Political Discussion

High Rant District said:
Well, to be fair, you called his most ardent supporters - which includes many people here - "dickheads" and "toxic". You suggested that the same supports claim to be about "progressive values and unity" but they don't also support those values in real life.

From my perspective - as someone who wanted Sanders to be the nominee - "unity" has nothing to do with this. It has to do with being on the right side of the equation for decades even when it hasn't been politically expedient. "Unity" has nothing to do with that. Doing the right thing will often put you in the minority. IMO: so what. Doing the right thing matters.
Click to expand...
I didn’t call anyone here that and was implying it was it was the Twitter mobs, but go ahead and misrepresent me.

For the record I would have voted for him if my primary wasn’t so late in the year.
 
I voted for Sanders in the '16 primary and was prepared to vote for him again this year had my primary not been rescheduled. I've always thought that the Bernie or Bust crowd is shortsighted. Politics is often about small ball. You aren't going to hit home runs every election, because a large portion of the general population won't jump for drastic change, even if it's needed. But if you can string together enough singles, hit a sac fly or two (which is what I consider Bernie's campaigns to be), you'll still score a few runs and slowly but surely push the agenda left. Being all or nothing has a teeter totter effect like we've seen and now we have a fascist in office who might get two terms.
 
Djxfactor511 said:
I voted for Sanders in the '16 primary and was prepared to vote for him again this year had my primary not been rescheduled. I've always thought that the Bernie or Bust crowd is shortsighted. Politics is often about small ball. You aren't going to hit home runs every election, because a large portion of the general population won't jump for drastic change, even if it's needed. But if you can string together enough singles, hit a sac fly or two (which is what I consider Bernie's campaigns to be), you'll still score a few runs and slowly but surely push the agenda left. Being all or nothing has a teeter totter effect like we've seen and now we have a fascist in office who might get two terms.
Click to expand...
this is a great analogy and also reaffirms my hate how baseball is all about the longball nowadays and no one cares about batting average or OBP. it's all OPS+ and Slugging % ... but I'll save that for the Baseball thread
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
Don’t be rude or dismissive to Bernie’s supporters like Hilary was.
Click to expand...
One of the keys here seems to be the occasional reminders from both Bernie and Biden that they're friends who like each other, and have for a long time.

One did not get that sense from Hillary Clinton, who basically confirmed it in one of those recent interviews, and I imagine it was likely mutual.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
His V.P pick better be a progressive female - Stacy Abrams, Elizabeth Warren (someone in this mold)
Click to expand...
One other thing: I understand why this is important as a symbolic gesture, but practically speaking I think it's essentially meaningless. IMO his VP choice should be one that is most likely to deliver the election. The vice presidency is infamously short on influence in American politics, and with Warren especially, I think that it's a severe miscalculation to take her away from the Senate if it's not directly to the Oval Office. Yes, she's a progressive and it might go a ways toward repairing the rift within the party, but that's a pretty shortsighted tactic, I think; strategically, she's best left where she is. Abrams has some other arguments against her, namely her lack of experience.

I know all eyes are on Kamala Harris, but I think it's quite likely that Klobuchar's Super Tuesday dropout & endorsement might have stipulated being shortlisted as a VP pick. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Gretchen Whitmer also feel like they could be valuable electoral assets, and neither one would do any damage to the party's Senate holdings.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
One other thing: I understand why this is important as a symbolic gesture, but practically speaking I think it's essentially meaningless. IMO his VP choice should be one that is most likely to deliver the election. The vice presidency is infamously short on influence in American politics, and with Warren especially, I think that it's a severe miscalculation to take her away from the Senate if it's not directly to the Oval Office. Yes, she's a progressive and it might go a ways toward repairing the rift within the party, but that's a pretty shortsighted tactic, I think; strategically, she's best left where she is. Abrams has some other arguments against her, namely her lack of experience.

I know all eyes are on Kamala Harris, but I think it's quite likely that Klobuchar's Super Tuesday dropout & endorsement might have stipulated being shortlisted as a VP pick. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Gretchen Whitmer also feel like they could be valuable electoral assets, and neither one would do any damage to the party's Senate holdings.
Click to expand...

I agree on Warren. Would rather her not be the VP pick as Dems also need to focus on taking the Senate too. I had a conversation with a friend on whether Abrams even has the name recognition outside Georgia and those already paying attention to politics to actually move the needle at all for most Americans, despite me really wanting a woman or woman of color as the VP choice. I think Kamala has some history that doesn't sit particularly well with some, and the way she focused on getting zingers in the debates didn't put her on my good side either.

I'm leaning towards Abrams or Klobuchar as my favorites.
 
Djxfactor511 said:
I agree on Warren. Would rather her not be the VP pick as Dems also need to focus on taking the Senate too. I had a conversation with a friend on whether Abrams even has the name recognition outside Georgia and those already paying attention to politics to actually move the needle at all for most Americans, despite me really wanting a woman or woman of color as the VP choice. I think Kamala has some history that doesn't sit particularly well with some, and the way she focused on getting zingers in the debates didn't put her on my good side either.

I'm leaning towards Abrams or Klobuchar as my favorites.
Click to expand...
I like Abrams too. I would prefer if she had ran for one of the 2 Georgia Senate seats up in 2020, but since we couldn’t get that, maybe you put her on the ticket and Trump has to spend more time and money in GA and take away a bit from the other areas of concern.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
One other thing: I understand why this is important as a symbolic gesture, but practically speaking I think it's essentially meaningless. IMO his VP choice should be one that is most likely to deliver the election. The vice presidency is infamously short on influence in American politics, and with Warren especially, I think that it's a severe miscalculation to take her away from the Senate if it's not directly to the Oval Office. Yes, she's a progressive and it might go a ways toward repairing the rift within the party, but that's a pretty shortsighted tactic, I think; strategically, she's best left where she is. Abrams has some other arguments against her, namely her lack of experience.

I know all eyes are on Kamala Harris, but I think it's quite likely that Klobuchar's Super Tuesday dropout & endorsement might have stipulated being shortlisted as a VP pick. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Gretchen Whitmer also feel like they could be valuable electoral assets, and neither one would do any damage to the party's Senate holdings.
Click to expand...

I don’t care if it’s a female tbh. But Klobuchar would be a fucking disaster, or did you not see how Kaine turned out?

His pick needs to be a progressive
 
Last edited:
TenderLovingKiller® said:
Trump has to spend more time and money in GA
Click to expand...
Not saying you're wrong, just wondering how true it is that Trump would need to allocate his resources to Georgia in order to hold onto it. If it is true, then it's also definitely true that Dems would have to devote as much or money to it, certainly at the expense of other states, and Trump has lots and lots of money to burn.

And is a really hard-fought battle for maybe, possibly eking out a win in Georgia equal in value to confidently securing Michigan, if both states have 16 electoral votes? Or holding onto Minnesota or making more inroads in the SW?
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
I don’t care if it’s a female tbh. But Klobuchar would be a fucking disaster, or did you not see how Kaine turned out?

His pick needs to be a progressive
Click to expand...

Kaine was a zombie. At least Klobuchar has some personality and midwest appeal. But having her as VP raises similar Senate flags in my mind as Warren, so maybe scratch her on my list too.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
I don’t care if it’s a female tbh. But Klobuchar would be a fucking disaster, or did you not see how Kaine turned out?

His pick needs to be a progressive
Click to expand...
Biden already said he is picking a female veep. Klobachar is fine. Nobody votes for the Veep, she is a good campaigner especially in the Midwest. Clinton didn’t lose because of Tim Kaine (though she may have carried VA because of him) Amy would not be my first choice but would be fine and based off how things are going that likely means she’s get the nod.
 
Klobuchar does not excite me at all, but I think we're underestimating how well she'd perform with the suburban mom demographic. She was getting a lot votes from that middle of the road voter who isn't very vocal, educated and female. Also she did very well in New Hampshire which is very white, but as far as political affiliations go, is a good representative of a lot of states that Biden needs to win. It's a little progressive but a lot conservative too.
 
wokeupnew said:
Klobuchar does not excite me at all, but I think we're underestimating how well she'd perform with the suburban mom demographic. She was getting a lot votes from that middle of the road voter who isn't very vocal, educated and female. Also she did very well in New Hampshire which is very white, but as far as political affiliations go, is a good representative of a lot of states that Biden needs to win. It's a little progressive but a lot conservative too.
Click to expand...
The dem strategy of moving further right to try and pick up more conservative voters needs to be buried forever.
 
ayayrawn said:
The dem strategy of moving further right to try and pick up more conservative voters needs to be buried forever.
Click to expand...
I agree with you!! I'm just trying to think about what the DNC is looking at if they choose her as a pick. It's a really bad pick but that's what, I assume, is informing their decisions.

I don't want to compromise with fascists but like @Djxfactor511 said before, you can't hit a homerun every time. We're in a really shitty situation, alright. And going really far left will alienate A LOT of voters. A lot of people are not informed with politics, they make judgement decisions on what gender/race the picks are. That's extremely naive but it's how they vote. We have to acknowledge the low information voter. It's really shitty to have to get down to basics for a lot of the voting population but that's what happens.

For now, let's get the government back to where it's slightly less insane and then we can compromise with the centrists dems on progressive issues. That's it. I think Waren would be a great pick personally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top