The Swamp

I said elsewhere (I think in a thread about this on Facebook) that this wasn't going to go the way Fox thought (essentially.)

The portion of the electorate represented in a Venn diagram between potential Trump and Bernie supporters is MUCH larger than people realize.

The amazing thing is that Trump supporters in rural areas love populism, but can't quite figure out that Trump is just mouthing platitudes, while Bernie and most of the dem candidates would actually follow through and make their lives better.

/obvious

Looks like I'm not the only one who has serious issues with Kamala Harris's time as a prosecutor.

There are a lot of people that truly thought they were doing the right thing within Justice that look back now and cringe. 3 strikes and a lot of mandatory sentencing and just about all of the War on Drugs are pretty clearly now wrong-headed. Unintended consequences* of the highest degree.

* - Many would take issue with whether the laws enacted were racially and socially aware.

Which is why I question supporting someone like Harris now. Its not that she'll revert to her bad 1995 decisions, its that she'll acknowledge in 2040 the wrong decisions she'll make in 2020.

This is a really powerful ad, and exactly the message needed to beat Trump:

I dig it.

My son is all about Bernie.

I'm starting to come around a bit.

Which is really stunning to me. I know that sounds weird, but I've almost self-radicalized over the last 5-6 years. I'm just sick of the bullshit.

It's alright. I'm excited about people getting excited about different candidates. I think it's insane that people are already infighting and trying to pit Bernie people against Pete people against whomever.

I still feel like the auto-industry ads are low hanging fruit. I'm tired of hearing about the plight of the UAW worker. It doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic, but I'm tired of propping them up as a symbol of what we can be again. It's part of what has really resonated with me about Mayor Pete's message so far. It's refreshing to have someone really stand up and say "we can't keep looking back at a successful era and try to replicate it over and over. We need to use that energy to build new industry and new opportunity." That's a message I can get behind. But I'm not going to tank Bernie or anyone else over their views on it too, no one has a perfect platform.

The number one thing I wish the Dems would get away from is using the word "free". I just saw an article today about Liz Warren's big plan for "FREE COLLEGE". Fucking stop calling it free. Nothing is free. It's taxpayer supported college. Which is a great concept! It's moving funds currently allocated to the Military Industrial Complex and the lack of funds received from large corporations and banks and allocating them to responsible social-based programs like healthcare and education. This is not a hard concept. If you want to get moderates, delete free from your vocabulary. It's disingenuous to those on the left expecting something and it's ammo on the right to perpetuate the "ghetto freeloader" racist bullshit they constantly spew.

BSF21 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:32 am It's alright. I'm excited about people getting excited about different candidates. I think it's insane that people are already infighting and trying to pit Bernie people against Pete people against whomever.

I still feel like the auto-industry ads are low hanging fruit. I'm tired of hearing about the plight of the UAW worker. It doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic, but I'm tired of propping them up as a symbol of what we can be again. It's part of what has really resonated with me about Mayor Pete's message so far. It's refreshing to have someone really stand up and say "we can't keep looking back at a successful era and try to replicate it over and over. We need to use that energy to build new industry and new opportunity." That's a message I can get behind.

You might be right that saving auto industry jobs is ultimately a losing battle. But given the realities of the Electoral College, success in the upper Midwest is absolutely crucial for the Democratic candidate in 2020. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are absolute must-win states. And Bernie’s ad, which is directly geared at the hard-hit communities of that region that turned Red in 2016 is very savvy politically.

Joe K wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:37 am

BSF21 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:32 am It's alright. I'm excited about people getting excited about different candidates. I think it's insane that people are already infighting and trying to pit Bernie people against Pete people against whomever.

I still feel like the auto-industry ads are low hanging fruit. I'm tired of hearing about the plight of the UAW worker. It doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic, but I'm tired of propping them up as a symbol of what we can be again. It's part of what has really resonated with me about Mayor Pete's message so far. It's refreshing to have someone really stand up and say "we can't keep looking back at a successful era and try to replicate it over and over. We need to use that energy to build new industry and new opportunity." That's a message I can get behind.

You might be right that saving auto industry jobs is ultimately a losing battle. But given the realities of the Electoral College, success in the upper Midwest is absolutely crucial for the Democratic candidate in 2020. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are absolute must-win states. And Bernie’s ad, which is directly geared at the hard-hit communities of that region that turned Red in 2016 is very savvy politically.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying there has to be something beyond that. Auto Workers in 3 states didn't swing the election. Broaden that ad. Make people understand that when you fuck up a factory town it's not 1600 people that lose their job, it's 20,000. It's hotels, restaurants, retail stores, schools, public service officials, you name it. It all rolls downhill. And the educated of us know that. But they focus on this small segment of GM workers and not once in 3 minutes other than "the town has gone downhill, there's potholes everywhere" do you get any notion of economic impact of what closing a plant like this does to a 40 mile radius. That's the home run.

