-
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.
US PoliERA 2019 |OT2| #PresidentPelosi
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- Status
I think it's a shame that Warren has so much love here, but probably isn't going anywhere.
People speak (rightly) about her professorial mien being a net negative, but for me, it's a massive positive. She reminds me of my most brilliant professors whom I looked up to and admired for their brains and their ability to explain complex ideas in an understandable way. My best professors drove my growth as a person in a lot of ways. I really love that about Warren. She speaks to me.
People speak (rightly) about her professorial mien being a net negative, but for me, it's a massive positive. She reminds me of my most brilliant professors whom I looked up to and admired for their brains and their ability to explain complex ideas in an understandable way. My best professors drove my growth as a person in a lot of ways. I really love that about Warren. She speaks to me.
I like that, too, but also realize that the vast majority of the country probably finds it elitist and annoying.
It is sad that our country has turned hard against intellectual talk.
Yeah, I know, but it still bums me out. I wish we valued intellectuals much, much more than we do.
Don't even joke about that, because it could totally happen.
This is tough to do without knowing who is in the top slot. I guess I would say the following for my picks:
Warren/Butt
Harris/Butt
Butt/Harris -But I SERIOUSLY doubt this combo would happen- I honestly can't see him in the top slot and Harris playing second fiddle. I think he might be my top pick for VP overall though, as long as a woman is in the top slot, which I think has a pretty good chance of happening. If a man is in the top slot, VP MUST be a woman or else I will riot. Harris would be my first choice, then probably Gillibrand. I think Forma should stay in the Senate if she does not get the top slot.
So I guess my list is pretty similar to yours overall, except switching Butt and Harris's places.
If you say (or quote) his name three times, he appears.
oh noooooooooo...
I disagree here. Spending more money at the presidential level would have a net benefit for a more democratic push into these states. Right now, Fox News and Americans for Prosperity control a majority of the political narrative so forcing a progressive message here (KS) pushes things more to the left. Everyone knows If Hillary didn't ignore some states we wouldn't have had to worry about 2020 like we are today.
I believe I had the same top three in order that you did. I'm not sure of his chances but I'm quickly becoming quite serious in my support of him
Another way of looking at this:
Where 1st = 3 points, 2nd = 2 points, and 3rd = 1 point.
My man Buttigieg came up like 7-up, rocking that 3rd place.
And those states that Hillary "ignored" (she parked her ass in PA) to her detriment are on a different level entirely than OK, KS, NE, WV. MI, WI, and PA are actually purple to light blue. That other group is blood-red.
There is absolutely no point in investing any money at the presidential level in those states.
They are not competitive. They will not be competitive. No amount of money or effort will make them competitive.
Flip this around. Do you think the GOP should compete for the presidency in CA, where they technically lost by less than Hillary's margin of defeat in OK and WV? Of course you don't.
This discussion is silly and pointless - almost as pointless as spending money in certain states.
You're also getting the order wrong. Fox News didn't make those places bigoted holes. They were already bigoted holes and were receptive to Fox's message.
This idea that some people have that we can win over these places if they just ~~~hear our message~~~ and we ~~~reach out to them, goshdarnit~~~ is so wrong. They've heard our message for over fifty years. They don't want it.
Last edited:
Fuck yes Mayor Pete, that's what I want to hear from the 2020 Democrats.
I know it's a small thing, but when Gilibrand was on Pod Save America and talked about wanting to keep the filibuster, it drove me bananas. It honestly turned me off on her in a big way. Thinking we can get any of the big ideas (Medicare for all, paid family leave, any sort of Climate bill) passed with 60 is nuts. That was the lesson of Obama post-2010, is that republicans won't vote for your bill, it doesn't matter how many concessions you give them.
I know it's a small thing, but when Gilibrand was on Pod Save America and talked about wanting to keep the filibuster, it drove me bananas. It honestly turned me off on her in a big way. Thinking we can get any of the big ideas (Medicare for all, paid family leave, any sort of Climate bill) passed with 60 is nuts. That was the lesson of Obama post-2010, is that republicans won't vote for your bill, it doesn't matter how many concessions you give them.
