Page 16 of 28 FirstFirst ... 612131415161718192026 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 480 of 840

Thread: Democrat 2020

  1. #451
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    romanus sum barbare
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  2. #452
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,851

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    About the endorsements, IIRC weren't those endorsements almost all in Dem primaries? Maybe it says something, but upstart organizations are by definition going to make riskier bets trying to break into the mainstream that will therefore pay off less often. There were nevertheless many progressives elected to Congress or the state governments. Take it state by state and district by district.
    So they make bad endorsements? Or perhaps they just have bad strategy? Whatever it is, its not working. The House was flipped with people who ran in accordance to their district, who understood the landscape. Let's take Rep. Conor Lamb for example. In a very hotly contested race in early 2018, he won in deep red PA-18 as a Blue Dog Democrat who likes fracking. And he won. On the flip side, a huge hubbub was made about Randy Bryce aka Ironstache, who was running for Paul Ryan's seat, the Wisconsin 1st. Endorsed by the progressive groups and had donations pouring in, people thought he had a good shot at unseating Paul Ryan (before he retired like a coward). I know I did. Unfortunately he lost by 12 points. Yes, some progressives won, like AOC and the rest of "the gang." But lets not kid ourselves. AOC's district is D+29, being a progressive there is not that difficult.

    Easy - Sanders focuses on popular issues for moderates such as they may be (and let me be clear, these are popular across the spectrum), including legalizing weed and expanding Social Security (also good for enticing over-45s). Trump will have difficulty sounding credible on those issues. The less popular stuff, like fracking bans, stays out of the stump speech and in the platform. Sanders is hit for being excessively focused on a handful of talking points anyway; that can also be an advantage.
    Lol what? He's already made his positions on those less popular issues clear. Like for fracking, he just introduced a bill banning it lol. He can't conveniently leave those issues out now from his speeches and platform. Surefire way to lose Pennsylvania, which has a ton of fracking sites. But then again, hes already lost Florida so why not Pennsylvania too?
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  3. #453

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    So they make bad endorsements? Or perhaps they just have bad strategy? Whatever it is, its not working. The House was flipped with people who ran in accordance to their district, who understood the landscape. Let's take Rep. Conor Lamb for example. In a very hotly contested race in early 2018, he won in deep red PA-18 as a Blue Dog Democrat who likes fracking. And he won. On the flip side, a huge hubbub was made about Randy Bryce aka Ironstache, who was running for Paul Ryan's seat, the Wisconsin 1st. Endorsed by the progressive groups and had donations pouring in, people thought he had a good shot at unseating Paul Ryan (before he retired like a coward). I know I did. Unfortunately he lost by 12 points. Yes, some progressives won, like AOC and the rest of "the gang." But lets not kid ourselves. AOC's district is D+29, being a progressive there is not that difficult.
    If you want to say they're not as successful in pushing their candidates within the party as they claimed to be, sure. It doesn't entail they wouldn't do well in a general election. Yet there's a Catch-22 here, either successfully take over the party and insiders complain about being pushed out, or fail in doing that and get mocked by same insiders.

    And as always you have to run the right politician, the right personality and manager more than the right platform, in the right jurisdiction. All politics may be national, but that doesn't mean you can stick any candidate in any race. For example, in the barometric 2017 Virginia state elections, self-identified socialist Lee Carter defeated the Republican Assembly Majority Whip, one of the highest-ranking Republicans in Virginia, who had held the seat since 2006 and had won reelection in 2015 by nearly 20 points. Carter's upset appears to have come about in large part to his campaigning skill (and the corresponding lack thereof of his opponent). Carter also comfortably defeated both his Dem primary challenger and Republican opponent in the 2019 election.

    In 2018 Joe Donnelly lost in Indiana, yet Tammy Baldwin won in Wisconsin. Jon Ossof lost to Kate Handel in Georgia in 2017, but a more liberal candidate beat her in 2018. A deep-red House seat in California was flipped for the first time in history by a Medicare for All (and universal pre-K) supporter. When Pennsylvania reelected its Dem governor in 2018 (Tom Wolf, by 17 points vs. 10 in 2014), his running mate for lieutenant governor defeated the incumbent while supporting single payer and a $15 minimum wage. You can always assemble a cherry-picked narrative.

    Lol what? He's already made his positions on those less popular issues clear. Like for fracking, he just introduced a bill banning it lol. He can't conveniently leave those issues out now from his speeches and platform. Surefire way to lose Pennsylvania, which has a ton of fracking sites. But then again, hes already lost Florida so why not Pennsylvania too?
    He's made his positions clear to politics junkies. If he absolutely has to he can pay a visit to some of the trade groups in the fracking hotspots and tactically deemphasize those elements of the Green New Deal, similar to how he played nice with the Nevada Culinary Union recently by acknowledging some buy-in on the subject of union healthcare benefits. But there's is a world of difference between submitting a bill that won't be taken up by committee in the Senate and advocating for that bill every day to crowds and the media in soaring rhetoric. Now that's triangulation we should all be able to get behind.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 02-24-2020 at 06:30.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  4. #454
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,851

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    If you want to say they're not as successful in pushing their candidates within the party as they claimed to be, sure. It doesn't entail they wouldn't do well in a general election. Yet there's a Catch-22 here, either successfully take over the party and insiders complain about being pushed out, or fail in doing that and get mocked by same insiders.
    No I am saying that they push bad candidates to run against Republicans in competitive districts. The record shows this. Im sure those insiders would shut up if those candidates would win, but here we are.

    And as always you have to run the right politician, the right personality and manager more than the right platform, in the right jurisdiction. All politics may be national, but that doesn't mean you can stick any candidate in any race. For example, in the barometric 2017 Virginia state elections, self-identified socialist Lee Carter defeated the Republican Assembly Majority Whip, one of the highest-ranking Republicans in Virginia, who had held the seat since 2006 and had won reelection in 2015 by nearly 20 points. Carter's upset appears to have come about in large part to his campaigning skill (and the corresponding lack thereof of his opponent). Carter also comfortably defeated both his Dem primary challenger and Republican opponent in the 2019 election.
    I didnt say they cant win, I said the data shows that they are unlikely to.

    In 2018 Joe Donnelly lost in Indiana, yet Tammy Baldwin won in Wisconsin. Jon Ossof lost to Kate Handel in Georgia in 2017, but a more liberal candidate beat her in 2018. A deep-red House seat in California was flipped for the first time in history by a Medicare for All (and universal pre-K) supporter. When Pennsylvania reelected its Dem governor in 2018 (Tom Wolf, by 17 points vs. 10 in 2014), his running mate for lieutenant governor defeated the incumbent while supporting single payer and a $15 minimum wage. You can always assemble a cherry-picked narrative.
    Again, I didnt say that a progressive cannot win ever. I said it is harder depending on the district. Don't tell me that I am cherry-picking my information when I gave the numbers of how the Bernie wing of the party didnt flip a single seat. Im assuming that the California Dem who flipped a deep-red district you refer to is Harley Rouda, who I would not include in the staunch progressive wing of the party considering hes a prominent member of the moderate New Democrat Coalition. He might have progressive stances but he also endorsed Bloomberg for president so take that as you will. Dems as a default have progressive positions. Running on healthcare was one of the reasons Dems won the House back. But it wasnt a winner everywhere and I am simply making the point that running a Blue Dog Dem and winning in some districts is better than running a progressive Dem and losing. And considering that in the places that the Dems desperately need to win in November are often filled with the types of folk who would vote for a Blue Dog, maybe taking them into account isnt the worst thing in the world.

    The latest Quinnipiac poll out of Wisconsin last week has Trump crushing every Dem by at least 7 points. And if that isnt at least a bit worrisome, I dont know what is.

    And for what its worth, Indiana is far more red than Wisconsin, and Ossoff was more liberal than Lucy McBath who beat Handel in 2018. I mean McBath endorsed Bloomberg too so lol.

    He's made his positions clear to politics junkies. If he absolutely has to he can pay a visit to some of the trade groups in the fracking hotspots and tactically deemphasize those elements of the Green New Deal, similar to how he played nice with the Nevada Culinary Union recently by acknowledging some buy-in on the subject of union healthcare benefits. But there's is a world of difference between submitting a bill that won't be taken up by committee in the Senate and advocating for that bill every day to crowds and the media in soaring rhetoric. Now that's triangulation we should all be able to get behind.
    This is a dumb take you know it. What is he going to say when people challenge him about his fracking bill? Say that he was kidding about the bill and paying lip service to the environmental groups?
    Last edited by Hooahguy; 02-24-2020 at 17:58.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  5. #455
    Ja mata, TosaInu Forum Administrator edyzmedieval's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Fortress of the Mountains
    Posts
    11,389

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    Lesson one, just because people want change doesn't mean they want your change.
    Which is a valid point. A lot of people are Bernie Sanders fans because they are the ones who think Sanders is the most electable - Warren is too socialist to many (nationalising Facebook / Amazon), Biden is not appealing to minorities enough, Buttigieg is considered in some circles a semi Republican.

    And as for Bloomberg, well, I am a huge fan of his business company but buying your way to the Presidency is not the way to go.
    Ja mata, TosaInu. You will forever be remembered.

    Proud

    Been to:

    Swords Made of Letters - 1938. The war is looming in France - and Alexandre Reythier does not have much time left to protect his country. A novel set before the war.

    A Painted Shield of Honour - 1313. Templar Knights in France are in grave danger. Can they be saved?

  6. #456

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    No I am saying that they push bad candidates to run against Republicans in competitive districts. The record shows this.
    I didnt say they cant win, I said the data shows that they are unlikely to.
    Show me this record and data. There is a potential argument that a candidate who doesn't beat their opponent in a primary would be less competitive in a general, but you would have to develop it rigorously.

    Im sure those insiders would shut up if those candidates would win, but here we are.


    My response to that is laughingtears.emoji

    Don't tell me that I am cherry-picking my information when I gave the numbers of how the Bernie wing of the party didnt flip a single seat.
    If we want to ignore state offices, fine, but which House seats would you say had "Sanders-wing" candidates who failed? Using M4A as a proxy position for the "Sanders wing" - which is highly questionable, but let's go with it - indicates a fine showing. The reality is that of the small sample of close races in which the Democratic nominee supported Medicare for All, they did well. Not revolution-well, but well enough to beat the received wisdom you're hewing to. If you look at some Medicare-for-All supporters in deep-red races, they tended to outperform Democrats in 2016 even when they lost. For example, see ID-02, who increased the Dem vote share by 10 points. Successful flips include Rouda, Katie Porter, Katie Hill, Josh Harder, Mike Levin.

    Harley Rouda, who I would not include in the staunch progressive wing of the party considering hes a prominent member of the moderate New Democrat Coalition.
    I hadn't followed up since the midterms. If he has done a Sinema then that's a shame, but he won on what he ran on. Hopefully he can still win reelection.

