apparently its a nickname the hispanic community he grew up in gave him when he was younger.
That's the thing with Beto. I'm not sure what I'm even going to get with him and you don't seem sure either.
Whew. Ummm, NO.
Medicare 4 All is single payer. Period.
A bunch of capitalists are trying to say you can have Medicare for All with a public option or expanding ACA, but those are NOT AT ALL the same thing.
Variton exists on *how* to get there, but it's extremely clear what it is and what the goal is. It is literally (improved) Medicare for All. Not Obamacare with a Public Option. It is not Guaranteed insurance through Obamacare exchanges. It is (improved) Medicare. For everyone. Single payer. Free at Point if Service. No copays or deductibles. Don't be fooled.
Don't be fooled by people trying to keep the private insurance status quo with little tweaks here and there and calling it Medicare For All.
I'm not trying to define with M4A is, I'm explaining how it's been diluted enough to be generally anything approaching progressive healthcare reform. The capitalists already won the advertising game here. M4A could be single-payer, or it might not be, politicians use M4A instead of single-payer because it's easier for voters to swallow and they don't need to commit.
When a bunch of politicians use "M4A" instead of saying "single-payer", it fools the electorate into projecting their own idea of healthcare reform onto it. I'm assured by Pragmatic and Realistic™ people that this is Good Politics©.
It was pretty obvious from watching him campaign for Senate what he is. He's very much a progressive. He wants healthcare and living wage for everyone. He wants changes to the justice system both on the streets and in the courts. He wants to tax the top 1% and make more people successful. Women get to decide what happens with their own bodies, period. etc etc
The difference between Beto/Mayor Pete and someone like Bernie is that Bernie is really good at throwing these pie in the sky ideas out there that will never materialize. He and Beto want the same thing, but Beto, especially due to being from Texas, is more grounded in reality. I honestly can't take Bernie seriously anymore. Even Warren is further up my list, because at least it seems like she is about policy and the actual process of writing law.
I really like Mayor Pete as well. I feel that he's a pragmatist like Beto, but he's willing to step a little bit further to the left and he's better at enumerating his reasons why. That said, I don't think he's electable. Maybe in 10-20 years when he's both older and the country has embraced homosexuality a more than it has today. But maybe I'm misreading the country and I'll get to vote for him next November. Who knows.
We don't have to just give up and use their terms. Especially this early in the fight.
And anything short of single payer as the endpoint will be another moral and health failure. Obamacare was the attempt to keep the private insurance viable and it failed. Dems and progressives work try to keep the status quo and they must be resisted as well. There are paths to M4A that are flexible and include public option and ACA changes, but they are steps, not the goal. We should not accept anything less than Single Payer.
RIP Medicare 4 All then. Polling seems to suggest that Medicare 4 All is not popular at all when it is described as single player/killing private health insurance. There could be new polling I haven't seen though.
My dude won't even commit on that (from December):
Beto O'Rourke 'doesn't know' if he's progressive: 'I'm not big on labels'
(Edit, on mobile sorry for font issues)
I havent heard beto say any of this himself and that's a problem. The opening salvo for his campaign is him gesturing a bunch of vagueness at me.
poll numbers isn't an argument guys
- Status