Corbett did the same thing. Unless they go full Brownback/Jindal (and we see what happened to them), you gotta tax something to keep shit running and heaven forfend it be people's incomes.
I feel like you have to do this by candidate.
Sanders:
1) Stacey Abrams
2) Andrew Gillum
3) Ta Nehisi-Coates fuck it
Harris:
1) Buttigieg
2) Beto
3) Chris Murphy?
Warren:
1) Kamala
2) Buttigieg
3) Andrew Gillum
Biden:
1) Gillibrand (just to ideally get AOC in the senate)
2) Harris
3) Buttigieg
Buttigieg:
1) Kamala
2) Beto
3) Gillibrand
Booker:
1) Gillibrand
2) Buttigieg
3) Chris Murphy
Bernie also said today he's not crazy about messing with the filibuster. I have no idea how anything gets done if we keep it around.
Kamala and Sherrod Brown seem pretty buddy-buddy so I wouldn't be surprised, if Kamala got the nom, Brown was on her shortlist for running mates. That said, I think Brown needs to park his ass in OH. He seems like a smart guy so I don't know what the hell he's thinking in running for a race that, if he were to win it, would mean conceding a Senate seat to Republicans for a long time.
Bernie-critics have rightfully brought the many issues he and his supporters have.
My problem with the Bernie-Haters is that they lack self-awareness, that they think that many of the issues are exclusive to Bernie and his supporters.
Not saying that they don't have issues unique to them, but pointing out that many of the ridiculous things his supporters do aren't exclusive to them
And as such, the hate he receives is way WAY excessive in proprtion to what rightfully needs to be criticized of him. A lot of it is very vile, unnecessarily toxic and just plain ludicrous.
(And I've definitely seen someone posting a tweet from this person unironically)
Probably. We'll see if the massive Republican majorities feel the same way that it's the only option.
100% Gilly should take the same approach. She's not getting attention the normal way.
1. Buttigieg
2. Warren
3. Harris
I mentally had Pete at #3 until I heard his thoughts about the electoral college and court-packing.
2. Warren
3. Harris
I mentally had Pete at #3 until I heard his thoughts about the electoral college and court-packing.
Brown is not on anybody's short list. Certainly not Kamala's.
He couldn't deliver Ohio, and it would be giving away a Senate seat. He's dead weight on any ticket.
Oh, please. Maybe speak up when women and minorities are being viciously and mercilessly and falsely attacked day after day if you're going to sit here and try to hoist Bernie up on the cross.
"Bigoted holes" are not an accurate description for places like Lawrence, Wichita, Overland Park and the greater KCK area that constitute a great amount of the population in the state of Kansas. Not all rural Christian conservatives are unfamiliar with progressive ideals and Democratic representatives. My fathers side of the family is very Hispanic, Catholic, and Republican. Fox's constant race baiting and fear mongering have twisted their views because no other ideals have been presented to them to challenge the hive mind/group think of political discourse in states that too many consider lost causes. Republicans are winning here because decades ago they decided to play the long game while Democrats can't think past the next election.
What is the republicans long game,. besides fear mongering, then?
Because they have a great Twitter presence is likely why you've seen it. Lots of people follow hoarse.
Kobach is like fetch, stop trying to make it happen. It's never gonna happen.
How do you do black out spoilers?
Edit: oh it says here if I just read the post I was quoting. lol
They women and minorities are being attacked every day, every moment. They have been fro pretty much the whole of history and Giant strong structures exist to actively oppress them.
Bernie himself is in a position of privilege for being a straight white man (But he is Jewish and that's not to be erased) but, it's untrue to say that there haven't been disproportionately unfair attacks towards him.
And it's also untrue to say that there haven't been people who have erased the poc and women supporters he has by using the "Bernie Bro" rhetoric.
Bernie isn't the physical embodiment of Racism and Misogyny, but he and his supporters have issues, and these issues should be called out.