    Dems as a default have progressive positions.
    Er, no, there is certainly a difference between the campaign platforms of Democratic candidates - or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Minimum wages increases, Medicare for All, for some legacy politicians even abortion - these are all points of distinction within the party. Or do you mean that the center of the party has shifted? Because Sanders would agree with that. A majority of House candidates in 2018 did indeed endorse Medicare for All, albeit largely in safer districts. Are you staking the conservative position that this is electorally damaging?

    But it wasnt a winner everywhere and I am simply making the point that running a Blue Dog Dem and winning in some districts is better than running a progressive Dem and losing. And considering that in the places that the Dems desperately need to win in November are often filled with the types of folk who would vote for a Blue Dog, maybe taking them into account isnt the worst thing in the world.
    But I never disputed this point, only the criteria of judgement. Very few people are suggesting ousting, or trying to, West Virginia's Joe Manchin (who's probably serving his last term) with a pinko. But the DCCC actively attacking primary candidates like Laura Moser in Texas is a poison pill, not an unassailable corrective. As I said, finding the right individual candidate for the jurisdiction is more important than ideology or platform per se. Sherrod Brown can win in Ohio for whatever particularistic reasons that probably can't be systematically applied elsewhere, and in general there likely aren't many systematic heuristics or formulas. (Although one persistent lesson may be that personality and "values" are more discriminable than ideology on paper.)

    BTW (mostly from here):

    https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-conte...tDistricts.png
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...3KI.png&w=1440
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...FQI.gif&w=1440
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...DQQ.png&w=1440

    The latest Quinnipiac poll out of Wisconsin last week has Trump crushing every Dem by at least 7 points. And if that isnt at least a bit worrisome, I dont know what is.
    Even if you believe these polls have predictive power - which they don't appear to - then look at the average.

    As for Wisconsin itself, the state was very close in 2000, 2004, and 2016, and going by the corollary (Clinton and Obama won comfortably both times) suggests an important effect of candidate charisma.

    And for what its worth, Indiana is far more red than Wisconsin, a
    So perhaps we should be more modest in promulgating centralist (n.b. not centrist) doctrines of what will and won't work across the country? We can have a diversity of tactics, and debate how to position where on a case-by-case basis.

    Ossoff was more liberal than Lucy McBath who beat Handel in 2018. I mean McBath endorsed Bloomberg too so lol.
    See Rouda comment, but you have to compare against campaign platforms. McBath did not run as a liberal firebrand, but she did heavily support and campaign on gun control and reproductive rights. Ossof focused on almost a-partisan centrist branding, spending cuts, pro-business, avoidance of topics like gun control, and explicit rejection of Medicare for All and "The Resistance." You'll have to explain why you consider Ossof more liberal than McBath.

    This is a dumb take you know it. What is he going to say when people challenge him about his fracking bill? Say that he was kidding about the bill and paying lip service to the environmental groups?
    Nah, he'll just deflect by leaning on the themes of a job-creating Green New Deal and environmental justice. He's internalized the Trumpian lesson of not showing vulnerability to the media. See him declining to release full medical records even after promising to.

    Again, set aside a normative appraisal and recognize the description of electoral mechanics as we can observe them. Not what conservative pundits with terrible track records tell you that they assume to be the case, but what we observe the case to be.

    By contrast look at Warren being abused for sticking to her stated principles on big-dollar fundraisers.

    In summation, please take the pep-up. There's literally nothing for us as individuals to do here but fight Trump, so self-imposed anxiety and hand-wringing is counterproductive.


    Quote Originally Posted by edyzmedieval View Post
    Warren is too socialist to many (nationalising Facebook / Amazon)
    !!

    Correction: She proposes breaking them up into platform utilities and participants.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 02-25-2020 at 06:09.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  7. #457
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,851

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Show me this record and data. There is a potential argument that a candidate who doesn't beat their opponent in a primary would be less competitive in a general, but you would have to develop it rigorously.
    Again, in 2018:
    Our Revolution, 0–22
    Justice Democrats, 0–16
    Brand New Congress, 0–6

    These were the numbers for the candidates in competitive districts. As you will see, the full loss list is much larger.

    If we want to ignore state offices, fine, but which House seats would you say had "Sanders-wing" candidates who failed?
    You can see a list of failed candidates for Our Revolution here, Justice Dems here, and Brand New Congress here. I list these three PACs as the Sanders wing as they are closely aligned with him.

    Using M4A as a proxy position for the "Sanders wing" - which is highly questionable, but let's go with it - indicates a fine showing. The reality is that of the small sample of close races in which the Democratic nominee supported Medicare for All, they did well. Not revolution-well, but well enough to beat the received wisdom you're hewing to. If you look at some Medicare-for-All supporters in deep-red races, they tended to outperform Democrats in 2016 even when they lost. For example, see ID-02, who increased the Dem vote share by 10 points. Successful flips include Rouda, Katie Porter, Katie Hill, Josh Harder, Mike Levin.
    I never said M4A is a losing position everywhere. Just in some of the areas we desperately need to win. For example, did Andrew Gillum's support of M4A cost him the Florida governorship? Did Bernie's endorsement of him cost him Cuban votes? I don't think we would ever definitively know the answer but it is a possibility.

    I hadn't followed up since the midterms. If he has done a Sinema then that's a shame, but he won on what he ran on. Hopefully he can still win reelection.
    No, if you look at his campaign ads, universal healthcare is mentioned I think once in all of his ads. The primary thrust of his campaign was ending the corruption of Trump and Dana Rohrabacher. I'd say that it was more a referendum on Rohrabacher and Trump. I'll be interested to see if he can hold the district in November.

    Er, no, there is certainly a difference between the campaign platforms of Democratic candidates - or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Minimum wages increases, Medicare for All, for some legacy politicians even abortion - these are all points of distinction within the party. Or do you mean that the center of the party has shifted? Because Sanders would agree with that. A majority of House candidates in 2018 did indeed endorse Medicare for All, albeit largely in safer districts. Are you staking the conservative position that this is electorally damaging?
    No my point was that almost all Dems have at least one or two positions that can be considered progressive. Whether it be expanding healthcare in some way or protecting the environment, all Dems have some level of progressiveness in them.

    But I never disputed this point, only the criteria of judgement. Very few people are suggesting ousting, or trying to, West Virginia's Joe Manchin (who's probably serving his last term) with a pinko. But the DCCC actively attacking primary candidates like Laura Moser in Texas is a poison pill, not an unassailable corrective. As I said, finding the right individual candidate for the jurisdiction is more important than ideology or platform per se.
    Considering that the person who beat Laura Moser in Texas ended up flipping the district by a comfortable 5 points, I'd say that it wasn't the worst call. The DCCC saw something that would be a vulnerability in Moser and acted accordingly. Perhaps a bit unseemly but thats politics.

    As for Wisconsin itself, the state was very close in 2000, 2004, and 2016, and going by the corollary (Clinton and Obama won comfortably both times) suggests an important effect of candidate charisma.
    My only hope for Wisconsin is that it went blue in 2018 so that one poll likely isn't the worst thing in the world, but if anything we should learn we cannot be complacent.

    So perhaps we should be more modest in promulgating centralist (n.b. not centrist) doctrines of what will and won't work across the country? We can have a diversity of tactics, and debate how to position where on a case-by-case basis.
    I wasn't saying that the more moderates would be a guaranteed win. I just think in certain areas its more likely.

    See Rouda comment, but you have to compare against campaign platforms. McBath did not run as a liberal firebrand, but she did heavily support and campaign on gun control and reproductive rights. Ossof focused on almost a-partisan centrist branding, spending cuts, pro-business, avoidance of topics like gun control, and explicit rejection of Medicare for All and "The Resistance." You'll have to explain why you consider Ossof more liberal than McBath.
    Dude, I'm from Georgia on the border of the GA-05/06. I was getting Ossoffs and McBaths flyers and ads (which puzzled me since I was actually in the 5th but whatever). I can say for certain is that in terms of how they presented themselves to the voting public, McBath came off as more moderate. She might have had more progressive positions for certain things, but came across as more moderate. I am just relaying how Ossoff came across. And to be honest I wish he wasn't running for the senate seat against Perdue as I don't think he can win, but oh well.

    Nah, he'll just deflect by leaning on the themes of a job-creating Green New Deal and environmental justice. He's internalized the Trumpian lesson of not showing vulnerability to the media. See him declining to release full medical records even after promising to.

    Again, set aside a normative appraisal and recognize the description of electoral mechanics as we can observe them. Not what conservative pundits with terrible track records tell you that they assume to be the case, but what we observe the case to be.
    I think you have an overly optimistic view of how things will play out. Also him not releasing full medical records when he had a heart attack less than 6 months ago is not very troubling, especially since his risk for a second heart attack is now higher, and thats for people who aren't doing a vigorous campaign schedule.

    We're arguing in circles now aren't we?
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  8. #458
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,408
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Debate's on tonight, bloomberg still hasnt grown back the spine warren shattered last time, apparantly he went on a black leader apology tour.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  9. #459
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    Debate's on tonight, bloomberg still hasnt grown back the spine warren shattered last time, apparantly he went on a black leader apology tour.
    Courting the vote of African-Americans in a South Carolina party is part of all the candidate agendae -- the represent roughly 2/3 of the Dem voters in the state.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  10. #460

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    Again, in 2018:
    Our Revolution, 0–22
    Justice Democrats, 0–16
    Brand New Congress, 0–6

    These were the numbers for the candidates in competitive districts. As you will see, the full loss list is much larger.
    That is wrong. You can see the collected endorsements right there in Ballotpedia.

    As I said - and I'm double-checking here - almost all of these endorsements were in primaries, and most of those endorsed in generals were either big-ticket races that drew many endorsements - Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams - or were in deep-red districts with no hope of flipping - Paulette Jordan in Idaho or Stephanie Spaulding in Colorado - even as the nominees generally improved on 2016 performances.

    JD Scholten in Iowa came within a few points of unseating the notorious Steve King. Beto O'Rourke got a lot of credit for a similarly-narrow loss to Ted Cruz, yet no one would have ridiculed an organization for endorsing O'Rourke.

    (One guy, endorsed by Brand New Congress - Robb Ryerse - ran in Republican primary. I'm not sure what that was about.)

    The outcomes simply do not support a contention that more liberal candidates are intrinsically less electable. This is what I'm talking about.

    For example, did Andrew Gillum's support of M4A cost him the Florida governorship? Did Bernie's endorsement of him cost him Cuban votes? I don't think we would ever definitively know the answer but it is a possibility.
    One might as well speculate as to whether Gillum's oblique criticism of de Santis' racism was too politically incorrect for the mainstream.

    My overarching point here is that the possibilities and concerns you raise are just that, possible. But they are weaker than you hold. That's all.

    No, if you look at his campaign ads, universal healthcare is mentioned I think once in all of his ads. The primary thrust of his campaign was ending the corruption of Trump and Dana Rohrabacher. I'd say that it was more a referendum on Rohrabacher and Trump. I'll be interested to see if he can hold the district in November.
    So - I don't know what his campaign emphases were, but I'll assume you're right. Then you tacitly acknowledge that what a politician campaigns on is more important (at least in electoral terms) than what's tucked away in their platform!

