The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[beantownbubba]

I think these are the right questions, or maybe it would be more accurate to say the right topics that need to be addressed by all of us individually and collectively.

As I said above, it's hard to see what the paradigm will be for conducting political business in the post-Trump world. I agree that it won't be the traditional version of "reaching across the aisle" and that's one of many good reasons that Biden should just shut up and get out of the way already. But if you want to contrast Bernie Sanders, I'm pretty confident in saying that he never thinks about and may not even care about how to get anything done. He just likes talking about interesting stuff. He should be a professor, not a president. I don't have the answer(s) here but I think this is the troubling earthquake rumbling in the background that will explode under any new administration: Exactly how the fuck are we supposed to govern this country? How are we supposed to find a "national purpose" and core values that a large majority of people can buy into? Can we find enough common ground to keep this country together in a form we recognize? These issues are going to far outweigh specifics like universal healthcare, abortion, immigration, whatever.

The moderates v. progressives struggle in the Democratic party has its interesting aspects but it's really not the issue as far as I can tell. I have asked this question quite often in different contexts and have yet to hear a satisfactory answer: How are the Democrats going to beat Trump at the polls, meaning where are the votes going to come from? It's fine if one wants to write off never Trumpers; it's fine if one wants to write off progressives having yet another hissy fit, etc, etc, but one way or another we have to come up w/ 51%, and not just 51%, but 51% distributed across the right places. Lots of people with really loud voices make lots of claims that they've got this figured out but as far as i can tell not a single one of 'em has the slightest idea of what they're talking about.

The way I figure it the ONLY issue that matters is beating Trump. Not because it will end all our problems and lead us to some kind of golden age. No matter what Democrat wins, I don't see much of any ambitious agenda being realized, though a few good things could happen like repairing relations w/ allies, reclaiming our place as a country w/ at least a colorable claim to the moral high ground, re-instituting some of the dismantled environmental regs, etc. But if Trump wins, I don't think this country has a chance and that simply has to be avoided. Who has the best chance of beating Trump? I know it's not Biden. I know it's not Bernie. I know it's not Beto. That's about as far as I've gotten so far.

[pearlbeer]

I think these are the right questions, or maybe it would be more accurate to say the right topics that need to be addressed by all of us individually and collectively.

As I said above, it's hard to see what the paradigm will be for conducting political business in the post-Trump world. I agree that it won't be the traditional version of "reaching across the aisle" and that's one of many good reasons that Biden should just shut up and get out of the way already. But if you want to contrast Bernie Sanders, I'm pretty confident in saying that he never thinks about and may not even care about how to get anything done. He just likes talking about interesting stuff. He should be a professor, not a president. I don't have the answer(s) here but I think this is the troubling earthquake rumbling in the background that will explode under any new administration: Exactly how the fuck are we supposed to govern this country? How are we supposed to find a "national purpose" and core values that a large majority of people can buy into? Can we find enough common ground to keep this country together in a form we recognize? These issues are going to far outweigh specifics like universal healthcare, abortion, immigration, whatever.

The moderates v. progressives struggle in the Democratic party has its interesting aspects but it's really not the issue as far as I can tell. I have asked this question quite often in different contexts and have yet to hear a satisfactory answer: How are the Democrats going to beat Trump at the polls, meaning where are the votes going to come from? It's fine if one wants to write off never Trumpers; it's fine if one wants to write off progressives having yet another hissy fit, etc, etc, but one way or another we have to come up w/ 51%, and not just 51%, but 51% distributed across the right places. Lots of people with really loud voices make lots of claims that they've got this figured out but as far as i can tell not a single one of 'em has the slightest idea of what they're talking about.

The way I figure it the ONLY issue that matters is beating Trump. Not because it will end all our problems and lead us to some kind of golden age. No matter what Democrat wins, I don't see much of any ambitious agenda being realized, though a few good things could happen like repairing relations w/ allies, reclaiming our place as a country w/ at least a colorable claim to the moral high ground, re-instituting some of the dismantled environmental regs, etc. But if Trump wins, I don't think this country has a chance and that simply has to be avoided. Who has the best chance of beating Trump? I know it's not Biden. I know it's not Bernie. I know it's not Beto. That's about as far as I've gotten so far.

Hey, bubba. Fuck Trump!

A few random thoughts here.

First, I think the whole 'moderate vs. progressive' argument is awfully premature. We are over a year out from the actual election, so this is the debate we SHOULD be having right now. The party should be having spirited debate centered around policy, and the debates should be wide ranging and inclusive of the fringe. The platform needs to be examined before the inevitable retreat to the middle ahead of the general election. I get the fear that the fringe will grab too much power and potentially push the platform too far left and alienate voters. However, can anyone give me a concrete example of this happening in the modern democratic party? I wouldn't say that the party has been anything resembling aggressive, radical or risky in a long, long time. I'm confident the inevitable shift to milquetoast is coming, so we might as well have some interesting debates and policy ideas while we can.

