SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
GrosseAdmiralFox
Padawan Learner
Posts: 315
Joined: 2019-01-20 01:28pm

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by GrosseAdmiralFox » 2019-03-10 01:56am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-03-10 12:44am
Ah yes, the old Reich-wing tactic of accusing the media of "liberal bias" and their political opponents of being "socialists", gradually pushing the "center" further and further Right. Pretty much how we got here in the first place.

Still, its downright depressing that people still fall for this shit.
... you're ignoring Hobbes and Locke, which are the only reasonable assumptions on humanity as a whole. Ignore those two and you'll be only set up for disappointment.

It also doesn't help that the GOP -and Russia- are using our assumptions on the Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech against us as well...

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-03-10 01:57am

GrosseAdmiralFox wrote:
2019-03-10 01:56am
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-03-10 12:44am
Ah yes, the old Reich-wing tactic of accusing the media of "liberal bias" and their political opponents of being "socialists", gradually pushing the "center" further and further Right. Pretty much how we got here in the first place.

Still, its downright depressing that people still fall for this shit.
... you're ignoring Hobbes and Locke, which are the only reasonable assumptions on humanity as a whole. Ignore those two and you'll be only set up for disappointment.
That's a hell of a bold assertion.
It also doesn't help that the GOP -and Russia- are using our assumptions on the Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech against us as well...
Sigh... must you turn every topic into "Why we need to kill freedom in order to save it"?
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
GrosseAdmiralFox
Padawan Learner
Posts: 315
Joined: 2019-01-20 01:28pm

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by GrosseAdmiralFox » 2019-03-10 06:27pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-03-10 01:57am
That's a hell of a bold assertion.
It isn't as bold as you would think if you take a gander through history...
Sigh... must you turn every topic into "Why we need to kill freedom in order to save it"?
Here's the thing, our ASSUMPTIONS on what is freedom and rights have become wrong thanks to technological context. Freedoms and rights have ALWAYS been fluid at best... and you haven't read everything with the Trump-Russia investigation have you? You've ignored that Russia turned freedom of information and speech against us while the GOP made a mockery of the Freedom of the Press. If you don't understand that, then you are an idiot.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-03-10 08:03pm

GrosseAdmiralFox wrote:
2019-03-10 06:27pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-03-10 01:57am
That's a hell of a bold assertion.
It isn't as bold as you would think if you take a gander through history...
I don't think there's any one or two people you can point to and say "these guys got everything there is to know about human nature". Especially not men from an era before most of our modern understanding of human psychology, with all the prejudices of that era.

We're just not that simple.
Here's the thing, our ASSUMPTIONS on what is freedom and rights have become wrong thanks to technological context. Freedoms and rights have ALWAYS been fluid at best... and you haven't read everything with the Trump-Russia investigation have you? You've ignored that Russia turned freedom of information and speech against us while the GOP made a mockery of the Freedom of the Press. If you don't understand that, then you are an idiot.
I ignore nothing. I have been the most vocal and outspoken person on this board on the subject of Russian election interference. But I do not buy "we need to sacrifice our freedoms in order to protect freedom" now any more than I did when the Bush administration peddled it after 9/11, or any of the thousands of other times that that argument has been used. There are always threats, and there are always people who will tell you that the only way to stay safe is to give up our freedoms, and its usually a con by authoritarians to take advantage of public panic.

If we have to give up core freedoms in order to protect freedom, then what's the point? The Kremlin's goal, in part, is to discredit democracy. If you are right, then it doesn't matter what we do- Putin has won regardless.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
GrosseAdmiralFox
Padawan Learner
Posts: 315
Joined: 2019-01-20 01:28pm

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by GrosseAdmiralFox » 2019-03-10 08:12pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-03-10 08:03pm
I don't think there's any one or two people you can point to and say "these guys got everything there is to know about human nature". Especially not men from an era before most of our modern understanding of human psychology, with all the prejudices of that era.

We're just not that simple.
Then mob dynamics don't exist then? How do I get to your reality then? :roll:
I ignore nothing. I have been the most vocal and outspoken person on this board on the subject of Russian election interference. But I do not buy "we need to sacrifice our freedoms in order to protect freedom" now any more than I did when the Bush administration peddled it after 9/11, or any of the thousands of other times that that argument has been used. There are always threats, and there are always people who will tell you that the only way to stay safe is to give up our freedoms, and its usually a con by authoritarians to take advantage of public panic.

If we have to give up core freedoms in order to protect freedom, then what's the point? The Kremlin's goal, in part, is to discredit democracy. If you are right, then it doesn't matter what we do- Putin has won regardless.
We have to look at the assumptions of freedoms and rights, you are falling into the trap that has freedoms and rights as static things, unaffected by things like time and technology. The reality of the situation is that rights aren't static, that they are effected by technology. Your assumptions on rights and freedoms are built upon a pre-internet and -sadly- ignorant of the basis of human mentality.

Our technological context has annihilated those assumptions and shattered the preconceptions. The 'Freedom of the Press' that we so enjoyed also created FOX News, and that was AFTER the GOP removed the restrictions on what is considered news during the Reagan years... and now it is a propaganda network that can't be touched because people like you scream 'FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!'. The only reason that FOX News is going more genuine news is because the leadership is changing and they are more corporate minded and see that continuing to cater to a dying demographic is a loosing proposition... but that only lasts as long as the leadership at best.