    No my point was that almost all Dems have at least one or two positions that can be considered progressive. Whether it be expanding healthcare in some way or protecting the environment, all Dems have some level of progressiveness in them.
    That's very broad. I'm not sure what useful point you're making.

    Considering that the person who beat Laura Moser in Texas ended up flipping the district by a comfortable 5 points, I'd say that it wasn't the worst call. The DCCC saw something that would be a vulnerability in Moser and acted accordingly. Perhaps a bit unseemly but thats politics.
    Perhaps the DCCC shouldn't discriminate on phantasms of putative vulnerability and the people of the district should? It's not like the DCCC has a brilliant record anyway.

    Like, your whole premise here is circular besides being philosophically objectionable. The establishment knows best, so if they tip the scale it must be because they know best, and if they know best it's OK for them to interfere, and so on.

    Not to say that there is no spread of hypocrisy - Sanders and his supporters spent the runup to the 2016 DNC demanding that the superdelegates overturn Clinton's popular win because Clinton is just so vulnerable and Bernie knows best - but good principles are good principles regardless.

    My only hope for Wisconsin is that it went blue in 2018 so that one poll likely isn't the worst thing in the world, but if anything we should learn we cannot be complacent.
    Absolutely - so invest money, field staff, get out the vote, etc. Maybe Bloomberg could spare another half-billion. That's what the general will look like. A vigorous 50-state strategy is precisely the antidote to complacency, not that many of us are likely to be complacent this election.

    I wasn't saying that the more moderates would be a guaranteed win. I just think in certain areas its more likely.
    I don't disagree, and very few would. I'm just suggesting take it case-by-case and be open-minded in your criteria. In that frame there's little controversial.

    Dude, I'm from Georgia on the border of the GA-05/06. I was getting Ossoffs and McBaths flyers and ads (which puzzled me since I was actually in the 5th but whatever). I can say for certain is that in terms of how they presented themselves to the voting public, McBath came off as more moderate. She might have had more progressive positions for certain things, but came across as more moderate. I am just relaying how Ossoff came across. And to be honest I wish he wasn't running for the senate seat against Perdue as I don't think he can win, but oh well.
    Can you describe how, and do you have supporting viewpoints (such as polling)? Here I can't help but fear that your personal appraisals might color your judgement (i.e. McBath won so she must have been more moderate).

    Also him not releasing full medical records when he had a heart attack less than 6 months ago is not very troubling, especially since his risk for a second heart attack is now higher, and thats for people who aren't doing a vigorous campaign schedule.
    "Not very troubling, or is very troubling? Assuming the latter, I agree that it's dispreferred conduct but we'll have to let it slide. The calculation may be that refusing to release them is less detrimental in the primary than releasing them, whereas the penalty for releasing them will be lower in the general.

    On the other hand, Sanders has released summaries - just like Biden and Warren. Is he worse than they are? From what I read the summaries do not contain any dire indications for the short-term. Maybe rory could evaluate them for us.

    I think you have an overly optimistic view of how things will play out.
    See my comment near the top of the post. The short of it is that Sanders is not as vulnerable as you think, other candidates are more vulnerable than you think, and Trump is more vulnerable than you think. Does that make every candidate equivalent? No, but their risk levels are roughly similar. Does that make Trump "easy" to beat? Whether or not it is so, we should never operate by that assumption until the voting is done. So what changes? Nothing really, whether it's Sanders or Biden coming out of the convention. Our charge is the same: fight. There is no Johnny Unbeatable waiting in the wings, and there is no One Weird Trick.

    Next week determines the outcome of the primary. Tonight, the SC debate. Saturday, SC. Next Tuesday, Super Tuesday. One week. Through Super Tuesday voters should vote for whoever they like best, and afterwards begin gathering themselves for the real contest. Remember, even Joe Walsh understands that the stakes are much higher than which flavor of Democrat takes office, who would all govern under similar constraints. This is a moral confrontation, and that's what our coalition is organized around.


    Also, I just thought this was funny given the hyperventilation over Sanders when every US president or contender has something positive to say about some dictatorships:
    https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status...32950540132355
    https://twitter.com/NicholasIvanoff/...81040211013632

    Too many - or alternatively just enough - people don't realize that many of the standard attacks against Sanders double as advertisements. The thought that many voters know or care about the internal trajectory of Nicaragua or Cuba, or that those who do and reject Sanders could vote for any Democrat, is without foundation and essentially a DC insider mirage.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  11. #461

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    The concept of political time I referenced some time earlier is one way of exploring the facets of Trump's precarious position. I'll get around to sharing some content on the idea of the disjunctive presidency, transitional administrations like Hoover's and Carter's. In loftiest analogy Sanders, who likes to cast his politics in Rooseveltian terms, may resemble more a certain other FDR fan. But for now let's mark this down:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ERlXPckXUAER9FR.jpg 
Views:	67 
Size:	185.7 KB 
ID:	23322
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ERlXIovWkAAPC1y.jpg 
Views:	61 
Size:	177.7 KB 
ID:	23323

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    Debate's on tonight, bloomberg still hasnt grown back the spine warren shattered last time, apparantly he went on a black leader apology tour.
    Joke:

    Bloomberg pays people $2500 a month to make positive tweets and Insta posts about his campaign. An example:

    “Sam Donaldson just nailed it: Mike Bloomberg is the president we need to unite our country!” he texted one of his friends Monday through Outvote — the app organizers use to reach out to their personal networks. He drew on language provided to him by the campaign and logged the text as part of his Bloomberg organizer responsibilities.

    But he quickly followed up with a personal addendum: “Please disregard, vote Bernie or Warren.”
    UBI: Universal Bloomberg Income

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    Courting the vote of African-Americans in a South Carolina party is part of all the candidate agendae -- the represent roughly 2/3 of the Dem voters in the state.
    Sanders is reportedly focusing on California and Texas, because the marginal utility of time and money spent eking out a couple more points in South Carolina isn't even a tenth of that in the big states. Super Tuesday states vote 3 days after South Carolina, remember.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 02-26-2020 at 05:45.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  12. #462
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,851

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    That is wrong. You can see the collected endorsements right there in Ballotpedia.

    As I said - and I'm double-checking here - almost all of these endorsements were in primaries, and most of those endorsed in generals were either big-ticket races that drew many endorsements - Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams - or were in deep-red districts with no hope of flipping - Paulette Jordan in Idaho or Stephanie Spaulding in Colorado - even as the nominees generally improved on 2016 performances.

    JD Scholten in Iowa came within a few points of unseating the notorious Steve King. Beto O'Rourke got a lot of credit for a similarly-narrow loss to Ted Cruz, yet no one would have ridiculed an organization for endorsing O'Rourke.

    (One guy, endorsed by Brand New Congress - Robb Ryerse - ran in Republican primary. I'm not sure what that was about.)

    The outcomes simply do not support a contention that more liberal candidates are intrinsically less electable. This is what I'm talking about.
    I personally think that had O'Rourke been softer about guns he might have won. Texas is notoriously pro-2nd Amendment and I think it was a bad call personally. Same goes for Stacey Abrams, which personally pains me as Ive met here, voted for her, and shes a wonderful person. But I think had she softened her position a bit on guns she might have had more of a chance.

    But I digress. My point was never that more liberal candidates are intrinsically less electable across the board. My specific point which I thought I had made was that when running to unseat a Republican, I believe the farther left you go the less chance there is to flip the district. As a general rule. Of course there are exceptions but I think the data shows that I am correct, because the Sanders wing never flipped a district. You keep dodging this point. I dont accept the deep red district excuse because there are a bunch of Dems who flipped deep red districts like Andy Kim, Conor Lamb, Xochitl Torres Small, Anthony Brindisi, Kendra Horn, Joe Cunningham, the list goes on.

    - I don't know what his campaign emphases were, but I'll assume you're right. Then you tacitly acknowledge that what a politician campaigns on is more important (at least in electoral terms) than what's tucked away in their platform!
    Except when he sponsors bills on the issue its no longer something to be tucked away in the platform, wouldn't you agree?

    That's very broad. I'm not sure what useful point you're making.
    My point was that almost all Dems, to some degree, hold progressive positions. The difference is to what degree.

    Perhaps the DCCC shouldn't discriminate on phantasms of putative vulnerability and the people of the district should? It's not like the DCCC has a brilliant record anyway.

    Like, your whole premise here is circular besides being philosophically objectionable. The establishment knows best, so if they tip the scale it must be because they know best, and if they know best it's OK for them to interfere, and so on.

    Not to say that there is no spread of hypocrisy - Sanders and his supporters spent the runup to the 2016 DNC demanding that the superdelegates overturn Clinton's popular win because Clinton is just so vulnerable and Bernie knows best - but good principles are good principles regardless.
    The DCCC has one goal. To win elections. I didn't say I approved of what they did, but I also do not blame them for taking action. I agree that the DCCC should have been impartial but again, its politics.

    I don't disagree, and very few would. I'm just suggesting take it case-by-case and be open-minded in your criteria. In that frame there's little controversial.
    But thats what my entire argument has been- take each case by case.

    Can you describe how, and do you have supporting viewpoints (such as polling)? Here I can't help but fear that your personal appraisals might color your judgement (i.e. McBath won so she must have been more moderate).
    You might be right about my judgement being colored. Honestly I remembering being really surprised that McBath won too. Maybe I'm just jaded.

    "Not very troubling, or is very troubling? Assuming the latter, I agree that it's dispreferred conduct but we'll have to let it slide. The calculation may be that refusing to release them is less detrimental in the primary than releasing them, whereas the penalty for releasing them will be lower in the general.

    On the other hand, Sanders has released summaries - just like Biden and Warren. Is he worse than they are? From what I read the summaries do not contain any dire indications for the short-term. Maybe rory could evaluate them for us.
    Yes sorry I meant that it is very troubling. I agree with your assessment as to why they are not releasing the full medical records. As for the summaries, I think Sanders needs to release the full records, since he had a heart attack just a few months ago. Politics aside, I want Sanders to live a long a healthy life and I am worried that the stress of campaigning is hurting his chances in the long term at a full recovery. If Warren had a heart attack a few months ago I'd be saying the same thing.

    See my comment near the top of the post. The short of it is that Sanders is not as vulnerable as you think, other candidates are more vulnerable than you think, and Trump is more vulnerable than you think. Does that make every candidate equivalent? No, but their risk levels are roughly similar. Does that make Trump "easy" to beat? Whether or not it is so, we should never operate by that assumption until the voting is done. So what changes? Nothing really, whether it's Sanders or Biden coming out of the convention. Our charge is the same: fight. There is no Johnny Unbeatable waiting in the wings, and there is no One Weird Trick.
    While I do not agree about the vulnerability thing, I am with you 100% that it will be a very tough fight no matter the nominee.