I'm torn when it comes to selecting 'electable' candidates. Look, I'm the first one to say that this election cannot, under any circumstances be lost. However, the 'electability' argument really chaps my hide. Sure, sure...Hillary. But on the other hand...Donald. The country elected a man, that by broad and sweeping consensus was (and still is) considered to be totally unelectable. If you can grab pussys in the final days of the election and succeed, I don't know that I buy the 'electability' argument anymore. We need a candidate that inspires and excites. The modern definition of an 'electable candidate' is safe, boring, bland and established. Fuck Trump and Fuck Electability.

I had this argument with my wife just last night. Take Kamala or Liz Warren. My wife says she likes Warren but feels she is too polarizing and potentially not 'electable'. To this I say poo-poo. What the fuck is polarizing about Liz? Why isn't she 'electable'? Here is the deal - she is a woman. This concept of 'electability' IMO is often an easy way to say that a woman cannot be elected to the office of the President. Kamala and Liz are certainly qualified for the job. They both have boot-strap stories of the achieving American Dream. Neither has significant skeletons in the closet. To my knowledge there aren't any significant moral or ethical issues to address. (Certainly not by comparison to the current occupier of the White House). You know what they DO have? A vagina. So, let's just either just accept that a woman can't be elected President (yet) or address that issue directly and largely tell the 'electability argument' to get bent. Personally, I think old, white men have had their chance to run the country. I think it is actually TIME for a woman in the office.

Finally...I'm in my mid forties. I'm tired of seeing the Republicans tear this place apart. They lie, they cheat, they steal. In my 20 or so years of voting, I've seen damn close to 50% of the Presidents elected after losing the popular vote. I live in Austin, one of the more liberal cities in the nation. I've NEVER had a Democratic Congressional Representative because we are Gerrymandered all to hell. The country was cheated out of a Supreme Court seat. The Republican party won't condemn racist behavior. They ignore Russian election-meddling. They don't fucking care. I swear, at this point, I think the only justification for their behavior is they just want to enjoy watching the fire burn. So the idea of a 'moderate' candidate that can 'reach across the aisle' sickens me. The D party is deeply naive, negligent or just plain stupid if the leadership believes, in any way, that any sort of bipartisan relationship with the current version of the Republican party is achievable.

So, I suppose that puts me in the camp of saying: Fuck Trump. Fuck electability. Let's aggressively cram as much progressive legislation down their goddamn throats as possible. In the past, I was up for being the nice guy. The party that is kind, empathetic, inclusive, understanding and reasonable. Fuck that. I'm ready to fight. The revolution starts now, and ideas like universal health care, free college and progressive taxation are inspiring, scary, thought provoking. These ideas challenge the status-quo. You know who isn't happy with the status-quo right now? Pretty much every damn voter out there.

The majority of the country has been controlled by a radical minority (in every branch of Government) for far too long. You want to label me as a 'radical progressive'? Fine. You want to call me 'democratic socialist'? Bring it. You want to tell me that women aren't 'electable'? Fuck you. Look at the party we are up against. Look at the racist agenda they have accepted. Look at the morality with which they govern. Look at what they have turned into. We aren't going to beat these sleazebags by being nicer, safer and more to the middle. Why are we afraid to confront reality? The 2020 election will, one way or another, present voters with a clear-as-fuck choice for President. Running away from that fact won't do any good. We need to accept it.

[Iowan]

My dream is a moderately liberal candidate that won't take shit from the Republicans.

You don't have to be uber left to be emphatically against their evil.

I don't know that anyone fits that bill. I thought Gabbard did, but she was painted as a Russian plant and endorsed by the people you don't want to be endorsed by to curry favor on the left. Which I've always suspected was done because those people (the KKK folks) see a tough moderate liberal as the exact type of candidate that can beat Trump. The kind of person who can pull swing state votes without trying to pander to the Republican power structure.

[Iowan]

The Republican agenda is simply to get Republican wins. That's it. Don't try to read any farther into it, because I don't think there is anything beyond that. And they will stop at nothing to achieve that end.

[Tequila Cowboy]

I think these are the right questions, or maybe it would be more accurate to say the right topics that need to be addressed by all of us individually and collectively.

As I said above, it's hard to see what the paradigm will be for conducting political business in the post-Trump world. I agree that it won't be the traditional version of "reaching across the aisle" and that's one of many good reasons that Biden should just shut up and get out of the way already. But if you want to contrast Bernie Sanders, I'm pretty confident in saying that he never thinks about and may not even care about how to get anything done. He just likes talking about interesting stuff. He should be a professor, not a president. I don't have the answer(s) here but I think this is the troubling earthquake rumbling in the background that will explode under any new administration: Exactly how the fuck are we supposed to govern this country? How are we supposed to find a "national purpose" and core values that a large majority of people can buy into? Can we find enough common ground to keep this country together in a form we recognize? These issues are going to far outweigh specifics like universal healthcare, abortion, immigration, whatever.