But, there's a difference in criticizing his thing on racial justice vs. particularly criticizing only him for being narcissistic and egoistic.
Every red state has areas of blue. Overall, they're still bigoted holes.
KS has potential because of the areas you mentioned. If the state ever goes blue at the presidential level, it won't be because we "challenge[d] the hive mind/group think"; it'll be because those suburban areas finally grew enough to outvote the racist sticks.
The ~~~white working class~~~ and rural people have heard our message. They don't want it because it involves treating black people like human beings. We've been losing their support for over half a century. We won't get it back because we will not and SHOULD NOT give them what they really want.
Again, you've gotten the order confused. These areas weren't made this way by Fox News; they were already this way, and Fox saw the potential to make money from their bigotry.
I know a lot of us want to believe that we can win these places because we have family who live there, and acknowledging that we can't win - that no message will reach them, that none of our moral arguments will prove persuasive - is tantamount to admitting they're bad people. But they are.
Sometimes you can win the odd gubernatorial election or Senate election (Alabama), but those wins are fluky and short-lived until you actually get an educated urban/suburban voter base that can win elections. MN would be red without Minneapolis and the suburbs; NY would be a very swingy state without NYC and its suburbs. You win by mobilizing our diverse base and winning the few persuadables left, not by appealing to the vast swaths of hopeless rural areas.
(replying to post saying "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE")
Britney has privilege for being a white celeb, but wasn't 2007 Britney undergoing lots of unfair misogynistic attacks? 2007 was her Breakdown year. Lots of people HATED her, to the point that there were people who where contemplating for her death.
Last edited:
+1000000
Virginia is blue not because the voters already living there suddenly found enlightenment and changed their voting ways. It went blue on the backs of urban, suburban transplants from DC and more liberal northern areas moving into the state in enough numbers to outvote the rest of the racist state.
The tiny violins played by Ms. Elizabeth Warren and Ms. Kamala Harris are out for service right now. They will be fully functional right around June 2019.
(This is absolutely an issue, but don't martyr him.)
I just want it put on the record that I was the first and only person to have Mayor Booty has my #1 pick in the first ERA Straw poll. It'll be interesting to see how it changes over the coming months. I have a feeling more people will begin picking Booty as their top pick.
The reason I'm currently Buttigieg / Harris is because Pete has actual executive experience and he communicates the progressive agenda extremely well. Whereas Harris doesn't really have any significant experience managing a bureaucracy and I don't know how well she can really communicate a bold progressive agenda beyond certain issues, but I'm going to keep listening to her and see how she evolves as a candidate.
I also just don't know how effective Mayor Butt would be as a VP. The main job of a VP is to balance a ticket, win a swing state, and not get embarrassed in a VP debate. I don't think Buttigieg really balances a Kamala ticket and he's probably not going to help her in Indiana. A Harris / Buttigieg will be a bold ticket but I'm just not sure it's a balanced ticket. I think it works better with Booty at the top of the ticket because it allows for Pete to set and communicate the agenda and Harris can moderate him somewhat and provide some Congressional experience. I think Senators make better VPs, rather than Governors/Mayors.
The reason I'm currently Buttigieg / Harris is because Pete has actual executive experience and he communicates the progressive agenda extremely well. Whereas Harris doesn't really have any significant experience managing a bureaucracy and I don't know how well she can really communicate a bold progressive agenda beyond certain issues, but I'm going to keep listening to her and see how she evolves as a candidate.
I also just don't know how effective Mayor Butt would be as a VP. The main job of a VP is to balance a ticket, win a swing state, and not get embarrassed in a VP debate. I don't think Buttigieg really balances a Kamala ticket and he's probably not going to help her in Indiana. A Harris / Buttigieg will be a bold ticket but I'm just not sure it's a balanced ticket. I think it works better with Booty at the top of the ticket because it allows for Pete to set and communicate the agenda and Harris can moderate him somewhat and provide some Congressional experience. I think Senators make better VPs, rather than Governors/Mayors.
- Status