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    UBI: Universal Bloomberg Income
    I'm not going to lie, when I saw that it was tempting...
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  13. #463
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,408
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    Courting the vote of African-Americans in a South Carolina party is part of all the candidate agendae -- the represent roughly 2/3 of the Dem voters in the state.
    I know the reasoning I think its a bad tactic, apologising doesnt score points in politics when you arent a party darling; dude should have shot back immediately, point to the drop in the black-on-black murder rate his stop and frisk caused and use it to hit warren over the head with her lack of similar accolades, instead his apologising just gives warren's swipe more credence.

    Blacks arent going to jump ship in great numbers from the Warren, Sanders or even Biden camps just because because he kissed Al Sharpton's ring.
    Last edited by Greyblades; 02-26-2020 at 18:08.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  14. #464
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Sanders is reportedly focusing on California and Texas, because the marginal utility of time and money spent eking out a couple more points in South Carolina isn't even a tenth of that in the big states. Super Tuesday states vote 3 days after South Carolina, remember.
    Indeed. He will pick up some "momentum" support coming off of NH and NV, but he will likely spend less time in SC than the others as it is not a "make it or break it" primary for his campaign. All he needs is a solid showing, and that seems likely as is.

    I was just reminding 'blades that a focus on Af-Am support in SC wasn't so much an effort at "pandering" as it was an acknowledgement of Dem demographics for that state. I am sure that some degree of pandering is going on, but I believe that to be virtually inevitable for anyone not taking a "W. T. Sherman stance" towards politics and campaigning.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  15. #465
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    I know the reasoning I think its a bad tactic, apologising doesnt score points in politics when you arent a party darling; dude should have shot back immediately, point to the drop in the black-on-black murder rate his stop and frisk caused and use it to hit warren over the head with her lack of similar accolades, instead his apologising just gives warren's swipe more credence.

    Blacks arent going to jump ship in great numbers from the Warren, Sanders or even Biden camps just because because he kissed Al Sharpton's ring.
    Apologizing works better with Dem voters than it does with the GOP Trumpists, but I take your point. Bloomberg needed to hammer back in the manner you noted OR go apologize but with the full 'I have seen the light/redemptive" turn and not just a mea culpa. Then you announce a new and aggressive policy towards cleaning up policing in the USA or summat.

    Having neither fought back nor gone past apologia into transcendence, he's really just stagnating on the issue.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  16. #466
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    But I digress. My point was never that more liberal candidates are intrinsically less electable across the board. My specific point which I thought I had made was that when running to unseat a Republican, I believe the farther left you go the less chance there is to flip the district. As a general rule. Of course there are exceptions but I think the data shows that I am correct, because the Sanders wing never flipped a district. You keep dodging this point. I dont accept the deep red district excuse because there are a bunch of Dems who flipped deep red districts like Andy Kim, Conor Lamb, Xochitl Torres Small, Anthony Brindisi, Kendra Horn, Joe Cunningham, the list goes on.
    An important point to make, and one that American political discourse is ill-equipped to make, is that Bernie at el. are not Liberals, they are Socialists or Social Democrats. When talking about flipping districts you need to be asking if the problem is not that the Democratic Candidate is not 'Liberal' enough. For example, gun control is a Left-Wing position, not a Liberal one.

    For most of his political career Bernie sat as an Independent. His current position in the Democratic party is really entryism and at least some of his supporters will be entryists. There's no reason at all why more traditional Democrats should be expected to accept this.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  17. #467
    Member Member Greyblades's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    8,408
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    Apologizing works better with Dem voters than it does with the GOP Trumpists, but I take your point. Bloomberg needed to hammer back in the manner you noted OR go apologize but with the full 'I have seen the light/redemptive" turn and not just a mea culpa. Then you announce a new and aggressive policy towards cleaning up policing in the USA or summat.

    Having neither fought back nor gone past apologia into transcendence, he's really just stagnating on the issue.
    I think transendence would have killed his chances. In the climate of ten years ago maybe he could afford it, but now? Considering the number of pounds of flesh the left requires these days for forgiveness in matters of race politics he probably would have lost his own base long before he gained anything from the fringe.

    Even if it didnt sink his primary a kowtow certainly would have wrecked whatever chances he had in the actual election.
    Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    Don't be scared that you don't freak out. Be scared when you don't care about freaking out
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  18. #468

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Remember back when I observed that even a motivated Justice Department (or state government) would prove unable to stick a charge on an unseated Trump?

    Well, I only just registered the corollary. If the Democrat beats Trump in 2020 he will be back for the Republican primaries in 2024. Search your feelings, you know it to be true. Real life really is following the meta-trajectory of the Star Wars sequels. At least we'll have a conclusive scoop on hypotheses of Trump's senescence or psychiatric decline by then.


    Some concrete bad news about Sanders: If Sanders wins the presidency and thus vacates his Senate seat, the sitting Republican governor of Vermont - also up for reelection in 2020 - will fill the seat with a (Republican) replacement. Same thing with Warren and Massachusetts actually. In Vermont's case, a special election would have to be called within 6 months.

    So, uh, whether or not a Democratic governor is elected to take office in 2021 the Senate Democrats will be down an extra Senator for a little while, putting a dent in the already-slim prospects of a productive first 100 days.

    Well, Sanders could do the bold thing and move up the timetable 3+ months by resigning his Senate seat upon winning the nomination, but he's already filed for a 2024 Senate campaign so I assume he's a man who likes to keep his bases covered.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    I personally think that had O'Rourke been softer about guns he might have won. Texas is notoriously pro-2nd Amendment and I think it was a bad call personally. Same goes for Stacey Abrams, which personally pains me as Ive met here, voted for her, and shes a wonderful person. But I think had she softened her position a bit on guns she might have had more of a chance.
    But I digress. My point was never that more liberal candidates are intrinsically less electable across the board. My specific point which I thought I had made was that when running to unseat a Republican, I believe the farther left you go the less chance there is to flip the district.
    I disagree. A better general rule might be that risk increases running on a given issue the more unpopular it is in the jurisdiction. Some further left positions - including many gun control measures - are very popular, others are less popular. Do you have a specific reason for believing guns hurt Abrams and O'Rourke more than Republican electoral administration?

    As a general rule. Of course there are exceptions but I think the data shows that I am correct, because the Sanders wing never flipped a district. You keep dodging this point. I dont accept the deep red district excuse because there are a bunch of Dems who flipped deep red districts like Andy Kim, Conor Lamb, Xochitl Torres Small, Anthony Brindisi, Kendra Horn, Joe Cunningham, the list goes on.
    Give me some names from the "Sanders wing" who ran against Republicans in competitive districts then, and the case against them.

    When I said "deep-red" I mean where previous Dems struggled to break out of the 20s or 30s, where Republicans win by 25+ points. Conor Lamb won a reorganized district, so a direct facial comparison is difficult, but the old 17th District that overlapped significantly with the new 18th had been won by a Democrat in 2016. That is not deep-red.

    By the way, Florida 2018 is another field test of the theme. Bill Nelson, the incumbent Dem Senator, lost to the outgoing governor Rick Scott. Despite being one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, Nelson lost with similar vote total and margins - in the same election! - as Gillum did. If Nelson had won by a couple hundred thousand votes where Gillum lost maybe you would have the beginning of a point.

    Another point: I read somewhere that almost all the districts (House) the Dems flipped in 2018 were "affluent." If this suggests that a lot of the Blue Wave was fueled by personal disgust with Trump, then it's both a good and bad sign. The good aspect is that the ideology of the candidate should have a minimized impact (whether you thought it was low or high in the past), so candidates have room to swing left. The bad aspect is the likely prospect of losing the House in 2022 under any Democrat.

    Except when he sponsors bills on the issue its no longer something to be tucked away in the platform, wouldn't you agree?
    Usually it is, because very few people pay attention to politicians' submitted legislation if they don't run on it. You know, a typical Republican constituent isn't gonna know her Senator pushed 20 Obamacare repeals without that Senator touting it up and down the state. In 2018 focus groups for the Dems outright refused to believe the Republican platform when presented with it. That is, they refused to believe the Republicans were running on Paul Ryan's agenda because it struck them as unrealistically cruel. People are seriously deluded about politics in this country.

    My point was that almost all Dems, to some degree, hold progressive positions. The difference is to what degree.
    Even on the broadest construal that's barely true at all, so I don't see it as a useful point. My description of the Democratic coalition would be 'pro-sane governance'.

    The DCCC has one goal. To win elections. I didn't say I approved of what they did, but I also do not blame them for taking action. I agree that the DCCC should have been impartial but again, its politics.
    The greatest thing about politics is the changing of it.

    Now look, I could see some role for the central party as a release valve, for example to quickly marginalize some Roy Moore-level scumbag/lunatic. But read this article and tell me how you can disapprove yet understand what they did to Moser. The ending is the chef's kiss:

    But in 2006, the last time Democrats were washed into the House on a blue wave, the DCCC also worked against a handful of candidates it believed couldn’t win the general election. When they won their primaries, the DCCC walked away, declaring the races un-winnable.

    They won anyway.

    But thats what my entire argument has been- take each case by case.
    Well, yes.

    You might be right about my judgement being colored. Honestly I remembering being really surprised that McBath won too. Maybe I'm just jaded.
    One thing I know for sure is that she made her personal gun control journey a centerpiece of her campaign.

    You might like these maps from Georgia 1994 Zell Miller 51-49 vs. George 2018 Stacey Abrams 49-50 (Generated on OurCampaigns.com):

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    Yes sorry I meant that it is very troubling. I agree with your assessment as to why they are not releasing the full medical records. As for the summaries, I think Sanders needs to release the full records, since he had a heart attack just a few months ago.
    Sure, his medical history bolsters the case for demanding full records compared to Biden or Warren. However, these niceties* are largely dead because the system has failed us. (Note that Biden making ridiculous claims about his arrest in South Africa and meeting Nelson Mandela would have forced him out of a campaign in another time.) Roll with it and hope we'll get contingencies prepared for, uh, elevating Sanders' name to martyrhood. We can build new norms and institutions in erecting the New World Order.

    *I'm speaking generally and don't refer to the release of medical records specifically; to my knowledge no one has ever done that before except John McCain (I still remember the skeleton jokes)

    I'm not going to lie, when I saw that it was tempting...
    The definition of "nice work, if you can get it." The window for snatching an easy paycheck has probably closed by now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
    I know the reasoning I think its a bad tactic, apologising doesnt score points in politics when you arent a party darling; dude should have shot back immediately, point to the drop in the black-on-black murder rate his stop and frisk caused and use it to hit warren over the head with her lack of similar accolades, instead his apologising just gives warren's swipe more credence.

    Blacks arent going to jump ship in great numbers from the Warren, Sanders or even Biden camps just because because he kissed Al Sharpton's ring.
    Stop-and-frisk imposed enormous illegal state violence against black citizens to deleterious effect. Now, it's plausible that many blacks outside NYC have never heard about stop-and-frisk, but pretty much everyone understands "black-on-black crime" to be a racist talking point - not even Bloomberg is clueless enough to commit suicide with that invocation. And an apology in either political or personal life will never be enough without working toward redemption. A purported apology on any subject the month of declaring your presidential campaign, after vigorously defending and enacting the opposite for 20 years straight, is obviously worthless. It's not much more absurd to imagine that Tony Blair shows up in Uxbridge a few years from now: "I apologize for having been a Labour member, now please select me for Conservative MP."