The moderates v. progressives struggle in the Democratic party has its interesting aspects but it's really not the issue as far as I can tell. I have asked this question quite often in different contexts and have yet to hear a satisfactory answer: How are the Democrats going to beat Trump at the polls, meaning where are the votes going to come from? It's fine if one wants to write off never Trumpers; it's fine if one wants to write off progressives having yet another hissy fit, etc, etc, but one way or another we have to come up w/ 51%, and not just 51%, but 51% distributed across the right places. Lots of people with really loud voices make lots of claims that they've got this figured out but as far as i can tell not a single one of 'em has the slightest idea of what they're talking about.

The way I figure it the ONLY issue that matters is beating Trump. Not because it will end all our problems and lead us to some kind of golden age. No matter what Democrat wins, I don't see much of any ambitious agenda being realized, though a few good things could happen like repairing relations w/ allies, reclaiming our place as a country w/ at least a colorable claim to the moral high ground, re-instituting some of the dismantled environmental regs, etc. But if Trump wins, I don't think this country has a chance and that simply has to be avoided. Who has the best chance of beating Trump? I know it's not Biden. I know it's not Bernie. I know it's not Beto. That's about as far as I've gotten so far.

Again, as I posted above, Trump won in 2016 due to 79,000 total votes in three states and in each case he won because voters didn't show up. I'm by no means saying that he can't win but considering in two of those cases he received less votes than Romney did in 2012 and in the third case only 164,000 more while Clinton received about 300,000 less in all three states whoever the nominee is just has to get more people to the polls in those three states with both FL and AZ being in play this time. Trump's numbers are underwater in all five of those states so it's unlikely he'll get as many votes as he did in 2016 and, while the normal rules don't always apply with him, incumbent Presidents rarely get more votes in their second term anyway. It's a very winnable election and Trump is by every number the most vulnerable incumbent since Jimmy Carter. While I certainly land pretty far to the left on the scale I think the further left the candidate is the less likely a victory and also the most closest to the previous status quo falls in the same boat. That's Sanders and Biden. I think Warren could actually moderate just enough if necessary but she would scare off some folks but as many as Clinton turned away in those swing states? Probably not. The Democrats excel at screwing things up though and this business about the left now trying to primary every Democrat who voted against the ridiculously premature articles of impeachment yesterday is a surefire way to do that. Running a third party candidate to the left of the Dem nominee is another one and both of these ideas are in play. The fact that anyone thinks it's a good idea to impeach Trump without hearings or, you know, an actual case is beyond my comprehension. If Trump wins we may deserve it.

As far as governing and/or healing the rifts in this country, well good luck with that. Trump's base feels like they're being wiped out of existence and 30% of population thinking that is not what you would call a good thing. There is going to be violence, there will be questions of legitimate governance, and it will all play out in real time. Red states may very well stop abiding by Federal laws if say the Democrats hold the White House and both chambers of Congress and may very well not even recognize their legitimacy. This is the legacy of Trump whether he wins or loses, but if he wins their will be a whole lot of suffering first.

[Tequila Cowboy]

I think these are the right questions, or maybe it would be more accurate to say the right topics that need to be addressed by all of us individually and collectively.

As I said above, it's hard to see what the paradigm will be for conducting political business in the post-Trump world. I agree that it won't be the traditional version of "reaching across the aisle" and that's one of many good reasons that Biden should just shut up and get out of the way already. But if you want to contrast Bernie Sanders, I'm pretty confident in saying that he never thinks about and may not even care about how to get anything done. He just likes talking about interesting stuff. He should be a professor, not a president. I don't have the answer(s) here but I think this is the troubling earthquake rumbling in the background that will explode under any new administration: Exactly how the fuck are we supposed to govern this country? How are we supposed to find a "national purpose" and core values that a large majority of people can buy into? Can we find enough common ground to keep this country together in a form we recognize? These issues are going to far outweigh specifics like universal healthcare, abortion, immigration, whatever.

The moderates v. progressives struggle in the Democratic party has its interesting aspects but it's really not the issue as far as I can tell. I have asked this question quite often in different contexts and have yet to hear a satisfactory answer: How are the Democrats going to beat Trump at the polls, meaning where are the votes going to come from? It's fine if one wants to write off never Trumpers; it's fine if one wants to write off progressives having yet another hissy fit, etc, etc, but one way or another we have to come up w/ 51%, and not just 51%, but 51% distributed across the right places. Lots of people with really loud voices make lots of claims that they've got this figured out but as far as i can tell not a single one of 'em has the slightest idea of what they're talking about.

The way I figure it the ONLY issue that matters is beating Trump. Not because it will end all our problems and lead us to some kind of golden age. No matter what Democrat wins, I don't see much of any ambitious agenda being realized, though a few good things could happen like repairing relations w/ allies, reclaiming our place as a country w/ at least a colorable claim to the moral high ground, re-instituting some of the dismantled environmental regs, etc. But if Trump wins, I don't think this country has a chance and that simply has to be avoided. Who has the best chance of beating Trump? I know it's not Biden. I know it's not Bernie. I know it's not Beto. That's about as far as I've gotten so far.

Hey, bubba. Fuck Trump!

A few random thoughts here.

First, I think the whole 'moderate vs. progressive' argument is awfully premature. We are over a year out from the actual election, so this is the debate we SHOULD be having right now. The party should be having spirited debate centered around policy, and the debates should be wide ranging and inclusive of the fringe. The platform needs to be examined before the inevitable retreat to the middle ahead of the general election. I get the fear that the fringe will grab too much power and potentially push the platform too far left and alienate voters. However, can anyone give me a concrete example of this happening in the modern democratic party? I wouldn't say that the party has been anything resembling aggressive, radical or risky in a long, long time. I'm confident the inevitable shift to milquetoast is coming, so we might as well have some interesting debates and policy ideas while we can.

I'm torn when it comes to selecting 'electable' candidates. Look, I'm the first one to say that this election cannot, under any circumstances be lost. However, the 'electability' argument really chaps my hide. Sure, sure...Hillary. But on the other hand...Donald. The country elected a man, that by broad and sweeping consensus was (and still is) considered to be totally unelectable. If you can grab pussys in the final days of the election and succeed, I don't know that I buy the 'electability' argument anymore. We need a candidate that inspires and excites. The modern definition of an 'electable candidate' is safe, boring, bland and established. Fuck Trump and Fuck Electability.

I had this argument with my wife just last night. Take Kamala or Liz Warren. My wife says she likes Warren but feels she is too polarizing and potentially not 'electable'. To this I say poo-poo. What the fuck is polarizing about Liz? Why isn't she 'electable'? Here is the deal - she is a woman. This concept of 'electability' IMO is often an easy way to say that a woman cannot be elected to the office of the President. Kamala and Liz are certainly qualified for the job. They both have boot-strap stories of the achieving American Dream. Neither has significant skeletons in the closet. To my knowledge there aren't any significant moral or ethical issues to address. (Certainly not by comparison to the current occupier of the White House). You know what they DO have? A vagina. So, let's just either just accept that a woman can't be elected President (yet) or address that issue directly and largely tell the 'electability argument' to get bent. Personally, I think old, white men have had their chance to run the country. I think it is actually TIME for a woman in the office.

Finally...I'm in my mid forties. I'm tired of seeing the Republicans tear this place apart. They lie, they cheat, they steal. In my 20 or so years of voting, I've seen damn close to 50% of the Presidents elected after losing the popular vote. I live in Austin, one of the more liberal cities in the nation. I've NEVER had a Democratic Congressional Representative because we are Gerrymandered all to hell. The country was cheated out of a Supreme Court seat. The Republican party won't condemn racist behavior. They ignore Russian election-meddling. They don't fucking care. I swear, at this point, I think the only justification for their behavior is they just want to enjoy watching the fire burn. So the idea of a 'moderate' candidate that can 'reach across the aisle' sickens me. The D party is deeply naive, negligent or just plain stupid if the leadership believes, in any way, that any sort of bipartisan relationship with the current version of the Republican party is achievable.

So, I suppose that puts me in the camp of saying: Fuck Trump. Fuck electability. Let's aggressively cram as much progressive legislation down their goddamn throats as possible. In the past, I was up for being the nice guy. The party that is kind, empathetic, inclusive, understanding and reasonable. Fuck that. I'm ready to fight. The revolution starts now, and ideas like universal health care, free college and progressive taxation are inspiring, scary, thought provoking. These ideas challenge the status-quo. You know who isn't happy with the status-quo right now? Pretty much every damn voter out there.

The majority of the country has been controlled by a radical minority (in every branch of Government) for far too long. You want to label me as a 'radical progressive'? Fine. You want to call me 'democratic socialist'? Bring it. You want to tell me that women aren't 'electable'? Fuck you. Look at the party we are up against. Look at the racist agenda they have accepted. Look at the morality with which they govern. Look at what they have turned into. We aren't going to beat these sleazebags by being nicer, safer and more to the middle. Why are we afraid to confront reality? The 2020 election will, one way or another, present voters with a clear-as-fuck choice for President. Running away from that fact won't do any good. We need to accept it.

It's a balancing act. Like I said in my post I think Warren can win, she made need to moderate some and whoever gets the nod has to drop this immediate call to end private insurance (it should end but not quickly), but her policies are well thought out and best of all she spells out how to pay for them. She's my favorite in the race right now and I don't give a flying fuck about the concept of "electability" it's and excuse and it's made up. I also think Harris could be a good choice. She needs to hone her policy chops a bit but she's a tough cookie and knows how to win. It's so early that it's silly to even speculate but a ticket of say Harris/Butigieg might be a very strong one. It would represent who this country in an they are both excellent campaigners. Warren would probably have to choose someone more moderate but I think, again, that she can win too. I think the key is to move slowly left but not enough to scare off the soccer moms who drove the 2018 midterms. Forget late term abortions, voting rights for prisoners and other easy targets. Talk about ensuring every American has health insurance, driving down education costs, the $15 minimum wage (which passed the House today) and making the very wealthy pay their fair share. Sanders is too angry and comes across as a kook, Biden is old and tired with a even more tired message. Those are the extremes and it would be dangerous to nominate either one. There are others who might not be electible but they aren't getting the nomination either so why bother talking about them? Move left, but don't overreach. Give a positive message and reflect the country at large. Do that I'll be cautiously optimistic about winning three of the five swing states.