Part of the reason that the GOP has become so rabid is because of FOX and friends creating a bubble where reality is substituted with whatever the talking heads say is reality.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-03-10 08:19pm

GrosseAdmiralFox wrote:
2019-03-10 08:12pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-03-10 08:03pm
I don't think there's any one or two people you can point to and say "these guys got everything there is to know about human nature". Especially not men from an era before most of our modern understanding of human psychology, with all the prejudices of that era.

We're just not that simple.
Then mob dynamics don't exist then? How do I get to your reality then? :roll:
That is a ridiculous straw man of what I actually said.
We have to look at the assumptions of freedoms and rights, you are falling into the trap that has freedoms and rights as static things, unaffected by things like time and technology. The reality of the situation is that rights aren't static, that they are effected by technology. Your assumptions on rights and freedoms are built upon a pre-internet and -sadly- ignorant of the basis of human mentality.

Our technological context has annihilated those assumptions and shattered the preconceptions. The 'Freedom of the Press' that we so enjoyed also created FOX News, and that was AFTER the GOP removed the restrictions on what is considered news during the Reagan years... and now it is a propaganda network that can't be touched because people like you scream 'FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!'. The only reason that FOX News is going more genuine news is because the leadership is changing and they are more corporate minded and see that continuing to cater to a dying demographic is a loosing proposition... but that only lasts as long as the leadership at best.

Part of the reason that the GOP has become so rabid is because of FOX and friends creating a bubble where reality is substituted with whatever the talking heads say is reality.
See, the thing about freedom of speech is that it cuts both ways. The same laws that protect Fox News protect me, and you can bet that without them, Trump would have gone much further to shutting down opposition media. Restrict your opponents' speech, and those same precedents can be turned back on you. That much does not change because we've invented some new gadgets.

To me, the solution is not to try to censor the other side (barring things which are already largely covered by existing law, like defamation, fraud, or overt incitement of violence*), so much as it is to become more effective in getting our own message out. We have the same technological tools at our disposal as the Kremlin and Trump. We have simply failed to use them effectively. I don't even mean breaking the law. There have to be some Democrats and progressives who can put together a slick add campaign and effectively disseminate it over social media (hell, Bernie and Obama both did pretty well in that regard, and its probably a large part of the reason for their success).



*I will acknowledge that the US could probably stand to broaden its laws on what constitutes illegal incitement of violence.

Edit: It frankly genuinely baffles me that anyone opposed to Putin/Trump could look at the current government of the United States and say that we should give that government broader powers of media censorship.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-03-18 02:29am

Joe Biden apparently lets slip that he's planning to run:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/u ... ing-again/
Did Joe Biden accidentally reveal his plans to run for the White House? Or was it just another slip of the tongue by the former vice-president with a reputation for veering off script?
In a keynote speech at a dinner for the Delaware Democratic Party, Mr. Biden boasted Saturday that he has “the most progressive record of anybody running.” The only problem is that Mr. Biden hasn’t announced whether he will launch a third run for the White House, despite repeatedly teasing the possibility.
He quickly corrected himself, clarifying that he meant to say “anybody who would run,” then adding “I didn’t mean it” while a cheering crowd in his home state nearly drowned him out.
Although Mr. Biden has been known to go off script, his remark is likely to be viewed as a Washington-style gaffe – a case of accidentally telling the truth.
During the rest of his speech, he sounded very much like a candidate-in-waiting. He repeatedly attacked President Donald Trump, accusing him of stoking division and anger, and bemoaned that the ascendant “new left” of his own party has criticized him for being cordial toward Republicans.

“The only thing strong enough to tear America apart is America itself and we’ve seen its start,” he said.
Mr. Biden accused Mr. Trump of backing away from United States’ role as a leader on the world stage and abandoning its allies. He said it’s no coincidence that “fake news” – one of Trump’s favourite labels – “has become the phrase of choice for every despot terrorizing his people.”
“We’re literally in a battle for the soul of America,” he said.
More than a dozen Democrats have already launched formal 2020 presidential campaigns. After former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke’s entered the race last week, Mr. Biden, who is his party’s best-known and best-connected presidential prospect, is the last major contender to remain on the sidelines.
But that didn’t stop the friendly home-state crowd from reveling in the idea that will jump in.

Story continues below advertisement

“I told him recently I have one campaign left in me,” said Sonia Schorr Sloan, a fundraiser and longtime Biden adviser.
Delaware Governor John Carney said Mr. Biden “doesn’t just look like he’s back. He looks like he’s ready for a fight.”
Just minutes before Mr. Biden’s slip of the tongue, though, Mr. Carney raised the possibility of a Biden campaign with a bit more delicacy.
“I am not up here to break any news tonight,” Mr. Carney told the crowd. Then he added: “In my humble opinion, we have never needed Joe Biden more than we need him right now.”
Sigh...