    A great way to win black support in general, though, is to show awareness of black issues and a willingness to address them or history of doing so. Just like any other group, right? Shouldn't be shocking. One of the reasons Buttigieg can't get traction is that he fails this test.


    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    For most of his political career Bernie sat as an Independent. His current position in the Democratic party is really entryism and at least some of his supporters will be entryists. There's no reason at all why more traditional Democrats should be expected to accept this.
    He's caucused with the Democrats his whole Congressional career, cooperates with the party's financial and administrative departments, and sits on the Senate Democratic leadership committee. Traditional Democrats like him as well as any other Democrat, unless you equate "traditional" with influential core operatives of the party as institution.

    The primary process itself is the opportunity for party elites to oppose disfavored candidates and boost favored ones; your Traditional Democrats have stayed aloof from the ongoing process insofar as they are themselves divided about how to proceed. If you could identify them as individuals I doubt more than half have strong reservations about Sanders. Obama, for example, has stressed that he likes Sanders well enough and is not interested in rebuffing him.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 02-27-2020 at 04:41.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  19. #469
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,851

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Remember back when I observed that even a motivated Justice Department (or state government) would prove unable to stick a charge on an unseated Trump?

    Well, I only just registered the corollary. If the Democrat beats Trump in 2020 he will be back for the Republican primaries in 2024. Search your feelings, you know it to be true. Real life really is following the meta-trajectory of the Star Wars sequels. At least we'll have a conclusive scoop on hypotheses of Trump's senescence or psychiatric decline by then.
    I agree with this. The only chance we had to banish Trump was in 2016. Now he has a firm grasp of the GOP and he's sadly not going anywhere. Even if he doesn't run, I think his son would want to run because of course he would.

    Some concrete bad news about Sanders: If Sanders wins the presidency and thus vacates his Senate seat, the sitting Republican governor of Vermont - also up for reelection in 2020 - will fill the seat with a (Republican) replacement. Same thing with Warren and Massachusetts actually. In Vermont's case, a special election would have to be called within 6 months.

    So, uh, whether or not a Democratic governor is elected to take office in 2021 the Senate Democrats will be down an extra Senator for a little while, putting a dent in the already-slim prospects of a productive first 100 days.

    Well, Sanders could do the bold thing and move up the timetable 3+ months by resigning his Senate seat upon winning the nomination, but he's already filed for a 2024 Senate campaign so I assume he's a man who likes to keep his bases covered.
    I think we are headed to a brokered convention so I think its unlikely he would resign unless Super Tuesday is a blowout or something.

    I disagree. A better general rule might be that risk increases running on a given issue the more unpopular it is in the jurisdiction. Some further left positions - including many gun control measures - are very popular, others are less popular. Do you have a specific reason for believing guns hurt Abrams and O'Rourke more than Republican electoral administration?
    Having grown up in the south, people here really really like guns. For a lot of folks I know, its lowkey fanaticism. They might be pro-M4A, but if a candidate wants to take their guns away they will vote GOP. Its really convoluted but I know a whole lot of people who think exactly like that. Its like how for a lot of people abortion is their single issue for picking a candidate.

    Give me some names from the "Sanders wing" who ran against Republicans in competitive districts then, and the case against them.

    When I said "deep-red" I mean where previous Dems struggled to break out of the 20s or 30s, where Republicans win by 25+ points. Conor Lamb won a reorganized district, so a direct facial comparison is difficult, but the old 17th District that overlapped significantly with the new 18th had been won by a Democrat in 2016. That is not deep-red.
    Er, wrong. In November Lamb won the redistricted seat but in early 2018 there was a special election before the redistricting (PA-18) where he won in an area that went to Trump by something like 20+ points and didn't have a Dem challenger for the seat since 2012. I don't know where you got your definition of deep red from, but I think most people would consider that deep red.

    As for names of the Sanders wing, theres Randy Bryce who I mentioned before, Lisa Ring, Audrey Denney, Rob Davidson, Kara Eastman, the list goes on. Im not going to go through and pick apart each candidate's platforms because thats a lot of work to do to win an internet argument. But I think my point has been made: the Sanders wing has a bad track record.

    By the way, Florida 2018 is another field test of the theme. Bill Nelson, the incumbent Dem Senator, lost to the outgoing governor Rick Scott. Despite being one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, Nelson lost with similar vote total and margins - in the same election! - as Gillum did. If Nelson had won by a couple hundred thousand votes where Gillum lost maybe you would have the beginning of a point.
    True, but it can also be an example of where having someone perceived as being too far left can hurt down-ballot races. But then again, Florida is all kinds of messed up so who knows.

    Another point: I read somewhere that almost all the districts (House) the Dems flipped in 2018 were "affluent." If this suggests that a lot of the Blue Wave was fueled by personal disgust with Trump, then it's both a good and bad sign. The good aspect is that the ideology of the candidate should have a minimized impact (whether you thought it was low or high in the past), so candidates have room to swing left. The bad aspect is the likely prospect of losing the House in 2022 under any Democrat.
    Wouldnt this then be an argument to make sure that the candidates are more moderate in those districts? Because once the unifying factor (Trump) is gone, its harder for a staunch progressive to hold onto the seat when the folks of Orange County decide that they dont want their congressperson saying that they should lose their private insurance. Though to be fair, theres no guarantee even a moderate Dem could hold that seat in 2022 so its a gamble and you are correct in this regard.

    Usually it is, because very few people pay attention to politicians' submitted legislation if they don't run on it. You know, a typical Republican constituent isn't gonna know her Senator pushed 20 Obamacare repeals without that Senator touting it up and down the state. In 2018 focus groups for the Dems outright refused to believe the Republican platform when presented with it. That is, they refused to believe the Republicans were running on Paul Ryan's agenda because it struck them as unrealistically cruel. People are seriously deluded about politics in this country.
    Except that he has repeated those positions numerous times in interviews and debates. To continue with the fracking example, its hard to explain away when in a debate he said to flat out ban it. All the GOP needs to do is to run an ad with that clip throughout PA and bam, the chances for winning PA just got tougher.

    Even on the broadest construal that's barely true at all, so I don't see it as a useful point. My description of the Democratic coalition would be 'pro-sane governance'.
    Name a member of the Dem coalition who doesnt hold at least one somewhat progressive view. Even Joe Manchin is opposed to US military interventionism which I believe puts him in somewhat agreement with Bernie, wouldnt it? Last I checked, opposing US military interventionism a progressive view.

    The greatest thing about politics is the changing of it.

    Now look, I could see some role for the central party as a release valve, for example to quickly marginalize some Roy Moore-level scumbag/lunatic. But read this article and tell me how you can disapprove yet understand what they did to Moser. The ending is the chef's kiss:
    Because the function of the DCCC is to make strategic decisions like this. Ill say again, I do not like what they did to Moser. But within the framework of their role in campaigns I understand it, despite it being very unsavory.

    One thing I know for sure is that she made her personal gun control journey a centerpiece of her campaign.

    You might like these maps from Georgia 1994 Zell Miller 51-49 vs. George 2018 Stacey Abrams 49-50 (Generated on OurCampaigns.com):
    That I do know, gun control was her main thing because her son was murdered. Its actually a really compelling story and I admire the hell out of her. Shes also really nice in person (I interned for the House Dem Caucus in early 2019).

    Anyways, 1994 Georgia and 2018 are hugely different times mainly because Zell Miller was a very conservative Dem (he even supported Bush and later McCain). Seems silly to compare the two eras.

    Sure, his medical history bolsters the case for demanding full records compared to Biden or Warren. However, these niceties* are largely dead because the system has failed us. (Note that Biden making ridiculous claims about his arrest in South Africa and meeting Nelson Mandela would have forced him out of a campaign in another time.) Roll with it and hope we'll get contingencies prepared for, uh, elevating Sanders' name to martyrhood. We can build new norms and institutions in erecting the New World Order.

    *I'm speaking generally and don't refer to the release of medical records specifically; to my knowledge no one has ever done that before except John McCain (I still remember the skeleton jokes)
    I agree that the system has failed us because until now it has relied on the goodwill of candidates to be open and forthcoming about things like taxes. But I dont think its an excuse to dodge a very serious concern either. How would new norms and institutions be built if you trample on the ones that already existed? Thats like telling someone that they have to eat their veggies while at the same time not eating your veggies. Lead by example. If we want an open and transparent government, I believe it starts on the campaign trail.

    Interestingly enough I've been rewatching the West Wing and just finished the episodes on the whole MS cover up. I don't think I am being controversial when I say that cover ups are bad.
    Last edited by Hooahguy; 02-27-2020 at 07:16.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  20. #470
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,851

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    The latest Sabato Crystal Ball rating is focused on Sanders but I think applies to the whole Dem field:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ERwyH-eU0AI5sCr.jpg 
Views:	58 
Size:	80.5 KB 
ID:	23325

    Long story short, we need Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Although I think Arizona is more of a toss up than this map shows but otherwise accurate.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  21. #471

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    In primary news, whether or not there is a connection to Biden's overperformance to 2nd place in Nevada, this week his polling in South Carolina has rebounded enormously. He is polling back to his long-term average in the state, possibly erasing all of Sanders' advantage since he statistically tied Biden in polling a week ago.

    In other news demonstrating the callous stupidity of anyone out there who wants to play favorites with Democratic nominees, another example of how even a Gabbard or Bloomberg administration could not possibly be as dangerous as a continued Trump administration. Anyone suggesting any nominee would have the same policies as Trump (so why bother voting) deserves a lot of disparagement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    Having grown up in the south, people here really really like guns. For a lot of folks I know, its lowkey fanaticism. They might be pro-M4A, but if a candidate wants to take their guns away they will vote GOP. Its really convoluted but I know a whole lot of people who think exactly like that. Its like how for a lot of people abortion is their single issue for picking a candidate
    How likely are they to vote Democratic in general? Assuming you're describing the kind of person who declares background checks to be tyranny, and likes to open carry everywhere, then they're almost certainly wholly enveloped in the far-right ecosystem.

    Also, just a pin in a tangent but I want to make sure we don't conflate O'Rourke's 2018 run and his presidential campaign on gun issues. In the latter he tried to stake out controversial positions in the summer (this was after a spate of major mass shootings) to grab media attention, which put him far out beyond the rest of the field on gun control. I don't believe he was nearly as aggressive in 2018.