[Zip City]

While I certainly land pretty far to the left on the scale I think the further left the candidate is the less likely a victory and also the most closest to the previous status quo falls in the same boat. That's Sanders and Biden.

You think Sanders is less extreme than Warren or Harris? I think Sanders is the most extreme candidate in the field

[beantownbubba]

Fuck Trump, Pearlbeer. Fuck electability, too.

I think I vaguely remember a time when "electability" actually meant something, but even then, I can't say quite what it was. Now? You are 100% correct, pearlbeer, that the primary meaning of "electability" has come to mean "she has a vagina" and the secondary meaning is that "s/he has a really dark tan." Or IOW, fuck electability. I'm with you there for sure.

Let's be clear that this election is going to be ugly. Whoever the candidate is, he or she must be willing to get down into the muck and do what's necessary including being proactive and aggressive in landing punches, not just defensively responding to the bullshit Trump flings. That should be a given and it immediately eliminates some candidates most obviously Biden.

In response to several comments, the reason why i think the progressive v. moderate thing has to be dealt w/ early has nothing to do w/ POV's or policies. It has everything to do w/ getting self proclaimed progressives to commit to voting for the Democratic candidate. As we have seen, if they get anywhere down the path w/ a favored candidate only to have the rug pulled out they are especially good at throwing tantrums. We just can't have that. We need votes and votes we can count on. I could even see a deal where the party agrees to, say, not to nominate Biden in return for the progressives agreeing NOW that they are on board w/ the Dem candidate (hard to enforce and unlikely to the point of science fiction but the idea of making a deal if necessary is really the point).

Zip, I think TC was saying that Sanders is the farthest left but I'm sure he can and will speak for himself.

I personally think that Harris, Klobuchar and Warren are all realistic candidates and the fake "electability" issue needs to be eliminated from the discussion. I hope Marianne Williamson hangs around for a while because she should add some fun to the process plus she's the only candidate who, as far as I know, has acknowledged what I think is a key point: The Democrats need better slogans, nicknames and all the other accoutrements of Trump era campaigning and they need them a lot more than they need position papers (see above about being aggressive and getting down in the muck).

I believe that Beto, Biden, Bernie, Bill (DeBlasio), Steyer, Gillebrand, Delaney and Gravel should just go away.

I think I'd like to hear more from/about Gabbard, Inslee, Hickenlooper, Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Mayor Pete, Moulton (who I've liked as a congressman from MA but still don't know very well), Yang and maybe Tim Ryan.

I think Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, Booker, Bennet (I like what I've heard but don't know nearly enough) and possibly Buttigieg (same) are candidates I could comfortably vote for today. I am very concerned that Buttigieg is too young and inexperienced but haven't concluded that his age alone is disqualifying, at least not yet.

I think it would serve the Democratic Party and all anti-Trump voters if the Dems could whittle the field down to a still large but much more manageable number, say 12 just for argument's sake. That would mean getting rid of all the candidates in my "go away" category and about half of those in the "need to know more" category. I don't have a moment's hesitation in saying that the race and we voters would not suffer at all if that were to happen and much could be gained, including a geometric reduction in the odds of the Dems shooting themselves in both feet and the neck.

[schlanky]

It has everything to do w/ getting self proclaimed progressives to commit to voting for the Democratic candidate.

The common denominator in the last page of so of this thread is Elizabeth Warren---she has good poll numbers (right now anyway) and she's progressive enough for the progressives.

[pearlbeer]

Agreed, Bubba.

I think the field will start to narrow pretty quickly after this month's debate. Many of the contenders have no chance at the nomination and know it. They are in to push policy agendas and/or career aspirations. Historically, there has been little downside to running for President. I just hope in the end, the large field of candidates can come to some sort of suicide-pact where all the money and support follow the nominee.

I think (not totally sure) that Moulton has dropped already. He is a great example of a candidate that is running to push an agenda (foreign policy in his case). I've heard a few interviews and speeches from him and he is incredible. His foreign policy experience and some of his thoughts on the issue are certainly worth listening to. I wish he had made the main stage as he does seem to have a unique perspective versus the rest of the field. Somehow, he was able to overcome a case of bone-spurs to serve his country in combat. Seems like a solid dude.

Here is a good interview if you want to get to know your fellow beantowner a bit more:

[pearlbeer]

It has everything to do w/ getting self proclaimed progressives to commit to voting for the Democratic candidate.

The common denominator in the last page of so of this thread is Elizabeth Warren---she has good poll numbers (right now anyway) and she's progressive enough for the progressives.

Also, she has received the critical "Pearlbeer Endorsement". Very hard to get elected without this coveted honor. I'm not sure if she has officially announced this fact, but I'd expect you'll be hearing from her soon.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Also, she has received the critical "Pearlbeer Endorsement". Very hard to get elected without this coveted honor.

worked great for this guy

[blessedcurse]

Y'all are a bunch of articulate insightful motherfuckers! A Bubba/Pearlbeer ticket would add a lot to the American discourse - it sure does in our little tribe.

Fuck Trump!

[oilpiers]

The Electoral College is a remedial institution.