Joe, stop being a tease and just say you're running already. But you know, letting your announcement that you're running slip out as a gaffe is not a real auspicious start to a campaign, especially for a guy with a reputation for embarrassing gaffes. And starting out your campaign by chiding your own base for not being nice enough to Republicans probably isn't a great choice either, especially this year.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2944
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by Ziggy Stardust » 2019-03-18 11:39am

Part of the reason that the GOP has become so rabid is because of FOX and friends creating a bubble where reality is substituted with whatever the talking heads say is reality.
And your solution to this problem is to just allow whoever is in power to create their own reality-defying bubble? Because that's the logical conclusion that emanates from your policy proposals. Instead of trying to think of ways we can change our social and media landscapes to combat or defuse the power of such reality-defying bubbles, you are just throwing up your hands and saying that we might as well just give up and dive into the bubble and start ignoring reality. Like, I'm really struggling to understand what your motivations are, other than to vaguely appeal to philosophical texts I'm not confident you fully understand and to say "Boo! Technology! Be afraid!"

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-03-18 10:31pm

Warren townhall on CNN tonight.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-03-24 05:19pm

Gillibrand delivered her first major campaign speech today, and chose to do it outside of Trump's buildings. :D

Let's not mistake style for substance, but still... not a bad start.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-03-27 09:59pm

Corey Booker town hall starting on CNN now.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-03-27 10:15pm

I'm naturally skeptical of all the "We all need to come together" bipartisan talk, given the current insanity of the opposition. But he's giving what seems to me to be a very good, direct, and in-depth response to the issue of reparations, and racism generally.

Edit: Nice audience question on impeachment. :) Booker basically says that we should see the Mueller report and decide based on that, but that we will beat Trump in 2020.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-03-29 01:05am

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... 20/585967/
Updated on March 28 at 6:45 p.m. ET

It’s been just four days since the president learned that Robert Mueller found no evidence of collusion, but Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump’s lawyer, is no longer in the mood to celebrate. He’s thrilled about the outcome, of course, as is his client. Trump told the former New York mayor that “he’s happier than he thought he would be.” But Giuliani, sipping a Diet Coke on Wednesday morning at the Trump Hotel, said it’s time to focus on the next mission: Find out who started all this—and why.

“We’re now trying to prove who did it,” Giuliani said. “The premise is, somebody had to have started the ‘He colluded with the Russians’” narrative. (Never mind that Trump’s posture toward the Kremlin has long been strange.) Asked whether the president himself wants an investigation to examine this question, Giuliani said, “Goddamn right he [does]. This is not ‘Oh, gee, it’s over, let’s forget about it.’”

A reliable barometer of Trump’s moods, Giuliani offered a glimpse into the future. Mueller might be done with his investigation, but Trump and company are loath to let it drop. They want to capitalize on the president escaping criminal charges and make Mueller’s findings a core piece of 2020 campaign messaging. In their view, Attorney General William Barr’s four-page summary of the report is a gift that vindicates Trump, undercuts Democratic investigations, and repudiates critical news coverage. There’s time enough to talk policy on the campaign trail. Team Trump first wants to showcase the special counsel’s conclusions: According to Barr, Mueller reported no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, and he couldn’t make a judgment on obstruction of justice. Even though the probe has led to 215 criminal charges and five prison sentences, Trump and his allies have framed Mueller’s findings as total exoneration.

Yet many Republican lawmakers and strategists fear that Trump would be fixating on the wrong message at the wrong time. They worry that Trump risks repeating the same strategic blunder he made in the midterm elections, which culminated in Republicans losing control of the House. Rather than spotlight economic gains rung up on his watch, the president might wind up dwelling on collateral issues of scant interest to voters. In the midterms, Trump locked onto migrant caravans making their way north from Mexico, warning of a national-security threat that never materialized, and ultimately made little mention of the bread-and-butter issues that some strategists believe would have bolstered his party’s odds for winning.

Tensions over Trump’s campaign message underscore a split within the Republican Party that’s existed since the day he announced his candidacy for president in 2015. Then and now, he’s trampled long-held convictions about how a presidential candidate should behave, relying on his own instincts and feel for the voters’ mood, to the dismay of mainstream GOP figures. Though the establishment and Trump wings of the GOP have joined forces since the 2016 campaign, the next election will test their alliance anew, with the Mueller report emerging as an early flash point.

Trump allies see Barr’s letter as a kind of Swiss Army knife—a tool useful in all kinds of situations. Not only is it exculpatory, they say, but it also implicitly rebukes the press for its coverage of the Russia investigation, inoculating Trump from any future scandal that reporters might unearth. According to a source familiar with internal discussions at the Republican National Committee and the pro-Trump super PAC America First, both organizations are “geared up for any nonsense to come.”

They’re already prepared to attack reporters. “Any reporter who tries that will be hit with 30-second spots of all their ridiculous claims about collusion,” said the source, who, like others interviewed for this story, requested anonymity to describe private conversations. “Their tweets have all been screencapped. It’s all ready to go.” (“It's the same thing we've been doing the last two years. We're going to hold the media accountable when we see fit,” an RNC official clarified, adding that this would include digital clips shared on social media.)

Earlier this week, Trump’s campaign previewed the in-your-face tactics they have in mind. A campaign official sent a letter to TV producers cautioning them against booking certain guests who had alleged that Trump colluded with Russia, including Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Democratic Representative Adam Schiff of California, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez.

“It’s not hard to figure where we’re going to go with this,” a current campaign official told The Atlantic. “We’re still in victory-lap mode, but it will turn into a message that [Democrats] will say or do anything to stop us from making America great again, including making up lies about the president and ruining a lot of people’s lives.”

White House officials suggested that the president has no plans to move on from the report because Democrats aren’t moving on. Instead, “they are doubling and tripling down,” says the White House spokesman Hogan Gidley.

At some level, letting go would be out of character. From the first, Trump has personalized the presidency. He still obsesses over the crowd size at his inauguration, along with perceived betrayals from Senator John McCain of Arizona, who died last summer. The Mueller investigation shadowed Trump for nearly two years. Now that it’s over, he is indulging in a bit of triumphalism.

But the president’s allies on Capitol Hill take a more clinical view. Having lost their House majority in 2018, they’re not persuaded that the Mueller report is the path back to power. “We have to be able to pivot to something,” one House Republican leadership aide told The Atlantic. “You can certainly use the findings to shine a light on any kind of frivolous investigations, but at the same time, we have to start thinking about moving on.”

Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, a close Trump ally, suggested that focusing on the press in particular would be unproductive. “Calling on the media to apologize is not something that most people would advocate for, as much as hitting the remote and changing to a different channel,” Meadows said.

No less than the leadership of a pro-Trump political-action committee is ready for a new script. “What we’re gonna try to do is get things back on the economic front—I don’t think we want to stay in the mud slopping for another year,” says Ed Rollins, the lead strategist of the Great America PAC. “I hope he can stay focused on his agenda, keep things positive.”

In any event, fresh developments could keep the Mueller probe alive. Barr’s letter isn’t the last word on the subject. Mueller’s report clocked in at more than 300 pages, The New York Times reported Thursday, raising the possibility that Trump’s handpicked attorney general elided more troubling conduct on the president’s part. Congressional Democrats are demanding to see the full report, raising the prospect of a standoff with the Justice Department. But should more damaging material come out, Trump’s legal team says they have a lengthy rebuttal at the ready.

Trump’s lawyers had drafted a counter-report in preparation for Mueller’s findings. Coming in at nearly 90 pages, it was kept locked in a safe in the Trump attorney Jay Sekulow’s office, ready to be released if the Mueller report found that Trump colluded with Russia or obstructed justice.

Throughout Mueller’s investigation, Trump’s lawyers were far more concerned about the obstruction part of the inquiry than the collusion question. Giuliani summarized parts of their defense in the counter-report to The Atlantic. If Mueller wrote that Trump obstructed justice after allegedly telling then–FBI Director James Comey to “let go” of his inquiry into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Trump’s lawyers would respond by laying out a timeline that suggests Comey inexplicably sat on the information. Comey said the conversation with Trump took place in February, but he didn’t raise alarm until May, Trump’s lawyers note. “If I’m the director of the FBI, and you call me in, and you are obstructing my investigation, I know it right away,” Giuliani said. “How can he decide … three months later, that this is obstruction?”

Trump’s lawyers could still put out some of the counter-report if, in the coming weeks, the Justice Department turns over more material from Mueller’s findings that suggests malfeasance on Trump’s part. Indeed, Mueller’s indecision on obstruction leaves many questions unanswered, which Trump’s team finds frustrating. “It’s kind of absurd that he couldn’t decide,” Giuliani said. “‘Difficult issues of law and fact’—that’s what you’re there for, pal! It’s like saying, ‘Well, I’m a brain surgeon, but I’m not gonna operate because this is a difficult brain situation.’”

In the coming weeks and months, the president will not only press for answers on how the investigation began, Giuliani said, but he’ll also potentially consider pardoning its casualties: Though “he hasn’t decided” if he wants to take that step, “that doesn’t mean down the road he’s given up the power to do it.

“I mean, are there cases that are worthy of it? Probably. People have been pardoned for far worse,” he continued. “Flynn is a very sympathetic case, and in some ways [the former Trump campaign chairman Paul] Manafort is, because he’s already spent a year in jail.”

Those emotions are what will likely motivate Trump moving forward: a conviction that he and his allies were victims of a devastating miscarriage of justice. Appearing on Sean Hannity’s show on Wednesday evening, the president made clear that the nation should remain riveted to all things Russia, saying that “this was an attempted takeover of our government, of our country.” And his biggest fans affirmed that they have no intention of letting him let go. As Hannity put it, “The deep state’s day of reckoning has now come.”

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.
Leaving aside for a moment that I really wish people would stop saying Mueller found no evidence of collusion (he apparently could not show a criminal conspiracy, which Barr exaggerated into "no collusion")... leaving that aside, I think Trump is really betting on the wrong horse here. Maybe if he repeats the "witch hunt, total vindication" narrative enough, it'll take root and become the accepted truth... but I doubt it. All the polling thus far has indicated that the results of the Mueller probe thus far have had very little effect either way on how people view Trump, or how they are likely to vote.

People often say that Democrats need to stop focussing so much on attacking Trump and instead focus on "the issues" (as though the Trump Regime's systematic corruption and attacks on democracy and the rule of law are not important issues). But is Trump the one making that mistake here? Focussing on attacking his opponents on an issue that isn't going to shift votes, instead of on issues that might actually help him?
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-04-02 12:56am

Joe Biden is once again facing trouble, as two women have accused him of unwanted touching:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47781740
A second woman has accused former US Vice-President Joe Biden of inappropriate touching, as the leading Democrat mulls a White House bid.

Amy Lappos said Mr Biden had touched her face with both hands and rubbed noses with her a decade ago.

The allegation comes after another women, Lucy Flores, said Mr Biden kissed her on the back of her head at a campaign event.

Mr Biden has said he did not believe he has ever acted inappropriately.

The former Delaware senator, who served as Barack Obama's vice-president in 2009-17, is seen as a possible frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Ms Lappos, a 43-year-old former aide to a Democratic congressman, said Mr Biden touched her inappropriately at a fundraiser in a private home in Hartford, Connecticut, in 2009.

She told the Hartford Courant the then vice-president entered the kitchen to thank a group of aides, before wrapping both hands around Ms Lappos' face and pulling her in to rub noses with her.

Ms Lappos called on Mr Biden not to run for the White House, saying: "Uninvited affection is not okay. Objectifying women is not okay."

Ms Flores' allegations first appeared on Friday in an article she wrote for The Cut magazine.

Ms Flores was running as the Democratic candidate for Nevada's lieutenant governor in 2014 when Mr Biden flew in to support her bid.

As she prepared to go on stage, Ms Flores say Mr Biden placed two hands on her shoulders from behind, smelled her hair then planted "a big slow kiss on the back of my head".

Asked about the new allegation, a spokesman for Mr Biden referred reporters to a statement he issued on Sunday.

"In my many years on the campaign trail and in public life, I have offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort. And not once - never - did I believe I acted inappropriately," it read.

"But we have arrived at an important time when women feel they can and should relate their experiences, and men should pay attention. And I will," he added.

On Monday a spokesman also accused "right wing trolls" of presenting harmless images of Mr Biden interacting with women as evidence of inappropriate touching.

What's been the reaction?
A number of candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination have backed Ms Flores.

Senator Elizabeth Warren said Mr Biden "needs to give an answer", and Senator Amy Klobuchar said that in politics "people raise issues and they have to address them".

Some supporters though have defended him. Cynthia Hogan, a former aide to the vice-president, told the New York Times that Mr Biden "treated us with respect and insisted that others do the same".

An ally of Mr Biden told CNN he was not reconsidering a run for the White House following the allegations but stressed he was yet to make a decision.
To be clear, the allegations as described sound more like "he's a touchy-feely guy in a way that makes some people uncomfortable/is unprofessional", rather than overt groping/molestation like President Pussy-grabber. Nonetheless, anything of this sort is going to be serious baggage for a Presidential candidate, possibly fatally-so, especially in a party which is trying to draw a sharp contrast between itself and the afforementioned Pussy-grabber, and which very much needs high turnout from female voters.

I also expect that this won't be the last time a candidate gets hit for something like this before the primary is done either. Because the sad truth is that any man old enough to be running for PotUS will have grown up in a time when this behaviour was a lot more accepted, and probably did things that are no longer considered acceptable. So there's going to be a constant need to wrestle with this subject, and figure out where exactly we as a party draw the line.

Edit: I also think any condemnation of Biden from fellow Democrats is going to ring awfully hollow if those same individuals aren't prepared to also disavow Bill Clinton. Granted, Bill isn't running for PotUS, so maybe he's old news. But powerful people in the party have long defended his conduct in a blatantly hypocritical manner, which undercuts any effort by the Democrats to take a serious stand on misogynny and sexual harassment.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-04-03 11:18pm

Biden camp reportedly blames Bernie for the allegations:

https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-bid ... ort-2019-4

"We think women should be believed! Unless they accuse a Democratic candidate, then its obviously a political smear!"

In fairness to Biden, his actions seem less like sexual harrasment and more like that he's just a really touchy kind of person. And not one candidate has called for him to leave the race. But the appropriate response here is "I recognize that my behaviour is unprofessional and makes some people uncomfortable, I apologize, and will try to do better in the future."
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-04-07 03:58am

New polls show that Bernie Sanders's base is increasingly diverse:

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/7/18216899/b ... -president
The “Bernie Bro” — the young, loud, angry white man that came to define Sen. Bernie Sanders’s base of support in 2016 — is looking a lot more diverse these days.

As Sanders begins to crisscross the country for his 2020 presidential bid, proving he can consolidate the Democratic base will be his biggest test.

“We were criticized for being too white; that was a correct criticism,” Sanders said on the Breakfast Club radio show in March. “We were criticized for being too male; that was a correct criticism. That’s going to change.”

It’s starting to. An analysis of recent polls from November of 2018 to March 2019 shows Sanders is more popular with people of color than white people, and women like Sanders as much as men do, if not more. He leads every other possible 2020 contender with Latino voters and lags behind only Joe Biden — who hasn’t announced a bid yet — with African-American voters. Sanders’ polling numbers with black voters are double that of Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), according to a March Morning Consult poll.

The Sanders campaign has announced two women of color, Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner and San Juan, Puerto Rico, Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz, to be co-chairs of his campaign, along with Indian-American Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen. His campaign manager is Faiz Shakir, a longtime progressive activist.

Three years ago, Sanders lost the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton in part because he couldn’t win over black voters. Exit polls after every 2016 primary showed the same result over and over again: Clinton won black voters by large margins, even in states where Sanders claimed victory overall. Since then, reports of gender and pay discrimination in his 2016 campaign, allegations of sexual harassment against some of his campaign surrogates, and a dysfunctional and neglected black outreach team have continued to feed the narrative that Sanders was the white man’s Democratic candidate in 2016.

But race and gender weren’t the only defining demographic attributes in 2016. Rather, another — age — has proven to be among the most enduring factors. Women were actually split between Clinton and Sanders by age; young women liked Sanders, older women didn’t. By the end of Sanders’s 2016 race, he had improved with black voters — but only with young ones.

In a packed and diverse field of hopefuls — made up of women, people of color, and a millennial, and ranging the entire Democratic ideological spectrum — Sanders is a known quantity. This name recognition has undoubtedly buoyed him in early 2020 polls. But to keep these voters with him, he has to make the case that his agenda breaks through every demographic in a way his 2016 campaign couldn’t.

That the “Berniebro,” as the Atlantic’s Robinson Meyer coined in October 2015, became one of the most pervasive tropes of the 2016 presidential election cycle spoke to a certain reality. Sanders’s base was young — and some of the young white men stood front and center.

“The main dividing line was age more so than ideology or any other demographic attribute,” Matt Grossmann, a political scientist with Michigan State University, said, noting that the age factor drove other demographic assumptions about economic status. “The quintessential Bernie voter was a grad student: high in educational level but low in income.”

That hasn’t changed much.

Take this January 2019 poll from Politico and Morning Consult: Support for Sanders is split evenly between men and women, and he polls better than every other 2020 contender with Hispanic voters, with 21 percent saying they’d vote for him if the election were held in January. He picked up 12 percent of African-American voters, far behind Biden’s 33 percent but just ahead of Harris’s 11 percent, and leaps and bounds ahead of Booker’s 6 percent.

But in this poll, Sanders’s support is driven by voters ages 18 to 44, more so than any other candidate in the race right now. The older, and wealthier, the voter gets, the less interested they are in Sanders. These results are consistent with five national polls between November 2018 and March 2019 — and with exit polls from 2016 primaries.

“It’s younger. It’s more diverse. It’s people of color,” Joshua Ulibarri, a partner with the Democratic research firm Lake Research Partners, said of Sanders’s coalition. “It’s still pretty Anglo, [but] he has made some inroads with African Americans.”

A Harvard/Harris poll in November 2018 found Sanders polling favorably with Latinos and black voters by 58 percent and 66 percent, respectively. Forty-seven percent of white voters viewed him favorably in that poll. Among those 18 to 24 years of age, 59 percent supported Sanders. But in the 65-plus age range, his support dropped 10 points, to 49 percent.

That age gap had grown by January 2019, when another Harvard/Harris poll showed a 23 percent drop in favorability for Sanders between the oldest age group and the youngest. That poll again showed people of color liking Sanders more than white voters.

If anything, age — across race — is going to be Sanders biggest hurdle in 2020.

Sanders has always prioritized ideology over identity politics.

“It’s not that Bernie didn’t have policies to the benefit of African Americans, of Latinos, but he just didn’t see race as the center of American politics,” Grossmann said of 2016. “He didn’t talk about inequality in that way.”

It’s the same with gender. After Clinton lost the 2016 election, Sanders on his book tour said, “It’s not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me!’ ... What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry.”

While Sanders has made strategic changes to the people running his campaign, his agenda has stayed the same. He is still running against corporate greed and for Medicare-for-all, free college, a $15 minimum wage, and so on. And his views on identity politics appear consistent; in having to make the case for another old white man for president — himself — he told Vermont Public Radio recently that voters have “got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender, and not by their age. I mean, I think we have got to try to move us toward a nondiscriminatory society which looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for.”

He got a lot of flak for the comment, including in an article headlined “Bernie Sanders’ Sexism Problem” in Harper’s Bazaar.

That said, now, when asked directly if he has an “agenda for black people” on The Breakfast Club, Sanders said “absolutely,” noting the specific racial inequalities within the general disparity within the United States.

“A friend of mine, Jim Clyburn of South Carolina — Rep. Clyburn — came up with an idea which I think we should build on,” Sanders said. “He called it 10-20-30, which says that you focus federal resources on those communities most in distress and at the same time you got to deal with institutional racism.”

In the last presidential cycle, it was only toward the end of the primaries — possibly after a repeated beating with Southern black voters — that Sanders moved to a much more traditional style of Democratic campaigning, Grossman said.

“It talked about each constituency and what he would do with each demographic,” Grossman said. “This time, the pre-campaign has been more how he ended, than how he started — consciously appealing to the wider base.”

But this kind of campaigning Grossman says, “has a potential cost: He might be less focused if he has to do that.”
I have to critique the article for implying a false dichotomy between ideology and identity politics, but that aside...

Bernie Sanders now:

-Is the most popular candidate among Hispanics.

-Has higher favorability ratings from black and latino voters than from white voters.

-Has roughly equal support from men and women.

-Is polling second among black voters in the Democratic primary, far behind Biden, but ahead of black candidates like Booker and Harris.

-The age divide appears, if anything, to be even more sharply pronounced. That does not mean, however, that Sanders should be dismissed. If anything, it says that Sanders' views represent the future of the Democratic Party, and a potential key to mobilizing youth turnout.

In a way, I find these results surprising, because Sanders is often clumsy at best on issues of race and gender. And as much as I'd like to live in a world where race and gender don't matter, as much as that's the goal, saying that we shouldn't focus on "identity politics" now feels like a retreat, abandoning something very important to assuage the insecurities of conservative white men.

And yet, Bernie Sanders' appeal clearly does carry across gender and racial lines. So he is clearly speaking to something that matters to people across demographic lines (at least among the younger generations).

At any rate, to any unbiased observer, this should put paid to the myth that Sanders is just a white man's candidate, appealing only to white men. Sanders' detractors need to realize that he is speaking to something that strikes a chord with a large and diverse section of the American public, and that that cannot be casually dismissed or swept under the rug.

Edit: should add that the article is dated March 7th, so its a little dated. But still, very impressive numbers.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-04-07 04:06am

Sadly, Warren (my initial favorite in the race) seems to be losing ground:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/02/politics ... index.html
(CNN)First things first: The theme song of the week is from the show Sara starring Geena Davis.

Poll of the week: A University of New Hampshire poll finds Sen. Bernie Sanders leading the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary with 26% to former Vice President Joe Biden's 22%. Sen. Kamala Harris rounds out the top three with 10%. Sen. Elizabeth Warren comes in fourth with 7%.

This mostly mirrors the average of polls of the contest taken during February, which placed Biden at 25%, Sanders at 24%, Harris at 12% and Warren at 8%.

What's the point: You can make an argument that these numbers are good for Biden, Sanders or Harris. Biden is holding his own in the state next to Sanders' home state of Vermont. Sanders is doing better in the first in the nation primary than he's doing nationally. Harris just came on the national scene and is regularly breaking double digits in this key state.

These numbers are definitely not good for Warren, however. She's in fourth place.

Warren almost certainly needs a first or second place finish in New Hampshire if she wants to succeed nationally. The Granite State is right next to her home state of Massachusetts. Massachusetts candidates usually gain an edge in the New Hampshire primary compared to how they do nationally. Paul Tsongas, John Kerry and Mitt Romney all did well in New Hampshire compared to other early contests.

Now if Warren wasn't so well known by New Hampshire voters that would be one thing. Polling indicates, however, that Warren has near universal name recognition in the state.

It also wouldn't be so bad for Warren if she were rising in polls. If anything, Warren seems to be going backward. Over the course of 2018, Warren averaged a little over 14% in New Hampshire surveys. That is, her support seems to have dropped in half since forming her campaign.

It would be easy to think that Sanders is taking support from Warren. They're both quite progressive and from neighboring states to New Hampshire. It may the case that each are hurting each other, but Sanders is likely not the reason Warren's drop from last year.

When you look at the trendlines, Sanders has dipped a little compared to last year. Sanders averaged a little more than 27% in the polls last year compared to 24% now.

Instead, Warren seems to be losing at least some of her support to Harris. Harris averaged only 3% in New Hampshire during 2018. She is now 8 points higher now at 11% in the average poll. That's a sign of a successful launch to a campaign, which Warren clearly lacked.

Now, it's obviously very early. Democratic voters aren't anywhere close to settling on a candidate. These poll numbers can and will likely change.

Yet, there are some clear negatives in the numbers for Warren beyond just the horserace. At 13%, she has by far the highest percentage of Democratic voters in New Hampshire who say they won't vote for under any circumstance. Of all of the declared candidates, she has the highest unfavorable rating among New Hampshire Democrats.

Warren's relatively weak New Hampshire numbers perhaps shouldn't be so surprising. New Hampshire shares a media market with Boston. Warren's polling in her home state has been shockingly weak.

Put another way, lack of support for Warren from New Hampshire Democrats isn't from lack of knowledge. New Hampshire Democrats, for the moment, know what Warren is about and aren't buying it. Warren will need to change many minds if she hopes to succeed in 2020.
Its early days yet, but I suspect that we'll see Warren drop out after New Hampshire at the latest, at which point I'll probably switch support to Bernie as the best chance for a progressive nominee. In that event, though, I will likely be rooting for Warren for the VP slot (something which Sanders has hinted at in the past).
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
FaxModem1
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7476
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by FaxModem1 » 2019-04-07 06:15am

Sanders can be clumsy when it comes to handling minority issues, but I think that comes from a place of genuine ignorance or naivety regarding the proper procedure, rather than malice. This is the man who marched with MLK back in the day, after all. I much prefer a candidate who's heart is in the right place in how to fix things, then one who pays lip service because they're capable of following the the newest rules on the internet, or hiring someone to help them do so.
Image

User avatar
LaCroix
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4779
Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by LaCroix » 2019-04-07 12:09pm

I like that my personal favorites are gaining steam. Sanders certainly has more of a brand established, already, and a lot of people are coming around to his message, and realizie that he's just a bit verbally clumsy in minority issues, without actually being on the wrong side of these questions. He's just old and not quite well-spoken.

Personally, I like Harris a lot. She has some baggage in her past - but not more thatn any of the candidates, and she has a very likeable appearence, a quick wit and she is young enough that she's still connected to modernity.

My personal pick so far would be Sanders&Harris or Harris&Sanders. I think it's more likely that we see Sanders as candidate. but since Sanders&Harris most likely will result in her taking over part of his term either due death or the 25th, it would be good to have her in 2nd. He'll set the agenda, and she can finish and then try on her own for her 2 terms. Actually, that's true whether she gets to take over or not.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay

I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.

User avatar
FaxModem1
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7476
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by FaxModem1 » 2019-04-07 05:47pm

Sanders was on the Daily Show, giving quite a good interview:

Image

houser2112
Padawan Learner
Posts: 441
Joined: 2006-04-07 07:21am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by houser2112 » 2019-04-08 09:31am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-04-07 04:06am
Its early days yet, but I suspect that we'll see Warren drop out after New Hampshire at the latest, at which point I'll probably switch support to Bernie as the best chance for a progressive nominee. In that event, though, I will likely be rooting for Warren for the VP slot (something which Sanders has hinted at in the past).
I too would like Warren to be our next President, but if that doesn't happen, I'd rather she stay in the Senate. She can do more good there than she could as VP. Yes, she would take over if Sanders should die in office, but if he doesn't, then her talent is wasted in what seems to be a ceremonial position.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-04-08 11:09am

houser2112 wrote:
2019-04-08 09:31am
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2019-04-07 04:06am
Its early days yet, but I suspect that we'll see Warren drop out after New Hampshire at the latest, at which point I'll probably switch support to Bernie as the best chance for a progressive nominee. In that event, though, I will likely be rooting for Warren for the VP slot (something which Sanders has hinted at in the past).
I too would like Warren to be our next President, but if that doesn't happen, I'd rather she stay in the Senate. She can do more good there than she could as VP. Yes, she would take over if Sanders should die in office, but if he doesn't, then her talent is wasted in what seems to be a ceremonial position.
That depends on how a hypothetical President Sanders runs his administration. While legally the only duties of the VP are to take over if the President is unable to fulfill their duties, and to preside over/act as a tie-breaker in the Senate, it has become customary among the last several Presidents to give their VPs much broader responsibilities and powers (the ultimate example being Dick Cheney, who some saw as something of a shadow President behind George W. Bush). Its also important for the President to pick someone as VP who they trust to carry on their vision for the country, more or less, if they die- so some ideological compatibility is important.

On the other hand, its also customary to pick a VP who represents a different region or demographic than the Presidential candidate. Demographic-wise, the advantage to Warren for Sanders is obvious- she's a woman. Regionally, though, they're both New Englanders. I feel like they might want someone from the mid-west, for example, in which case Sherrod Brown is the name that immediately comes to mind.

Reg. Warren doing more good in the Senate- you may be right. At least in her case, Massachusetts is a fairly safe Democratic seat, though. The real danger would be in picking a VP candidate from a swing Senate seat, in which case we risk losing that Senate seat, and possibly risk losing a chance to retake the Senate itself.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-04-08 11:11am

LaCroix wrote:
2019-04-07 12:09pm
I like that my personal favorites are gaining steam. Sanders certainly has more of a brand established, already, and a lot of people are coming around to his message, and realizie that he's just a bit verbally clumsy in minority issues, without actually being on the wrong side of these questions. He's just old and not quite well-spoken.

Personally, I like Harris a lot. She has some baggage in her past - but not more thatn any of the candidates, and she has a very likeable appearence, a quick wit and she is young enough that she's still connected to modernity.

My personal pick so far would be Sanders&Harris or Harris&Sanders. I think it's more likely that we see Sanders as candidate. but since Sanders&Harris most likely will result in her taking over part of his term either due death or the 25th, it would be good to have her in 2nd. He'll set the agenda, and she can finish and then try on her own for her 2 terms. Actually, that's true whether she gets to take over or not.
Sanders/Harris is interesting. The demographic appeal is obvious- you pair an old white male progressive with a younger, more centrist woman of color, and their from opposite sides of the country. So it feels like a very balanced ticket, in that sense. Plus if current polls are any indication, Harris will do well enough to have a considerable support base that the Presidential pick, whoever they are (presuming its not Harris herself), would want behind them. On the other hand, Harris's background as a tough on crime type makes me wonder if either of them would be comfortable working with the other.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by Elheru Aran » 2019-04-08 02:33pm

Harris is problematic though. As a DA/prosecutor in California she has a shaded reputation when it comes to criminal justice and (IIRC, could be wrong on this) LGBT rights. That's easy meat for any attack ads from fellow Democrats, never mind the opposition.
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 19176
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2019-04-08 09:31pm

Elheru Aran wrote:
2019-04-08 02:33pm
Harris is problematic though. As a DA/prosecutor in California she has a shaded reputation when it comes to criminal justice and (IIRC, could be wrong on this) LGBT rights. That's easy meat for any attack ads from fellow Democrats, never mind the opposition.
Indeed. I mean, I'd vote for pretty much any concievable Democratic candidate over Trump, but Harris would not be my first pick or probably even my second or third, in part due to her reputation as a prosecutor.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zxT8CM8XntA

Post Reply