    Er, wrong. In November Lamb won the redistricted seat but in early 2018 there was a special election before the redistricting (PA-18) where he won in an area that went to Trump by something like 20+ points and didn't have a Dem challenger for the seat since 2012. I don't know where you got your definition of deep red from, but I think most people would consider that deep red.
    I apologize, looking at the two maps I realize I somehow became profoundly confused about what the districts were and how they changed. Disregard what I said about prior races, there's nothing to compare to.
    https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Pennsylvania

    But I can look up coverage of the races Lamb was involved in. The first, special, election that came before the midterms was rated a "toss-up." We don't know what the electorate might have thought of any other Democratic candidate, because Lamb ran to be the Democratic nominee unopposed. Indeed, the fact that there had been no Dem challenger there in 2014/16 can't really tell us much. On one hand maybe the longtime incumbent there, Tim Murphy, was just unbeatably strong, but for all we know the Democratic party was leaving money on the table all along - this was actually a strong criticism of the party's strategy 2008-16, where they had abandoned a 50-state all-district strategy in favor of concentrating on favorable seats. In 2018 the we took more risks by supporting candidates in as many races as possible: more investment, higher reward. At any rate in his special election Lamb was not running against this incumbent, who had retired; that there's an instant bonus for any Dem nominee.
    https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania...election,_2018

    After the special election, the redistricting took effect and Lamb had to run in the midterms for the reorganized 17th district. This election was regarded as either lean or likely Democratic by trackers, meaning it was favorable territory.

    Again, the bottom line is that if you only run moderates in swing races, and some of those moderates win, it does not logically follow that eo ipso moderate candidates are advantageous across the board. Maybe they even are - I'm not ruling it out! - but you wouldn't know it by these observations. That's all.

    As for names of the Sanders wing, theres Randy Bryce who I mentioned before, Lisa Ring, Audrey Denney, Rob Davidson, Kara Eastman, the list goes on. Im not going to go through and pick apart each candidate's platforms because thats a lot of work to do to win an internet argument. But I think my point has been made: the Sanders wing has a bad track record.
    At least you named the ones who ran against Republicans - but why do you impute a bad track record? If I put together a list of 20 moderate Dems who lost, does that amount to a bad track record? If you want to do a comparison, look at the partisan leans of the districts, spending, polling, prior elections,, etc. Because from my perspective losing narrowly in Republican-leaning races or badly in solid Republican seats (just like anyone else), while improving on 2016 and on 2018 polling across the board - that sounds like a good start to me.

    Be aware you're veering dangerously close to "These are the Glengarry leads. And to you, they're gold. And you don't get them. Because to give them to you is just throwing them away. They're for closers" logic.

    True, but it can also be an example of where having someone perceived as being too far left can hurt down-ballot races. But then again, Florida is all kinds of messed up so who knows.
    At the end of the day, Gillum got about as many votes as Nelson in a statewide - no downballot there - race. Within the scope of candidate characteristics you might as well argue that he lost because he wasn't left enough, pick your flavor. IMO the handicap of his race is a safer assessment.

    Want to hear something funny and sad? Maybe you've heard it before, that the electorate in 2016 tended to perceive Trump as more moderate than Clinton.

    And this is meaningless but also funny, that after the election Bloomberg was on record saying "I’ll leave you with a thought — there was a guy, Bernie Sanders, who would’ve beaten Donald Trump. The polls show he would have walked away with it, but Hillary Clinton got the nomination, for a variety of reasons."

    Wouldnt this then be an argument to make sure that the candidates are more moderate in those districts? Because once the unifying factor (Trump) is gone, its harder for a staunch progressive to hold onto the seat when the folks of Orange County decide that they dont want their congressperson saying that they should lose their private insurance. Though to be fair, theres no guarantee even a moderate Dem could hold that seat in 2022 so its a gamble and you are correct in this regard.
    Potentially in 2022 - it's not clear it would work even then - but not this time. Zombie Eugene Debs could have beaten McCain in 2008, but how many promising reps, governors, senators and others got turfed out between 2008 and 2010? And as I keep emphasizing, the candidate's quality and local knowledge is probably always more important than ideology. If you have strong, smart challenger against a weak, decadent, unpopular incumbent then platform content may even be beside the point. From the orbital view it can be difficult to see the trees for the forest, that politicians are not essentially fungible units differentiating from each other on the political abstraction of policy views.

    Fun fact about the House: In the past 30 years the largest House majorities of either party have been 267 (1990, Dem) and 257 (2008, Dem). You just won't see locks for either party like 1932-6, or 1920.

    Except that he has repeated those positions numerous times in interviews and debates. To continue with the fracking example, its hard to explain away when in a debate he said to flat out ban it. All the GOP needs to do is to run an ad with that clip throughout PA and bam, the chances for winning PA just got tougher.
    So, if necessary, he'll stop repeating it. You overestimate the public's memory, whose weak memory often - but not necessarily - works against Democrats. We'll see.


    Name a member of the Dem coalition who doesnt hold at least one somewhat progressive view. Even Joe Manchin is opposed to US military interventionism which I believe puts him in somewhat agreement with Bernie, wouldnt it? Last I checked, opposing US military interventionism a progressive view.
    No? Many Republicans and libertarians are at least nominally opposed to much foreign intervention. Meanwhile, Manchin supported Trump's exit from the Iran Deal (which he also originally opposed). In contemporary politics a distinctive progressive stance in foreign policy would be criticism of Israel, of which Manchin happens to be one of the stauncher defenders. Whereas Robert Byrd, Manchin's predecessor, was one of the foremost opponents of the Iraq War. There's a progressive bona fide if you want one.

    Manchin might be tolerable for West Virginia but he is not progressive by any metric.

    I prefer the formulation I offered.

    Because the function of the DCCC is to make strategic decisions like this. Ill say again, I do not like what they did to Moser. But within the framework of their role in campaigns I understand it, despite it being very unsavory.
    Understand that it's available to us to change the parameters of decision-making.

    Anyways, 1994 Georgia and 2018 are hugely different times mainly because Zell Miller was a very conservative Dem (he even supported Bush and later McCain). Seems silly to compare the two eras.
    No, I'm trying to visually demonstrate demographic shifts between two elections with nearly identical outcomes along overall vote share. The geographic distribution of votes became dramatically more concentrated. (You don't need to know much about Georgia to know the northwest blob in 2018 is Atlanta.) I just thought you'd find it interesting.

    I agree that the system has failed us because until now it has relied on the goodwill of candidates to be open and forthcoming about things like taxes. But I dont think its an excuse to dodge a very serious concern either. How would new norms and institutions be built if you trample on the ones that already existed? Thats like telling someone that they have to eat their veggies while at the same time not eating your veggies. Lead by example. If we want an open and transparent government, I believe it starts on the campaign trail.
    Sanders isn't trampling on an old norm of releasing health records - which wasn't done in the past. His fault is in promising to release more than he has; he shouldn't have overpromised (some might call that a theme of his campaign).

    The substantive concerns about his health are largely addressed by the summaries however. From what I've read they don't contain anything alarming, and if the summaries don't contain anything alarming there's probably nothing too bad in the detailed work.

    You're relying on Sanders to be unusually forthright for a politician or even a regular person, but that's just a brand; he's relatively contrarian but that doesn't translate to exceptional honesty (despite popular perception). He's just more transparent than average.

    Interestingly enough I've been rewatching the West Wing and just finished the episodes on the whole MS cover up. I don't think I am being controversial when I say that cover ups are bad.
    Wasn't West Wing the show where no one ever accomplished anything?


    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    The latest Sabato Crystal Ball rating is focused on Sanders but I think applies to the whole Dem field:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ERwyH-eU0AI5sCr.jpg 
Views:	58 
Size:	80.5 KB 
ID:	23325

    Long story short, we need Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Although I think Arizona is more of a toss up than this map shows but otherwise accurate.
    Be more cautious about these projections 8 months out. Even the Sabato team admitted they "blew" the 2016 horse race; their complacency about the facts in turn reinforced others' complacency.

    Sabato electoral map from Mar. 31 2016:



    Need I say more?
    Last edited by Montmorency; 02-28-2020 at 02:35.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  22. #472

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    The election will be decided at the contested convention. Polls are pointless because blue turnout entirely hinges on the convention outcome.

    Only three wildcards could shift the election to the same degree as the convention.
    1. Mismanagement of a pandemic.
    2. Economic turmoil.
    3. Climate driven disaster.

    Why even waste your time looking at pointless maps.


  23. #473

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    The election will be decided at the contested convention.
    Let's see what happens on Super Tuesday. The rest is k.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Member thankful for this post:



  24. #474
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    At this juncture, waiting for Super Tuesday is about it. If that splits 4 ways with no winner, THEN we may see something whacky at convention time. If Sanders sweeps it, then I think he sows up the nomination. But a "sweep" is challenging in proportional races.
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  25. #475
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,851

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    How likely are they to vote Democratic in general? Assuming you're describing the kind of person who declares background checks to be tyranny, and likes to open carry everywhere, then they're almost certainly wholly enveloped in the far-right ecosystem.
    I know a half-dozen personally who would vote Dem if the Dem was moderate on guns. They don't think background checks is tyranny, but they dislike the other proposals like magazine and style limits, registries, etc. Not a good sample size of course but thats just my personal observation.

    Again, the bottom line is that if you only run moderates in swing races, and some of those moderates win, it does not logically follow that eo ipso moderate candidates are advantageous across the board. Maybe they even are - I'm not ruling it out! - but you wouldn't know it by these observations. That's all.
    Except we didnt just run moderates. We also ran progressives in some of those districts. But they lost.

    At least you named the ones who ran against Republicans - but why do you impute a bad track record? If I put together a list of 20 moderate Dems who lost, does that amount to a bad track record? If you want to do a comparison, look at the partisan leans of the districts, spending, polling, prior elections,, etc. Because from my perspective losing narrowly in Republican-leaning races or badly in solid Republican seats (just like anyone else), while improving on 2016 and on 2018 polling across the board - that sounds like a good start to me.

    Be aware you're veering dangerously close to "These are the Glengarry leads. And to you, they're gold. And you don't get them. Because to give them to you is just throwing them away. They're for closers" logic.
    Its a bad track record because they lost. Of course not all the moderates won, but they won enough to turn the House. You wouldnt say that a football team which was 0-16 was on the same level as a team that is 8-8, would you? So your argument doesnt really hold water on this.

    Potentially in 2022 - it's not clear it would work even then - but not this time. Zombie Eugene Debs could have beaten McCain in 2008, but how many promising reps, governors, senators and others got turfed out between 2008 and 2010? And as I keep emphasizing, the candidate's quality and local knowledge is probably always more important than ideology. If you have strong, smart challenger against a weak, decadent, unpopular incumbent then platform content may even be beside the point. From the orbital view it can be difficult to see the trees for the forest, that politicians are not essentially fungible units differentiating from each other on the political abstraction of policy views.

    Fun fact about the House: In the past 30 years the largest House majorities of either party have been 267 (1990, Dem) and 257 (2008, Dem). You just won't see locks for either party like 1932-6, or 1920.
    And I agree with you on this. But you dont always have a weak, decadent, unpopular incumbent. So figuring out the best candidate who will fight for your ideals without alienating a majority of the district is important.