Yo, Klobuchar. FACE.

BSF21 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:32 am It's alright. I'm excited about people getting excited about different candidates. I think it's insane that people are already infighting and trying to pit Bernie people against Pete people against whomever.

I still feel like the auto-industry ads are low hanging fruit. I'm tired of hearing about the plight of the UAW worker. It doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic, but I'm tired of propping them up as a symbol of what we can be again. It's part of what has really resonated with me about Mayor Pete's message so far. It's refreshing to have someone really stand up and say "we can't keep looking back at a successful era and try to replicate it over and over. We need to use that energy to build new industry and new opportunity." That's a message I can get behind. But I'm not going to tank Bernie or anyone else over their views on it too, no one has a perfect platform.

The number one thing I wish the Dems would get away from is using the word "free". I just saw an article today about Liz Warren's big plan for "FREE COLLEGE". Fucking stop calling it free. Nothing is free. It's taxpayer supported college. Which is a great concept! It's moving funds currently allocated to the Military Industrial Complex and the lack of funds received from large corporations and banks and allocating them to responsible social-based programs like healthcare and education. This is not a hard concept. If you want to get moderates, delete free from your vocabulary. It's disingenuous to those on the left expecting something and it's ammo on the right to perpetuate the "ghetto freeloader" racist bullshit they constantly spew.

Vice on HBO has a really interesting look at automation and what is and will do to the workforce in the coming years. Embracing and/or regulating (intelligently) this new stage of the technology revolution is going to require a lot of thoughtful policy. The states/regions that figure out how to shift training toward computer science and coding and all that is going to have a huge leg up on everyone else.

BSF21 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:43 am

Joe K wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:37 am

BSF21 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:32 am It's alright. I'm excited about people getting excited about different candidates. I think it's insane that people are already infighting and trying to pit Bernie people against Pete people against whomever.

I still feel like the auto-industry ads are low hanging fruit. I'm tired of hearing about the plight of the UAW worker. It doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic, but I'm tired of propping them up as a symbol of what we can be again. It's part of what has really resonated with me about Mayor Pete's message so far. It's refreshing to have someone really stand up and say "we can't keep looking back at a successful era and try to replicate it over and over. We need to use that energy to build new industry and new opportunity." That's a message I can get behind.

You might be right that saving auto industry jobs is ultimately a losing battle. But given the realities of the Electoral College, success in the upper Midwest is absolutely crucial for the Democratic candidate in 2020. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are absolute must-win states. And Bernie’s ad, which is directly geared at the hard-hit communities of that region that turned Red in 2016 is very savvy politically.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying there has to be something beyond that. Auto Workers in 3 states didn't swing the election. Broaden that ad. Make people understand that when you fuck up a factory town it's not 1600 people that lose their job, it's 20,000. It's hotels, restaurants, retail stores, schools, public service officials, you name it. It all rolls downhill. And the educated of us know that. But they focus on this small segment of GM workers and not once in 3 minutes other than "the town has gone downhill, there's potholes everywhere" do you get any notion of economic impact of what closing a plant like this does to a 40 mile radius. That's the home run.

And when you allow yourself to be hoodwinked by a foreign (or domestic) company into giving away hundreds of millions of tax subsidies to relocate plants, only to find out it was a bait and switch scam, you fuck up an entire states budget for years to come.

Looking at you Trump, Scott Walker and Wisconsin. Trump made a huge deal out of that fiasco and in that state in particular, they should hang that shit around his neck on the daily.

Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, a third-term congressman who has pushed for a “new generation of leadership” in Washington, declared his candidacy for president on Monday, becoming the 19th candidate to enter the Democratic primary field.

On the one hand I'm like "Ugh, another one?" On the other, I'm glad it isn't Hillary Clinton and 4 people with no shot.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:47 pm Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, a third-term congressman who has pushed for a “new generation of leadership” in Washington, declared his candidacy for president on Monday, becoming the 19th candidate to enter the Democratic primary field.

On the one hand I'm like "Ugh, another one?" On the other, I'm glad it isn't Hillary Clinton and 4 people with no shot.

