The Swamp

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:19 pm I mean, he's purposefully not staking out bold policy positions at this point.

I don’t see that working this time. I’d be it’s either going to be a “winnable” legacy name like Biden or a policy setter.

Sure feels like the toothpaste is out of the tube ...

Hmm, I wonder why many Progressives are skeptical of Beto on policy grounds?

Help me out here. What's Beto's thing? I really have no understanding of his appeal more than "he's not Ted Cruz".

He was cool when he was running against Cruz and would be again. He's being exposed and exposing himself as nothing close to what we need nationally.

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:47 am He was cool when he was running against Cruz and would be again. He's being exposed and exposing himself as nothing close to what we need nationally.

Yeah, the WSJ article is not a great look for him, at least in a national primary. Beto was essentially hand-picked by a bunch of wealthy El Paso Republicans to defeat a more liberal incumbent in a deep blue Congressional district back in 2012. (Beto’s father was a Republican politician and his father-in-law is a billionaire real estate developer.) Then a bunch of Republicans re-registered as Democrats to vote for Beto in that primary.

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:44 am

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:47 am He was cool when he was running against Cruz and would be again. He's being exposed and exposing himself as nothing close to what we need nationally.

Yeah, the WSJ article is not a great look for him, at least in a national primary. Beto was essentially hand-picked by a bunch of wealthy El Paso Republicans to defeat a more liberal incumbent in a deep blue Congressional district back in 2012. (Beto’s father was a Republican politician and his father-in-law is a billionaire real estate developer.) Then a bunch of Republicans re-registered as Democrats to vote for Beto in that primary.

He is young and was in a punk rock band, so he is "cool".

I can't pretend to know or care much about his platform or his voting history or his anything really, but boy oh boy do the writers I like to follow NOT have anything politically encouraging to say about him

He's basically Donald Trump Jr. Jr.

I donated to the guy and supported him because I thought he had a real chance against Cruz. The more I'm reading up on his background...

I'm not totally against moderate/centrist candidates in states/districts where you almost have to be to get elected as a Democrat. And you guys know my DLC background (or I'm just gonna remind you), but I'm fully on board that those days a over from a national standpoint. The party has moved on.

I think the only thing I'm annoyed about is that the media waited for him to make it official before trotting out all these nuggets. Would've made it a lot easier on everyone if they'd nailed this stuff to the wall weeks ago.

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:44 am

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:47 am He was cool when he was running against Cruz and would be again. He's being exposed and exposing himself as nothing close to what we need nationally.

Yeah, the WSJ article is not a great look for him, at least in a national primary. Beto was essentially hand-picked by a bunch of wealthy El Paso Republicans to defeat a more liberal incumbent in a deep blue Congressional district back in 2012. (Beto’s father was a Republican politician and his father-in-law is a billionaire real estate developer.) Then a bunch of Republicans re-registered as Democrats to vote for Beto in that primary.

Ehhhhh, I'm gonna have to change my avatar now.

Everyone here will like this:

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:32 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:44 am

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:47 am He was cool when he was running against Cruz and would be again. He's being exposed and exposing himself as nothing close to what we need nationally.

Yeah, the WSJ article is not a great look for him, at least in a national primary. Beto was essentially hand-picked by a bunch of wealthy El Paso Republicans to defeat a more liberal incumbent in a deep blue Congressional district back in 2012. (Beto’s father was a Republican politician and his father-in-law is a billionaire real estate developer.) Then a bunch of Republicans re-registered as Democrats to vote for Beto in that primary.

Ehhhhh, I'm gonna have to change my avatar now.

He's basically like Hitler, if Hitler was a moderate Democrat.

Is there a TL:DW version of that video?

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:19 pm Is there a TL:DW version of that video?

I liked Kulinski when he was on Rogen, but I can't watch his clips for some reason.

I think you mean uber l33t hax0r beto o'rourke: https://twitter.com/josephmenn/status/1 ... 0904764416

edit: he mostly wrote weird fanfic and wasn't really a super hacker, just someone who stole long distance calls to connect to some hella old bbs's and get cracked games.

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:19 pm Is there a TL:DW version of that video?

"Bet On My Stork" is a hack fraud politician with no substance.

I'm in Violent Agreement™ with this column.

Democrats don’t need any more presidential candidates. They need senators.

(™ Goes to House from Bill Simmons's podcast.)

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:07 pm

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:19 pm Is there a TL:DW version of that video?

"Bet On My Stork" is a hack fraud politician with no substance.

The thing is that Beto is about what you want for a Democratic candidate for US Senate from Texas, which is why he should run against Cornyn in 2020. But he was significantly more conservative than needed for his US House district (which is one of the safest Dem seats in the country) and doesn’t stack up well to his competitors in the Democratic Presidential field.

ETA: Also, for all the Obama comparisons, I’m skeptical that Beto is at his level strictly as a campaigner. Obama was the epitome of class as a politician but he could also be a ruthless campaign opponent if needed. He was masterful against HRC in 2008 and took apart Romney late in the 2012 cycle. (He was also good against McCain but truth be told Sarah Palin probably sealed that election for him.)

He’ll probably pull a Marco Rubio so fear not.

Pretty positive piece in the Washington Post about Mayor Pete’s surge after his town hall on CNN. He checks most of the boxes for me.

Somewhat cynically and “unwoke” but I still feel like a female candidate is going to be an uphill slog but a white man who is gay might be a less threatening option for other white men.

This is pretty fucking amazing.

Did he grow up speaking Norwegian? Like, where the hell do you learn to speak Norwegian in America? That's legitimately awesome. (Unless he learned via the military because I believe he was Intel while serving. In which case, that makes sense.)

Quite frankly, with the way this primary season is shaping up to be, someone is going to be left off of the docket for the media to constantly throw daggers at over and over. Beto is feeling this now. Mayor Pete might be overlooked in this instance because "Who is he!?!? A 37 year old gay mayor from South Bend? How cute!"

On Bill Maher they talked about how there is a feeling amongst a sector of the 'progressive' liberals that "anyone but a white guy" needs to be a nominee. That's actually problematic and racist when you think about it -- good job 'progressives'. But like was mentioned upthread, his being gay kind of overrules that garbage thinking.

A solid policy platform is #1. I don't care who that comes from -- even Biden or Klobuchar (puke).

Edit:

According to this Politico article from last year he, holy shit, speaks 7 languages.

I want to stress, I'm completely undecided still. Certainly skeptical about Beto with the fairly heavy push back he got from some corners of the media last week.

But his fundraising burst was pretty impressive, topping Bernie's initial haul says something about the national following he picked up last year.

And I've been following him on Fb and seeing his rallies... They are jammed and people are extremely pumped up to see him. Going to Iowa, particularly the SE part of the state that has been tough on Dems recently was very savvy. Now he's at PSU to a packed and enthusiastic crowd.

The fact that conservatives are already running ads against the guy is telling.

=-=-=-==

Question: Do Swampers have a Medicare for All, ride or die stance? Or is "we will have universal coverage!" Ok enough? Because given the make-up of the Senate, and entrenched money around the insurance industry, I don't think M4A is even close to realistic. Only way that happens is if the Senate abolishes the filibuster.

Has he released his donor count or just the total raised? Seems like a super important factor here.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:04 am I want to stress, I'm completely undecided still. Certainly skeptical about Beto with the fairly heavy push back he got from some corners of the media last week.

But his fundraising burst was pretty impressive, topping Bernie's initial haul says something about the national following he picked up last year.

And I've been following him on Fb and seeing his rallies... They are jammed and people are extremely pumped up to see him. Going to Iowa, particularly the SE part of the state that has been tough on Dems recently was very savvy. Now he's at PSU to a packed and enthusiastic crowd.

The fact that conservatives are already running ads against the guy is telling.

=-=-=-==

Question: Do Swampers have a Medicare for All, ride or die stance? Or is "we will have universal coverage!" Ok enough? Because given the make-up of the Senate, and entrenched money around the insurance industry, I don't think M4A is even close to realistic. Only way that happens is if the Senate abolishes the filibuster.

again, what does medicare for all mean? The GOP will fear monger that everyone gets everything and it'll bankrupt the country and it's unfair for law-abiding tax-paying citizens cause the poor and the illegals will clog up the system etc etc...

I've mentioned before, even in Canada, universal healthcare is really 50/50. It covers mostly 'visits'. Visits to the family doctor, visits to specialists (usually have to wait months), visits to the hospital and emergency and the procedure that occur there (like hip surgeries). That is through the provinces. It's free, however, some provinces like BC and Manitoba, enforce an annual fee for that "universal healthcare".

Outside of that, you need additional insurance (Blue Cross) for cosmetic surgery, drugs, dentist, optometrist, physio, massage, yoga and so on.
And even then, that insurance only covers some parts. Like my coverage covers 90% on dentist cleanings and and filings, but not crowns.

He wrote "Medicare", not "medical."

I think "Medicare for all" means Medicare for all.

rass wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:23 am He wrote "Medicare", not "medical."

I think "Medicare for all" means Medicare for all.

was a typo, i fixed it.

This is what bothers me about Beto and why I prefer Warren and Sanders at this point. Rather than trying to be all things to all people, politicians should try to use their power to drive policy discussion. Would we have gotten a New Deal, a Civil Rights Act or a War on Poverty if FDR and LBJ “asked voters to shape them into the President they wanted them to be”?

Right. What policies do you think he's going to pursue if he gets in and has lobbyists in his ear all day? Fuck that.

Agreed.

He's basically Pol Pot, but if Pol Pot was a Texan and not a Cambodian.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:09 am Has he released his donor count or just the total raised? Seems like a super important factor here.

Yeah, that's a good point.

Also, doing some more reading this morning, looks like Beto is lining up behind Medicare for America which would preserve employer provided insurance, but move everyone else into a govt sponsored plan.

Didn't mean to parrot his stance with my question above.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:32 am

This is what bothers me about Beto and why I prefer Warren and Sanders at this point. Rather than trying to be all things to all people, politicians should try to use their power to drive policy discussion. Would we have gotten a New Deal, a Civil Rights Act or a War on Poverty if FDR and LBJ “asked voters to shape them into the President they wanted them to be”?

LBJ wasn't really in favor of a Civil Rights Act even after he was asked to be JFK's vice president, but he saw an opportunity for both himself politically and for the nation after JFK's death so I'm not sure that's the best analogy since it kind of proves the point that if the right person is in the right place, the right candidate can make things happen regardless of their specific ideology.

brian wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:43 am He's basically Pol Pot, but if Pol Pot was a Texan and not a Cambodian.

He's a multi-millionaire "blank canvas".

He's basically Slobodan Milošević, yet somehow even more Serbian looking.

brian wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:56 am He's basically Slobodan Milošević, yet somehow even more Serbian looking.

“Not a genocidal monster” is exactly the same thing as “single best person in a country of 300 million plus to serve as the most powerful person on Earth.”

"Imagine if the cute and cool but still nice guy from high school grew up to marry a really rich lady and now wants to be president, but only if you can tell him what his core principles are? And yes, he still has that hair and if its possible may have somehow gotten even taller?"

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:00 am

brian wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 10:56 am He's basically Slobodan Milošević, yet somehow even more Serbian looking.

“Not a genocidal monster” is exactly the same thing as “single best person in a country of 300 million plus to serve as the most powerful person on Earth.”

Dude, it's just a joke. Chill. It's too early to be stanning any of the candidates, which means it's really too early to be trying to tear them all down as well.