    So, if necessary, he'll stop repeating it. You overestimate the public's memory, whose weak memory often - but not necessarily - works against Democrats. We'll see.
    You are naive to think that the GOP will let ammo like that slide.

    No? Many Republicans and libertarians are at least nominally opposed to much foreign intervention. Meanwhile, Manchin supported Trump's exit from the Iran Deal (which he also originally opposed). In contemporary politics a distinctive progressive stance in foreign policy would be criticism of Israel, of which Manchin happens to be one of the stauncher defenders. Whereas Robert Byrd, Manchin's predecessor, was one of the foremost opponents of the Iraq War. There's a progressive bona fide if you want one.

    Manchin might be tolerable for West Virginia but he is not progressive by any metric.

    I prefer the formulation I offered.
    Ok fine, he is more aligned with libertarian foreign policy, but he also supported expanding background checks for guns which is a marginally progressive or liberal point. My point was never that Manchin is a progressive. Far from it. My point was that there is an underlying goal that unites the Democrats- progress. Now answer my previous question- name

    Sanders isn't trampling on an old norm of releasing health records - which wasn't done in the past. His fault is in promising to release more than he has; he shouldn't have overpromised (some might call that a theme of his campaign).

    The substantive concerns about his health are largely addressed by the summaries however. From what I've read they don't contain anything alarming, and if the summaries don't contain anything alarming there's probably nothing too bad in the detailed work.

    You're relying on Sanders to be unusually forthright for a politician or even a regular person, but that's just a brand; he's relatively contrarian but that doesn't translate to exceptional honesty (despite popular perception). He's just more transparent than average.
    One in five people who have a heart attack have a second one within five years of the first. Considering his age and the extreme stresses of the office, I personally am concerned about his health. Perhaps the letter he released was enough for some, but considering that he said he would release the full records and then backtracked on it, I kinda feel like there is potentially something there he doesn't want the public to know.

    Wasn't West Wing the show where no one ever accomplished anything?
    The quality of the show aside, my point was that cover ups are bad.

    Be more cautious about these projections 8 months out. Even the Sabato team admitted they "blew" the 2016 horse race; their complacency about the facts in turn reinforced others' complacency.
    Well, almost everyone blew the 2016 race to be fair. But I think overall the assessment of where the potential toss ups will be are accurate: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Arizona.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  26. #476

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    A perspicuous comment from another site on the idea of a contested convention:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    As far as I can tell, the sole purpose of this article was to break the brains of everyone on the left and sow dissent, a task at which it has been 100% successful. The Sanders supporters on my twitter feed have all lost their goddamn minds - did you know that Sanders flip-flopping over the inalienable right of the plurality vote-getter to receive the nomination between 2016 and 2020, not to mention the fact that he's sure to flip-flop again if he arrives at the convention as a close second or third, are justified because they're all a response to the party rigging the process against him? They've turned Warren into the devil herself (and I think it's telling that they're fixating on Warren, not Bloomberg or Biden, who are currently far more likely to be Sanders's competition in the event of a brokered convention).

    And then I come here, hoping for some common sense, and find yet more catastrophizing from the other direction. Wasn't it just a few days ago that we were reminded that this is always the point in the cycle when people start talking about a brokered convention, and that it never actually happens? Haven't we spent the last few years mocking the kind of party insiders who love to soberly explain to reporters that they hold all the power and were just on the verge of, I don't know, switching out Hillary Clinton for Joe Biden at the last minute, but then they didn't, for totally good reasons, certainly not because they're spewing complete bullshit for a bit of attention? I don't understand why this report is being taken seriously, instead of being mercilessly mocked as so many others before it were.

    To be clear, it is obviously in Sanders's interest to play up this panic, because he wants to create the narrative that he and his supporters will blow up the party in the case of a brokered convention, and by so doing, incentivize voters to coalesce around him in order to avoid that result. (Though, again, if he arrives at the convention in close second place, he and his supporters will blow up the party anyway.) And it is just as obviously in the moderate wing's interest to do the same, because they want to create the narrative that Sanders is uniquely dangerous and unelectable. But none of us actually have to play into that. We can say "there are pitfalls to a brokered convention, and scenarios where overruling the popular result will be dangerous and unacceptable", while still acknowledging that this is a vanishingly unlikely outcome, and that the reason we're even talking about it has more to do with generating clicks and playing politics than anything real.


    Want to hear my robust projection? As in, robust for any scenario without a Sanders majority or clear plurality by non-Sanders candidate: Sanders will negotiate with other candidates and other candidates' delegates and will assemble a majority. Any plurality winner will run that process. God, the panicky superdelegate scenario is about as likely as Buttigieg becoming the frontrunner.

    On the other hand, Democrats do have the ultimate dark horse to obliterate Trump waiting in the wings, should they choose to accept their mission:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Carter/Mondale



    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    I know a half-dozen personally who would vote Dem if the Dem was moderate on guns. They don't think background checks is tyranny, but they dislike the other proposals like magazine and style limits, registries, etc. Not a good sample size of course but thats just my personal observation.
    I sometimes watch an anarchist Youtuber who lives in the panhandle not far from you. Though he doesn't own his stance on gun rights and laws is - well, he's an ideological anarchist, but he's the type of far-leftist who knows how things work and understands what Trump is perfectly well. Maybe you could share some of his videos with your friends; his approach seems tailored to persuading rural conservatives.

    At any rate, fairly or unfairly Sanders is perceived (at least by Democrats) as moderate on guns. In fact all the candidates have basically the same moderate gun control platform now that Booker and O'Rourke are out. Ironically, nanny-statist Bloomberg is now the furthest left on gun control.

    Except we didnt just run moderates. We also ran progressives in some of those districts. But they lost.
    We ran a handful - you pretty much exhausted the list. They did pretty well, so unless you want to systematically compare their defeats to the (many more) moderate defeats...

    Aaagh! You can cherry-pick examples to support any narrative that fits your policy preferences. If you ignore all the successes of progressive candidates, and ignore all the failures of moderate or centrist candidates, it's very easy to skew the picture. What's the bottom line for 2018? It undermined the narrative of a groundswell of policy-driven reformist sentiment waiting to be unleashed, but at the same time it undermined the narrative that running left is an albatross. The fact that more socialists (to say nothing of other progressives) now hold more offices across the country and across levels of government than in a century is pretty good progress. Not as revolutionary as some expected, but progress nonetheless.

    Its a bad track record because they lost. Of course not all the moderates won, but they won enough to turn the House. You wouldnt say that a football team which was 0-16 was on the same level as a team that is 8-8, would you? So your argument doesnt really hold water on this.
    I don't know sports well, but we're talking about the same team. Let's put it this way: if you're wielding this argument as a tautology against voting or supporting the left candidates in primaries, then yeah, it's circular logic. Amusingly, the better argument one could direct against the electability of leftists is that they didn't succeed in the primaries themselves - so if they do begin to succeed more and more, would that by definition make them more electable?

    And I agree with you on this. But you dont always have a weak, decadent, unpopular incumbent. So figuring out the best candidate who will fight for your ideals without alienating a majority of the district is important.
    What do you think of Shahid Buttar running against Pelosi (again)? He almost got second place last time, which in California's jungle system would have sent him to the general against Pelosi. I don't particularly want Pelosi gone just yet, but Buttar seems capable enough and I'd be interested to see how the vote would split between Pelosi and Buttar in November. And hey, Sith rules: If she loses it's because she wasn't strong enough.

    The primary is Super Tuesday.

    You are naive to think that the GOP will let ammo like that slide.
    I'm questioning it's potential impact.

    Now answer my previous question- name
    Name someone who doesn't have at least one "progressive" view?

    I mean damn, theoretically you could pull in half the Republican party on such a loose standard. But we do have some DINOs, like Dan Lipinski and Jeff Van Drew (who actually switched parties a couple months ago).

    One in five people who have a heart attack have a second one within five years of the first. Considering his age and the extreme stresses of the office, I personally am concerned about his health. Perhaps the letter he released was enough for some, but considering that he said he would release the full records and then backtracked on it, I kinda feel like there is potentially something there he doesn't want the public to know.
    Maybe. Look, there's a distinction between absolute and relative risk. From what we have, Sanders relative risk of morbidity for his demographic profile may be low. But the absolute actuarial risk of a 78-year old man with history of cardiac arrest is... it's more likely than not that he is dead or reduced in baseline function within 8 years. I'm confident he will make a good VP pick - one name being thrown around is Catherine Cortez-Masto. Moreover the party should prepare contingencies for his glorious martyrdom. You know, 'Sanders died serving the people, stalwart tribune, we must carry on his legacy, yadda yadda.' It's manageable.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  27. #477
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,851

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I sometimes watch an anarchist Youtuber who lives in the panhandle not far from you. Though he doesn't own his stance on gun rights and laws is - well, he's an ideological anarchist, but he's the type of far-leftist who knows how things work and understands what Trump is perfectly well. Maybe you could share some of his videos with your friends; his approach seems tailored to persuading rural conservatives.

    At any rate, fairly or unfairly Sanders is perceived (at least by Democrats) as moderate on guns. In fact all the candidates have basically the same moderate gun control platform now that Booker and O'Rourke are out. Ironically, nanny-statist Bloomberg is now the furthest left on gun control.
    Oh, do you mean Beau of the Fifth Column? I really like him! I have shared some of his videos in the past.
    I actually dont really blame Sanders for his past moderate stances on guns.

    We ran a handful - you pretty much exhausted the list. They did pretty well, so unless you want to systematically compare their defeats to the (many more) moderate defeats...

    Aaagh! You can cherry-pick examples to support any narrative that fits your policy preferences. If you ignore all the successes of progressive candidates, and ignore all the failures of moderate or centrist candidates, it's very easy to skew the picture. What's the bottom line for 2018? It undermined the narrative of a groundswell of policy-driven reformist sentiment waiting to be unleashed, but at the same time it undermined the narrative that running left is an albatross. The fact that more socialists (to say nothing of other progressives) now hold more offices across the country and across levels of government than in a century is pretty good progress. Not as revolutionary as some expected, but progress nonetheless.
    I agree that progressives did find success- in safe blue districts. In that way, 2018 can be seen as a success. But unfortunately they did not flip districts critical to claim the majority. We need to flip districts otherwise its all for nothing. 200 staunch leftists can be elected to the House, but if there arent 218 of them, it wont matter a bit.

    I don't know sports well, but we're talking about the same team. Let's put it this way: if you're wielding this argument as a tautology against voting or supporting the left candidates in primaries, then yeah, it's circular logic. Amusingly, the better argument one could direct against the electability of leftists is that they didn't succeed in the primaries themselves - so if they do begin to succeed more and more, would that by definition make them more electable?
    Yes, because it means their district has shown to be accepting of more progressive views. Honestly I really hope that a progressive wave overtakes the country. I really do. But I am also a pragmatist because I do not think that the country is ready for that. Yet. Look, I want a progressive to be able to flip a district. I really do. I'm just not sure we are there yet with the Overton window.