My neighbor's kid from across the cul-de-sac worked for that guy and has nothing but high praise. (I say neighbor... We have family-vacationed with them and have keys to each other's homes.)

This is pretty much where I'm at for the moment:



I'm willing to keep my mind open, but after the last few weeks I have no more fucks to give about electability or any other similar concerns. Let's nominate the best person for the job and if the dumbfucks that populate this country don't want the best person again then fuck them.

Yeah, I'm in a place where some combo of Sen. Warren, Mayor Pete, Bernie and maaaaybe Beto would be an acceptable ticket. And I'll hold out a bit longer on Sen. Harris to see how she does when things get real. (I take Delaware's point about her time as a prosecutor seriously, but won't DQ her or Klobuchar for it. Klobuchar is problematic for me because a decent amount of people seem to think she's not that great behind the scenes, which predates her time in Washington, apparently.)

I don't buy into Cory Booker's deal. I actually think Yang has an interesting on basic income support and he was very good in the interview I heard on Pod Save. Kirsten G... I just don't know if she can punch through, which is unfortunate, because politically I'm not sure why an apparently moderate guys like Beto or even Mayor Pete are such rockstars and she and Kamala and Klobuchar are getting almost zero run. Well, I mean I understand it and the problematic "electability" aspect, which is really code for Not White Men.

Biden is perhaps the only guy in the field that bugs me right now. Just wish he'd go away. We really don't need what he's selling, IMO.

brian wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:34 pm This is pretty much where I'm at for the moment:



I'm willing to keep my mind open, but after the last few weeks I have no more fucks to give about electability or any other similar concerns. Let's nominate the best person for the job and if the dumbfucks that populate this country don't want the best person again then fuck them.

I agree that Warren has been the most impressive on policy thus far. I trust Warren and Sanders the most of anyone running but think that Warren has been a little bit better about taking a multi-faceted approach to tackling economic issues. She also has probably been the boldest candidate on important structural issues like Electoral College and judiciary reform.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:56 pmKirsten G... I just don't know if she can punch through, which is unfortunate, because politically I'm not sure why an apparently moderate guys like Beto or even Mayor Pete are such rockstars and she and Kamala and Klobuchar are getting almost zero run. Well, I mean I understand it and the problematic "electability" aspect, which is really code for Not White Men.

I think the real answer is that Beto and Pete have the backing of many ex-Obama staffers and are thus benefiting from big publicity boosts (if not necessarily huge boosts in the early polls). Harris landed a bunch of ex-Hillary people but there’s no comparison between Obama and Clinton when it comes to effective use of the media.

Apparently Biden will announce on Thursday.

While not a fan of Nate Silver's political analysis (he's better sticking with the numbers IMO) this is pretty spot on I believe and one of the reasons why I think Bernie ultimately doesn't have as much of a chance to win the Democratic nomination as the current polling would imply.



When most of the Dem candidates bow out of the race, who are they and their supporters more likely to coalesce behind? Hint: It's not going to be the guy who isn't even a member of their party. And if you think rank and file voters don't care about that, you're largely mistaken. In short or maybe put another way, if Bernie doesn't clean up (not necessarily win them all, but at least finish in the top two) in IA, NH, NV and SC, he's done. He's going to have to build a lead and hold off the field from there. Not impossible, not even necessarily unlikely, but not the easiest needle to thread. If the field stays huge at 12 to 15 candidates in IA and NH that helps him quite a bit.

So with that I'll handicap the field as I see it today. These aren't my personal preferences, but the way I would rank the candidates if I were setting odds in a casino (assuming they could take bets on this)*:

1) Biden 5/2
2) Warren 4/1
3) Sanders 6/1
4) Beto 8/1
5) Harris 10/1
6) Booker 15/1
7) Buttigieg 30/1
8) Field 30/1

I'd put the odds on Biden so low/good because of the way the polling exists at the moment, but I don't personally think he's going to win the nomination. If you could get reverse odds on him NOT winning the nomination at -400 or so I'd put a few C-notes on that.

Warren intrigues me the most because despite being a public political figure for more than a decade, she seems to be miscast in the media as a bore or a scold (lol mysogynistic media) when she's nothing of the sort. She's got a HUGE upside as a lot of the country gets to know her and that's before you acknowledge that her and Bernie are the closest to where most of the Dem voters are on policy these days.

Bernie has almost no upside beyond where his polling is now (which is very good!) and as stated above he's going to have to win over people with bad memories of 2016 and do it in a field where the pack is closer to him ideologically than Hillary was in 2016.

Beto and Harris are the wildcards because of the advantages they have (a fawning media, the chance for a lot of free coverage, telegenically superior to the top three especially w/r/t age). If they actually can connect with voters over their policies in the coming months they could take off and become the favorite heading into January 2020.

I'm not sure any of the other candidates really have a realistic chance though I wouldn't mind re-visiting this again in the summer.

Those odds, I bet Warren and the field. Warren seems like the current best compromise between Dems and the Sanders faction.

Nominating a really old guy with handsiness problems worked for the GOP! Now make him older!

The fact that Biden polls so high annoys the fuck out of me. We don't need that fucker at all.

You really think Mayor Pete is that long?

You nailed the Tampa series, so I'm not taking the piss. Would like your take...

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:41 pm You really think Mayor Pete is that long?

You nailed the Tampa series, so I'm not taking the piss. Would like your take...

Considering every "progressive" group I've seen has spent the last 2 weeks trying to tear him apart, quoting him with no context, and likening him to Trump in favor of propping Bernie up...yea I get it.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:07 pm The fact that Biden polls so high annoys the fuck out of me. We don't need that fucker at all.

Early days.

BSF21 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:01 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:41 pm You really think Mayor Pete is that long?

You nailed the Tampa series, so I'm not taking the piss. Would like your take...

Considering every "progressive" group I've seen has spent the last 2 weeks trying to tear him apart, quoting him with no context, and likening him to Trump in favor of propping Bernie up...yea I get it.

Yeah, there’s this and his lightweight profile. Beto gets shit for that and rightfully so but Beto’s political resume is Clintonian (in a good way) compared to Mayor Pete. Also his Q rating is still low with the base. Good news is I don’t think him being gay matters.

brian wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:33 pm So with that I'll handicap the field as I see it today. These aren't my personal preferences, but the way I would rank the candidates if I were setting odds in a casino (assuming they could take bets on this)*:

1) Biden 5/2
2) Warren 4/1
3) Sanders 6/1
4) Beto 8/1
5) Harris 10/1
6) Booker 15/1
7) Buttigieg 30/1
8) Field 30/1

I'd put the odds on Biden so low/good because of the way the polling exists at the moment, but I don't personally think he's going to win the nomination. If you could get reverse odds on him NOT winning the nomination at -400 or so I'd put a few C-notes on that.

Warren intrigues me the most because despite being a public political figure for more than a decade, she seems to be miscast in the media as a bore or a scold (lol mysogynistic media) when she's nothing of the sort. She's got a HUGE upside as a lot of the country gets to know her and that's before you acknowledge that her and Bernie are the closest to where most of the Dem voters are on policy these days.

I hope you’re right about Warren’s odds being that good but it’s concerning to me how little “buzz” she is getting as compared to other candidates who are much less impressive on policy. My fear is that the DNC establishment will push hard for candidates like Biden, Harris and O’Rourke instead of Warren because Warren’s proposed economic reforms are too threatening to the donor class. I suspect that if Warren starts to gather momentum, she’ll get the same treatment as Sanders even though she’s been a party loyalist for her entire political career.

One question I have here is where do voters sit on the continuum of:

Chance that the candidate would beat Trump on the election map (b/c I'm assuming they'll win the popular vote) vs.

Chance that the candidate if elected would be able to effectively move policy to fix the damage that Trump did.

Because that's clearly not the same thing. I sit strong in the Warren camp, and I look to her as the the leader in the second part, but I don't know at this point if she (or frankly, anyone) beats Trump due to the built-in advantages of the fucking electoral college. Another advantage that the Rs have is that they focus on the former, because since obstruction is a major part of the platform, the second part isn't as important because obstruction is the easy way to govern.

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:59 am One question I have here is where do voters sit on the continuum of:

Chance that the candidate would beat Trump on the election map (b/c I'm assuming they'll win the popular vote) vs.

Chance that the candidate if elected would be able to effectively move policy to fix the damage that Trump did.

Because that's clearly not the same thing.

My concern is that too much focus on the former, and not enough on the latter, might just lead to a more polished and less erratic form of Trumpism arising even if the Dems win in 2020. Someone like Tom Cotton who is much smarter and more polished than Trump, but ideologically vey close, could do a hell of a lot of damage. Unless the underlying conditions that gave rise to Trumpism are addressed — crippling economic inequality, dissatisfaction with forever wars, the opioid epidemic, etc. — his toxic brand of right-wing populism will remain appealing to millions of Americans. That’s why I prefer Warren and Sanders to the field: they’re the only two candidates that I’m convinced are aware of the scope of these underlying issues.

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:59 am One question I have here is where do voters sit on the continuum of:

Chance that the candidate would beat Trump on the election map (b/c I'm assuming they'll win the popular vote) vs.

Chance that the candidate if elected would be able to effectively move policy to fix the damage that Trump did.

Because that's clearly not the same thing. I sit strong in the Warren camp, and I look to her as the the leader in the second part, but I don't know at this point if she (or frankly, anyone) beats Trump due to the built-in advantages of the fucking electoral college. Another advantage that the Rs have is that they focus on the former, because since obstruction is a major part of the platform, the second part isn't as important because obstruction is the easy way to govern.

The first of those is a prerequisite for the second.

Also, the Democratic candidates are all pretty close on the second. They all will appoint better, more diverse, judges. They will all impose less crooked and insane administrators. And they will approve any law that can pass a Congress with Joe Manchin as the median vote in the Senate.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:45 am

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:59 am One question I have here is where do voters sit on the continuum of:

Chance that the candidate would beat Trump on the election map (b/c I'm assuming they'll win the popular vote) vs.

Chance that the candidate if elected would be able to effectively move policy to fix the damage that Trump did.

Because that's clearly not the same thing. I sit strong in the Warren camp, and I look to her as the the leader in the second part, but I don't know at this point if she (or frankly, anyone) beats Trump due to the built-in advantages of the fucking electoral college. Another advantage that the Rs have is that they focus on the former, because since obstruction is a major part of the platform, the second part isn't as important because obstruction is the easy way to govern.

The first of those is a prerequisite for the second.

Also, the Democratic candidates are all pretty close on the second. They all will appoint better, more diverse, judges. They will all impose less crooked and insane administrators. And they will approve any law that can pass a Congress with Joe Manchin as the median vote in the Senate.

Do you think that Biden and Warren would be particularly close on who they appointed to oversee the Treasury, the Fed, the SEC and the other agencies with regulatory authority over the financial sector? I think there’s a huge potential for difference there among the Democratic candidates, which is why Wall Street money will pour into the Biden, Harris and O’Rourke campaigns, and not the Warren or Sanders campaigns.

L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:59 am One question I have here is where do voters sit on the continuum of:

Chance that the candidate would beat Trump on the election map (b/c I'm assuming they'll win the popular vote) vs.

Chance that the candidate if elected would be able to effectively move policy to fix the damage that Trump did.

Because that's clearly not the same thing. I sit strong in the Warren camp, and I look to her as the the leader in the second part, but I don't know at this point if she (or frankly, anyone) beats Trump due to the built-in advantages of the fucking electoral college. Another advantage that the Rs have is that they focus on the former, because since obstruction is a major part of the platform, the second part isn't as important because obstruction is the easy way to govern.

If you could offer me a guaranteed win from a centrist milquetoast Dem, I would take it in a heartbeat. A second Trump term would be a catastrophic nightmare. As he runs out of people with even a slight modicum of integrity and hires more batshit crazy loyalists, shit is going to go downhill fast. I would take a guarantee to stop the bleeding and take a step in the right direction versus the chance of making huge strides with a possibility of losing. That said, even if the Dems nominated a right-leaning candidate who was inline with TeaParty Republicans, the GOP and RW Media would still paint them as a far-Left menace hell bent on making the US Venezuela, inviting 30 million illegals and taking all the guns.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:44 am Yo, Klobuchar. FACE.

This is bad idea. Higher Ed is already highly wasteful in their spending and really only feels pressure when students/parents see the bill. Removing that obstacle and not applying some type of tuition limit would just increase prices even more. I'd rather see a tuition cap. Anything above that would have to be internally funded by the school itself.

Joe K wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:54 amDo you think that Biden and Warren would be particularly close on who they appointed to oversee the Treasury, the Fed, the SEC and the other agencies with regulatory authority over the financial sector? I think there’s a huge potential for difference there among the Democratic candidates, which is why Wall Street money will pour into the Biden, Harris and O’Rourke campaigns, and not the Warren or Sanders campaigns.

For the most part, yes - especially since whoever gets appointed to top-level posts will need Joe Manchin's approval.

One of the many, many, many things that I hate about this asshole is his usage of random capitalization.

Kinda better than this shit though.

Yeah, ellipses and the rare double hyphen. Pick one. And the hyphen before the second "America?"

Brutal.

Fuck you Biden.