[Tequila Cowboy]

While I certainly land pretty far to the left on the scale I think the further left the candidate is the less likely a victory and also the most closest to the previous status quo falls in the same boat. That's Sanders and Biden.

You think Sanders is less extreme than Warren or Harris? I think Sanders is the most extreme candidate in the field

No, if I wasn't clear I was saying Sanders was the most extreme on the left and Biden the most extreme towards the center.

[Tequila Cowboy]

Fuck Trump, Pearlbeer. Fuck electability, too.

I think I vaguely remember a time when "electability" actually meant something, but even then, I can't say quite what it was. Now? You are 100% correct, pearlbeer, that the primary meaning of "electability" has come to mean "she has a vagina" and the secondary meaning is that "s/he has a really dark tan." Or IOW, fuck electability. I'm with you there for sure.

Let's be clear that this election is going to be ugly. Whoever the candidate is, he or she must be willing to get down into the muck and do what's necessary including being proactive and aggressive in landing punches, not just defensively responding to the bullshit Trump flings. That should be a given and it immediately eliminates some candidates most obviously Biden.

In response to several comments, the reason why i think the progressive v. moderate thing has to be dealt w/ early has nothing to do w/ POV's or policies. It has everything to do w/ getting self proclaimed progressives to commit to voting for the Democratic candidate. As we have seen, if they get anywhere down the path w/ a favored candidate only to have the rug pulled out they are especially good at throwing tantrums. We just can't have that. We need votes and votes we can count on. I could even see a deal where the party agrees to, say, not to nominate Biden in return for the progressives agreeing NOW that they are on board w/ the Dem candidate (hard to enforce and unlikely to the point of science fiction but the idea of making a deal if necessary is really the point).

Zip, I think TC was saying that Sanders is the farthest left but I'm sure he can and will speak for himself.

I personally think that Harris, Klobuchar and Warren are all realistic candidates and the fake "electability" issue needs to be eliminated from the discussion. I hope Marianne Williamson hangs around for a while because she should add some fun to the process plus she's the only candidate who, as far as I know, has acknowledged what I think is a key point: The Democrats need better slogans, nicknames and all the other accoutrements of Trump era campaigning and they need them a lot more than they need position papers (see above about being aggressive and getting down in the muck).

I believe that Beto, Biden, Bernie, Bill (DeBlasio), Steyer, Gillebrand, Delaney and Gravel should just go away.

I think I'd like to hear more from/about Gabbard, Inslee, Hickenlooper, Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Mayor Pete, Moulton (who I've liked as a congressman from MA but still don't know very well), Yang and maybe Tim Ryan.

I think Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, Booker, Bennet (I like what I've heard but don't know nearly enough) and possibly Buttigieg (same) are candidates I could comfortably vote for today. I am very concerned that Buttigieg is too young and inexperienced but haven't concluded that his age alone is disqualifying, at least not yet.

I think it would serve the Democratic Party and all anti-Trump voters if the Dems could whittle the field down to a still large but much more manageable number, say 12 just for argument's sake. That would mean getting rid of all the candidates in my "go away" category and about half of those in the "need to know more" category. I don't have a moment's hesitation in saying that the race and we voters would not suffer at all if that were to happen and much could be gained, including a geometric reduction in the odds of the Dems shooting themselves in both feet and the neck.

Interesting that you bring up Yang. I'm in a political FB group with a huge supporter of his and have studied his platform as much or more than any of them. It's very interesting but also very dense. It take a while to absorb. My understanding is that in a group setting he's able to change a lot of minds, and regularly draws thousands to his events, but I question if those skills translate to a big stage. I also think some of his takes on things are pretty esoteric and some don't belong in a Presidential race (free marriage counseling, an anti-circumcision plank, a minister of ceremonies). Since many of his thoughts haven't been well vetted I think most will dismiss them and I don't think that his cornerstone issue of UBI has a chance in hell in the US considering the tough time it's had in much more liberal countries. That said it's nice to see new voices. I can't go there on Marrianne Williamson though. Even my yoga, reiki, spiritually oriented wife couldn't take her seriously in the debate. I did like the "love each other" part . but was missing the "motherfuckers" to cap it off. I'm really disappointed in Beto O'Rourke as he ran such a great Senate campaign and promptly shit the bed nationally. He seems so unserious that I'm tempted to dismiss him from any high political office and six months ago I thought he was inevitable as a prominent Democrat.

I know this race feels existential, frankly I'm more than terrified of a second Trump term, but it's still so damned early and we've never seen a candidate field like this. It'll get better. Half of these candidates will be gone by the end of the year and another half after Iowa and New Hampshire. Buckle up folks, this is going to be a bumpy ride.

[Zip City]

While I certainly land pretty far to the left on the scale I think the further left the candidate is the less likely a victory and also the most closest to the previous status quo falls in the same boat. That's Sanders and Biden.

You think Sanders is less extreme than Warren or Harris? I think Sanders is the most extreme candidate in the field

No, if I wasn't clear I was saying Sanders was the most extreme on the left and Biden the most extreme towards the center.

My bad, carry on

[Flea]

Hey, bubba. Fuck Trump!

A few random thoughts here.

First, I think the whole 'moderate vs. progressive' argument is awfully premature. We are over a year out from the actual election, so this is the debate we SHOULD be having right now. The party should be having spirited debate centered around policy, and the debates should be wide ranging and inclusive of the fringe. The platform needs to be examined before the inevitable retreat to the middle ahead of the general election. I get the fear that the fringe will grab too much power and potentially push the platform too far left and alienate voters. However, can anyone give me a concrete example of this happening in the modern democratic party? I wouldn't say that the party has been anything resembling aggressive, radical or risky in a long, long time. I'm confident the inevitable shift to milquetoast is coming, so we might as well have some interesting debates and policy ideas while we can.

I'm torn when it comes to selecting 'electable' candidates. Look, I'm the first one to say that this election cannot, under any circumstances be lost. However, the 'electability' argument really chaps my hide. Sure, sure...Hillary. But on the other hand...Donald. The country elected a man, that by broad and sweeping consensus was (and still is) considered to be totally unelectable. If you can grab pussys in the final days of the election and succeed, I don't know that I buy the 'electability' argument anymore. We need a candidate that inspires and excites. The modern definition of an 'electable candidate' is safe, boring, bland and established. Fuck Trump and Fuck Electability.

I had this argument with my wife just last night. Take Kamala or Liz Warren. My wife says she likes Warren but feels she is too polarizing and potentially not 'electable'. To this I say poo-poo. What the fuck is polarizing about Liz? Why isn't she 'electable'? Here is the deal - she is a woman. This concept of 'electability' IMO is often an easy way to say that a woman cannot be elected to the office of the President. Kamala and Liz are certainly qualified for the job. They both have boot-strap stories of the achieving American Dream. Neither has significant skeletons in the closet. To my knowledge there aren't any significant moral or ethical issues to address. (Certainly not by comparison to the current occupier of the White House). You know what they DO have? A vagina. So, let's just either just accept that a woman can't be elected President (yet) or address that issue directly and largely tell the 'electability argument' to get bent. Personally, I think old, white men have had their chance to run the country. I think it is actually TIME for a woman in the office.

Finally...I'm in my mid forties. I'm tired of seeing the Republicans tear this place apart. They lie, they cheat, they steal. In my 20 or so years of voting, I've seen damn close to 50% of the Presidents elected after losing the popular vote. I live in Austin, one of the more liberal cities in the nation. I've NEVER had a Democratic Congressional Representative because we are Gerrymandered all to hell. The country was cheated out of a Supreme Court seat. The Republican party won't condemn racist behavior. They ignore Russian election-meddling. They don't fucking care. I swear, at this point, I think the only justification for their behavior is they just want to enjoy watching the fire burn. So the idea of a 'moderate' candidate that can 'reach across the aisle' sickens me. The D party is deeply naive, negligent or just plain stupid if the leadership believes, in any way, that any sort of bipartisan relationship with the current version of the Republican party is achievable.

So, I suppose that puts me in the camp of saying: Fuck Trump. Fuck electability. Let's aggressively cram as much progressive legislation down their goddamn throats as possible. In the past, I was up for being the nice guy. The party that is kind, empathetic, inclusive, understanding and reasonable. Fuck that. I'm ready to fight. The revolution starts now, and ideas like universal health care, free college and progressive taxation are inspiring, scary, thought provoking. These ideas challenge the status-quo. You know who isn't happy with the status-quo right now? Pretty much every damn voter out there.

The majority of the country has been controlled by a radical minority (in every branch of Government) for far too long. You want to label me as a 'radical progressive'? Fine. You want to call me 'democratic socialist'? Bring it. You want to tell me that women aren't 'electable'? Fuck you. Look at the party we are up against. Look at the racist agenda they have accepted. Look at the morality with which they govern. Look at what they have turned into. We aren't going to beat these sleazebags by being nicer, safer and more to the middle. Why are we afraid to confront reality? The 2020 election will, one way or another, present voters with a clear-as-fuck choice for President. Running away from that fact won't do any good. We need to accept it.

Can I have your baby?

[beantownbubba]

I'm in a political FB group .

I never doubted your courage, TC, but I had no idea that you were quite this daring and adventurous.

[Tequila Cowboy]

I'm in a political FB group .

I never doubted your courage, TC, but I had no idea that you were quite this daring and adventurous.

It’s a group of like minded friendlies. We have some good discussion.

[pearlbeer]

Finally...I'm in my mid forties.

Can I have your baby?

Ok, but my eggs may be expired. Fuck Trump!

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

can't make this shit up

Hope all the MAGAt chuds enjoy paying $15 for 10 straws to own me and all my libtard fellow travelers

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Can I have your baby?

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 4fde4d270b

Murad, who now lives in Germany, told him she never wanted to be a refu­gee but that ISIS murdered her mother and six brothers.

“Where are they now?” Trump asked.

“They killed them,” she repeated. “They are in the mass grave in Sinjar, and I’m still fighting just to live in safety.”

“I know the area very well that you’re talking about,” Trump responded.

Those that still approve of and support this national embarrassment- and surely there are some who do here in 3DD- must be so proud

[pearlbeer]

Trump supporters suck.

[scotto]

Trump supporters suck.

Can you just fucking imagine? Hey! Let's kill a bunch of sea turtles and pelicans to own the libs!

[Smitty]

That's an interesting way to look at it. I see it more being that for years moderates have stacked desks and chairs and whatever else they could in front of the doors to keep "today's far left" out of the room, but now a few have managed to slip inside.

And just how left exactly is "today's far left"? Have they been getting lefter and lefter all this time, or does it just look that way because the rest of the party has gradually slid farther to the right over the past decades?

This sounds like another one of those times when the moderates tell the progressives to fall back in line----that moderate Dem way of thinking that people should come to the party instead of thinking the party needs to come to the people.

Reaching across the aisle works just fine when you do all the stuff the Republicans want, but then it's rarely reciprocated. It takes two to tango, but if one partner refuses to dance, the one still trying to dance just looks like an idiot.

schlanky's got it. I'm sorry but like that recently unemployed dude in Iowa with the thug cookies, I'm gonna quote Tupac "you see the old way wasn't working so it's on us to do what we gotta do". We've had nothing but moderate Democrats in the WH setting the agenda for generations, and well you see how that worked out. Decades of Dems compromising on key issues under the banner of "bipartisanship" while Republicans moved further and further right while giving less ground are what got us here in the first place. Now we've arrived at a place where what should be core progressive principles are being labeled as "radical" by those who identify as progressives themselves. That's the logical outcome of punting every time we had the ball, and we could continue to do that and in the short-term things will improve slightly (really slightly, like just barely) only for the next bad actor and then it's two steps back again.

That's not to say there's no room for moderates in the party; they're necessary to have a chance in state races, which is another area where the DNC screwed the pooch that led to the clusterfuck we're stuck in, but that's another (equally important) issue for another day.

The way I see it is the DNC can run a reach-across-the-aisle, moderate and while I'll support them regardless because we have fucking babies in cages and an undeniable white supremacist in the White House, but if that's the case the best I think we can hope for is a slower descent towards hell. If the candidate is an actual progressive who intends to disrupt the status quo, best case scenario is the ship gets turned around and some substantial changes for the better actually take place or some of the damage gets undone; worst-case scenario* if elected would be an inability to get anything of note done due to a divided Congress with Republicans deadset on obstruction, which is what we will continue to have regardless of whether we elect a moderate or a progressive. At the very least the notion that progressives are toxic at the ballot box will be dispelled. Another point I'm not sure was learned from 2016 is that conventional wisdom, such as Biden is the safest candidate, is not gospel anymore because we're no longer in conventional times. I think if one positive thing comes out of the Trump presidency, its that the backlash against it creates enough momentum DNC to take a chance on a non-establishment candidate and avoid the "conventional wisdom" trap that Biden (like Hillary) represents. Biden is certainly not an inspiring candidate among millennials (or anybody aside from whoever the fuck gets polled, I guess) and that will be necessary to overcome the Trumpers, who seem to have doubled down on supporting their leader. So yeah, I truly hope the DNC sets aside bullshit "safe bets" chosen by the donor class and listens to whomever the people, with emphasis on the younger generations, want on the ballot, and that candidate will likely be whoever seems to be the most likely to shake things up.

[beantownbubba]

Just want to say that last night I participated in a discussion w/ 7 other people in my demographic (divided equally between men and women) and the upshot was (1)people are scared; (2) people desperately want to get Trump out; and (3) the default mode for at least this set of folks is extreme caution as manifested in Biden. He would not be anyone's first choice in a perfect world but at least 5 of the 8 thought that he would be the best choice for the usual reasons summarized by "electability." I would say that this particular group is persuadable to some extent but it was my first real taste of how hard it is going to be to dislodge the idea of Biden as front runner and most "electable." I'm not arguing a POV here just observing.

[scotto]

Similar to what I've heard from folks, but his frontrunner status seems to be more about two-term exposure and a long history in public office (for better and worse) and current poling than actual popularity. Everyone I know may have a favorite (or two) or a preferred candidate, but are actually just waiting for the primary dust to settle knowing that they'll vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination.

[beantownbubba]

but his frontrunner status seems to be more about two-term exposure and a long history in public office (for better and worse) and current poling than actual popularity.

Agreed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 4fde4d270b

Murad, who now lives in Germany, told him she never wanted to be a refu­gee but that ISIS murdered her mother and six brothers.

“Where are they now?” Trump asked.

“They killed them,” she repeated. “They are in the mass grave in Sinjar, and I’m still fighting just to live in safety.”

“I know the area very well that you’re talking about,” Trump responded.

Those that still approve of and support this national embarrassment- and surely there are some who do here in 3DD- must be so proud

It's hard to formulate an appropriate response to this. Other than noting that it's actually worse because this is undoubtedly an example of typical Trump behavior, not an isolated case I suppose it really doesn't need any further analysis. In legal terms one might say "res ipsa loquitur;" the thing speaks for itself.