    What do you think of Shahid Buttar running against Pelosi (again)? He almost got second place last time, which in California's jungle system would have sent him to the general against Pelosi. I don't particularly want Pelosi gone just yet, but Buttar seems capable enough and I'd be interested to see how the vote would split between Pelosi and Buttar in November. And hey, Sith rules: If she loses it's because she wasn't strong enough.
    Im not really impartial on this as Ive worked with Pelosi's office and have met her (she complimented my socks once too lol). I think shes exactly what the Dems need right now in a Speaker so I would not primary her out. Only when the country is in a safe place in terms of not having to deal with Trump and his goons would I consider a replacement.

    I'm questioning it's potential impact.
    Question it all you want, but one thing is unfortunately true: the GOP is pretty darn good at elections. And that means they will dredge up whatever they can to win.

    Name someone who doesn't have at least one "progressive" view?

    I mean damn, theoretically you could pull in half the Republican party on such a loose standard. But we do have some DINOs, like Dan Lipinski and Jeff Van Drew (who actually switched parties a couple months ago).
    Van Drew is a strange case, as he voted in line with the Dems almost 90% of the time. And Lipinski has changed his view on Dreamers so theres that I guess. Anyways my point was that the Dems are a big tent with the underlying goal of moving the country forward. While one or two might not be very progressive, the other 200+ are much more.

    Maybe. Look, there's a distinction between absolute and relative risk. From what we have, Sanders relative risk of morbidity for his demographic profile may be low. But the absolute actuarial risk of a 78-year old man with history of cardiac arrest is... it's more likely than not that he is dead or reduced in baseline function within 8 years. I'm confident he will make a good VP pick - one name being thrown around is Catherine Cortez-Masto. Moreover the party should prepare contingencies for his glorious martyrdom. You know, 'Sanders died serving the people, stalwart tribune, we must carry on his legacy, yadda yadda.' It's manageable.
    I personally find the whole martyrdom thing you said kinda weird, I wont lie. Perhaps you are kidding but its a weird thing to say. My two cents.
    Last edited by Hooahguy; 02-29-2020 at 04:49.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  28. #478

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    WE NEED A WIZARD WHO CAN APPEAL TO THE MODERATE ORC VOTER

    I may be just an ordinary orc, but I wasn’t at all surprised when the Dark Lord Sauron became the leader of Mordor. A lot of my smart, liberal friends, though, reacted as if Middle-earth was coming to an end. Dwarves in the barroom of the Prancing Pony said it was the pride of the High Elves. Ravens twittering under the eaves of Mirkwood blamed the cunning of dragons. The Steward of Gondor, posting on FacePalantir, said it was because of Sauron’s hatred for the heirs of Isildur.

    I’m here to tell you: it’s the economy, stupid.

    It’s all very well for those of you who dwell in the Shire, the haven of Rivendell, or the quiet forests of Lothlórien. You live in a bubble. You don’t know what life is like for the average orc, in depressed areas like the Trollshaws, the Misty Mountains, or the Dead Marshes. Let me tell you, it’s hard out here for an orc. We experience tremendous insecurity, not knowing whether we’ll have a job, or be able to raid peaceful villages, or if our friends will eat us. Sauron appeals to us economically challenged goblins because he offers us the chance of a decent wage, respect for our values, and renewed pride in being the corrupted spawn of Morgoth.

    If the Free People are going to defeat Sauron, you need to let go of your elitist attitudes and choose someone who can appeal to the moderate orc vote. That’s why I support Saruman the White to lead the Council of the Wise.

    Now, I know there are a lot of orcs who won’t vote for any wizard. I get that. They’re blindly loyal to the Dark Lord, and nothing anyone does or says can change that. But those orcs represent no more than 10% of the Middle-earth electorate.

    Gandalf has gotten a lot of attention by making the One Ring the center of his campaign. We all can agree that the Ring is important, but shouldn’t we also address the kitchen-table issues that moderate orcs — swing orcs — care about?

    Destroying the Ring sounds appealing, but it’s naïve and simplistic. Much of Mordor’s infrastructure was built with the Ring. The building of the Dark Tower of Barad-Dûr and the Black Gate of Udûn employed thousands of trolls, goblins, and Haradrim. What are they supposed to do if it’s suddenly dissolved in the fires of Orodruin? Gandalf’s plan makes no provision for relocating and retraining thousands of Sauron’s minions.

    Besides, Gandalf’s plan for dealing with the Ring just won’t work. It’s too far to the left to gain support from mainstream dwarves, and would vastly increase Hobbit immigration. If the Ring has to be dropped into Mount Doom, why can’t we have our own, native-born Great Eagles do the job?

    Saruman the White supports a more gradual approach to destroying the One Ring. Under Saruman, Mordor will be transitioned away from a Ring-based economy, without the loss of thousands of orc jobs that Gandalf’s plan would entail. Saruman will work with the Ring, not against it, to gradually phase out the Shadow, the Eye of Fire, and the Nazgûl, and replace them with more sustainable alternatives.

    Of course, Saruman’s record isn’t perfect. He said at one time that Rings of Power were good for Elves. We know that’s an outdated attitude. But that was more than a thousand years ago, before the Witch-King of Angmar destroyed the Northern Realm. Things were different then.

    Saruman has repudiated his previous support for building engines of fire and doom beneath the tower of Isengard and breeding the Uruk-hai in its pits. But what’s done is done. We can’t go back and fix the past. Many radical Ents still oppose him for his one-time policy of “cutting down all the trees.” Saruman has acknowledged that he was wrong and says his position on Ents has evolved. But let’s be realistic. Sometimes you have to build hellish devices and generate foul orc-spawn to get things done. That’s just how politics works.

    Saruman has received endorsements from the savage tribes of Dunland, the Great Goblin, and the King of Rohan (according to Theoden’s loyal advisor and spokesman, Gríma Wormtongue). He’s the wizard who can lead us into a bright new age.

    And to those who say it’s time we choose someone like Lady Galadriel, forget it. There are still a lot of people who will never vote for an elf.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hooahguy View Post
    Oh, do you mean Beau of the Fifth Column? I really like him! I have shared some of his videos in the past.
    Yeah.

    I agree that progressives did find success- in safe blue districts. In that way, 2018 can be seen as a success. But unfortunately they did not flip districts critical to claim the majority. We need to flip districts otherwise its all for nothing. 200 staunch leftists can be elected to the House, but if there arent 218 of them, it wont matter a bit.
    My modest proposal is to discard self-fulfilling premises that swing districts are for moderates only. I named some of the successes, such as the Katies, and moreover there's little indication progressives underperformed moderates when you actually take into account the small proportion of general election progressives and the many moderate wipeouts.

    But I'm not just talking about the House. State and local governments are important, and they were the foundational locus of leftists movements in the early 20th century, people like Larry Krasner and Julia Salazar. They're also great races to lead insurgencies because large majorities could be measured in 4 figures in most local races (this is how the socialist Lee Carter defeated one of the most elite Virginia Republicans, as mentioned above). Even a conservative should be able to admit that Dems could easily have at least half of all their elected officials in the country move left, or be replaced. To some extent this has already happened. The party's policy window has shifted well to the left of where it was 10 years ago.

    Lest we forget, but Joe Biden, always one who has leaned more toward the right half of the party, is genuinely running on a platform to the left of Obama's or Clinton's (though tbf Obama was always a centrist).

    Im not really impartial on this as Ive worked with Pelosi's office and have met her (she complimented my socks once too lol). I think shes exactly what the Dems need right now in a Speaker so I would not primary her out. Only when the country is in a safe place in terms of not having to deal with Trump and his goons would I consider a replacement.
    The way I see it, in the jungle primary someone with ~10% of the vote, likely a Democrat, is going to challenge Pelosi in November anyway. It might as well be Buttar. I want to see how well he can perform. It's relevant to this discussion, right? (Definitely sad that Feinstein couldn't be ejected by De Leon...) And if he does beat her, then it's on her for being too weak to fend off the challenge.

    Van Drew is a strange case, as he voted in line with the Dems almost 90% of the time.
    Huh. And he has the nerve to insist the party continue funding his campaigns.

    I personally find the whole martyrdom thing you said kinda weird, I wont lie. Perhaps you are kidding but its a weird thing to say. My two cents.
    Maybe I'm too cynical, but I could see some benefit in exploiting a Sanders hagiography to our benefit. Hey, if Sanders winds up as our Reagan in other respects, why not this one? Even Democrats still like Reagan! Propaganda works.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 02-29-2020 at 05:52.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  29. #479
    Stranger in a strange land Moderator Hooahguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Fortress
    Posts
    11,851

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    My modest proposal is to discard self-fulfilling premises that swing districts are for moderates only. I named some of the successes, such as the Katies, and moreover there's little indication progressives underperformed moderates when you actually take into account the small proportion of general election progressives and the many moderate wipeouts.

    But I'm not just talking about the House. State and local governments are important, and they were the foundational locus of leftists movements in the early 20th century, people like Larry Krasner and Julia Salazar. They're also great races to lead insurgencies because large majorities could be measured in 4 figures in most local races (this is how the socialist Lee Carter defeated one of the most elite Virginia Republicans, as mentioned above). Even a conservative should be able to admit that Dems could easily have at least half of all their elected officials in the country move left, or be replaced. To some extent this has already happened. The party's policy window has shifted well to the left of where it was 10 years ago.

    Lest we forget, but Joe Biden, always one who has leaned more toward the right half of the party, is genuinely running on a platform to the left of Obama's or Clinton's (though tbf Obama was always a centrist).
    You know, I thought about this a lot last night before I went to sleep and then again this morning, and I think Im actually seeing your point here.

    Maybe I'm too cynical, but I could see some benefit in exploiting a Sanders hagiography to our benefit. Hey, if Sanders winds up as our Reagan in other respects, why not this one? Even Democrats still like Reagan! Propaganda works.
    Yeah I'd say thats pretty cynical. And considering that Bernie is hardly a unifying figure, far-fetched.
    On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
    Visited:
    A man who casts no shadow has no soul.
    Hvil i fred HoreTore

  30. #480

    Default Re: Democrat 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post

    My modest proposal is to discard self-fulfilling premises that swing districts are for moderates only. I named some of the successes, such as the Katies, and moreover there's little indication progressives underperformed moderates when you actually take into account the small proportion of general election progressives and the many moderate wipeouts.
    Katie Hill only won because Steve Knight hid from the district during wildfires and had terrible charisma. Fun fact, one time he threatened to punch a citizen on camera because the guy (a conservative who wanted tougher immigration policy) shook his hand too hard. The only reason he was elected was because the Republican everyone loved got cancer and had to step down.

    To test your theory keep an eye on Cenk from The Young Turks who is running in the district as the progressive alternative to Christy Smith the centrist dem.

    Also note that Steve Knight is trying to come back as the GOP candidate and is getting hated on by conservatives because of his terrible behavior. He will likely disappear once Mike Garcia wins the GOP primary.


Page 16 of 28 FirstFirst ... 612131415161718192026 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO