2020 US Election (Part Two)
- Thread starter Lexicus
- Start date
- Status
Still waiting on a name. Otherwise its just team sports as usual
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,270
It had been fudging Biden, but it's locked in Biden, so you want me to comb congresscritters or something? I had liked Lipinski, and was on record several times over the past couple years on that one, but the killocrats punted him this year too.
It's the year of Assclown. Give me a D that stands by Hyde and I'll give you a, "sure, probably that one."
It's the year of Assclown. Give me a D that stands by Hyde and I'll give you a, "sure, probably that one."
amadeus
rad thibodeaux-xs
I kind of liked Jim Webb but I don’t know his specific policy plans and can only say he came off as a rather moderate Democrat.
I still highly recommend her pre-politician lectures. She was a researcher before she was a politician, and she uncovered a lot of things people should know.
stinkubus
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2016
- Messages
- 1,845
Nonsense. Even on the currently rigged map decent left candidates could pick up a few seats. Did you not notice Cori Bush's win in Missouri? Do you think Missouri is some bastion of left wing politics in comparison to those other states?
I was just poking fun, dude.
I know man. Me too.
I know. Ask them. Let me know what they say.
Last edited:
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,979
But this is a mistake. At least, leaving it at this is. Voters are motivated to vote against people they don't like, but one must also give them something to vote for. It's psychological. When one pulls the lever, one wants to be able to tell oneself that one is voting for something. Biden needs a policy agenda. He can couch it in "once we've recovered from Covid" or "as circumstances allow." But he needs to name something that people will be voting for if they vote for him.
Lipinski? Who TF is that? You got one guy who's name you respect enough to actually use, and another you call "Assclown". I ask you to choose between Biden and "Assclown"... your words... and you go all "both sides are bad" on me and start telling about how you would have voted for She-Ra and Luke Skywalker if only they had been choices... I'm asking for real choices not fake ones.
Who TF are these people?? Again, if its team sports, its team sports, fine, whatever, but what I'm asking is for you to give me a real name. If you can't fine... team sports. But if you're gonna really take a stab at it... I'm talking about the folks who were actually running for POTUS and who got at least 5-10% in polling at some point... the real choices, not fake choices.
EDIT: You've already said that it was Biden, so I have to acknowledge that, but now he's pissed you off so forget it... and I guess there was nobody else... fine.
No I didn't. What "win"? She got nominated, she hasn't won **** yet. She "won" about as much as Stacey Abrams and Beto O'Rourke did.
Even putting that aside. I'm talking about the POTUS election not some House race.
Last edited:
No, sadly. If Biden wins its Biden 2024 unless he 1-terms it for some reason, but then its Harris. AOC 2024 is only possible if Trump wins... which, I don't know that AOC 2024 is worth another Trump term.
So barring that, the earliest AOC scenario is Biden for 1 term or less, for whatever reason, then Harris loses in 2024, then AOC in 2028. Other scenario is Biden for 2 terms, then Harris for 1 term, then if Harris loses the second term, its AOC in 2036... if Harris wins, then it will Harris' VP in 2036 which assuming that isn't AOC, and also assuming Harris' VP loses, it would be AOC in 2040, by which point, if she's still around, she will be 51 and all properly sold-out and jaded and Washington'ized by then.
Bottom line is I don't think AOC for POTUS is realistic ever, unless Trump wins, or, Biden or Harris taps her for VP in the future.
sophie
Break My Heart
Dan Lipinski. A long-sitting Democrat congressperson from western Chicago. He was quite possibly the most conservative Democrat in Congress for a long time (the face of Blue Dog Democrats in the house in the way Manchin is for the senate), especially in regards to abortion and LGBT rights. Pretty much universally reviled in the Chicago area, but his district was (and still is) heavily gerrymandered, his dad served as the rep for the district for 22 years before he took over, and name recognition and turnout are the deciding factors in incumbent re-election races 99% of the time. He blessedly just got unseated this year by a Justice Democrats candidate.
Last edited:
Looking through many of Biden's policies, many of them are both palatable and improvements from the current situation. The only one that leaps out as obviously insufficient is not just Bee-lining towards a Medicare-for-All instead of continuing to "fine-tune" the attempt-at-compromise ACA.
sophie
Break My Heart
He's already walking back even from his milquetoast public option proposal. And the DNC dropped the "eliminate fossil fuel subsidies" promise from their platform on Monday, saying they added that "by mistake." No improvements will be coming. What crumbs they were offering were kabuki. Meet the new boss, etc.
I've just figured out today that I was probably wrong about this. AOC actually was seconding Bernie Sanders as nominee for the Democratic party as part of a technical, procedural vote that typically happens at conventions. I believe that Tulsi Gabbard did the same in 2016 for Sanders during her speech. It just comes off weird in the virtual convention format, especially since most of the speeches are cut really short.
So what that means is that AOC really was nominating Sanders, but it wasn't an act of defiance, but rather, it was a procedural necessity that everyone was on board with. Its just that if it had been a normal convention, her speech seconding Sanders as nominee would have been much longer. It also means that this is the way they chose to get her inclusion into the program out of the way, rather than letting Gabbard do it again and giving AOC a bigger role... and I am still guessing it was because she wasn't willing to give Biden the ringing endorsement they wanted. Because my instinct is that if AOC was willing to give a speech like Michelle Obama they would have been fools not to let her.
On the other hand, if they truly wanted to focus their appeal on moderate conservatives, which I suspect they did, then maybe giving AOC a minimal role was the plan, since moderate conservatives, and conservatives in general seem to hate AOC with a passion.
"Milquetoast" is a feature, not a bug. The Biden strategy is to offer a bowl of Campbell's chicken noodle soup from the red-and-white can, with a 2-pack of Premium brand saltines, a Dole celery stalk and an Oscar Meyer bologna sandwich on Wonder bread with Kroger iceberg lettuce and Miracle Whip. I guess Kamala Harris is a single scoop of Breyer's chocolate ice cream for desert.
All comfort, nothing offensive, nothing too controversial... just middle-of-the-road, middle-of-the-road, middle-of-the-road. That's what they think they need to do to get elected, offer comfort, stability and familiarity to contrast Trump's non-stop chaos and insanity. I don't know if it will work, honestly, and I would have preferred something much more bold, but that's water under the bridge. This seems painfully clear that this is the strategy they are going with. How many conservatives they convert with it remains to be seen, but obviously even all of that milquetoast isn't going to be enough for some. Some of those voters are just going to find reasons not to vote for them anyway.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
I was listening to a radio program in which the reporter was talking to some regular folks somewhere in the US South about issues around the upcoming election. One thing that struck me was when a woman said something like, "I'm a Southerner, so I've got the Republican Party in my genes." The South being a bastion of Republican politics is relatively recent. For example, the 1976 Presidential election:
Reagan and Nixon were very popular across the whole country, so it says nothing in particular that they won the South. Bill Clinton won some votes in the South against both George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole.[EDIT: He won some states, I mean. Obviously, he won some votes.
]
I'm surprised to see that Hubert Humphrey won Texas in 1968. George Wallace was popular in the South, that year, and while I think I already knew that Curtis LeMay was Wallace's running mate that year, it makes me recoil in horror every time I see it. If I had a "Rogues Gallery" of villains like Batman's, I think Wallace and LeMay would both be in it.
Barry Goldwater won a strip of the South against Johnson, but by no means all of it. Kennedy and Nixon were a bit of a patchwork in 1960; I don't see any clear delineations in regions of the country east of the Mississippi (Nixon pretty well won the West). Adlai Stevenson, the Democrat, won a lot of the South against Eisenhower, the Republican, in 1952 and again in 1956, but that was about all Stevenson won.
Harry Truman was another one who won a lot of states all over, in 1948, although I'm surprised to see that Thomas Dewey won much of the Northeast, and Strom Thurmond Sr. won a handful of Southern states.
So, anyway, yeah... The idea that a Southerner has either party in her blood is pure "monkey muffins", as Col. Potter once said. Try thinking for yourself today, lady, just to see what happens.
Spoiler :
Reagan and Nixon were very popular across the whole country, so it says nothing in particular that they won the South. Bill Clinton won some votes in the South against both George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole.[EDIT: He won some states, I mean. Obviously, he won some votes.
]I'm surprised to see that Hubert Humphrey won Texas in 1968. George Wallace was popular in the South, that year, and while I think I already knew that Curtis LeMay was Wallace's running mate that year, it makes me recoil in horror every time I see it. If I had a "Rogues Gallery" of villains like Batman's, I think Wallace and LeMay would both be in it.
Barry Goldwater won a strip of the South against Johnson, but by no means all of it. Kennedy and Nixon were a bit of a patchwork in 1960; I don't see any clear delineations in regions of the country east of the Mississippi (Nixon pretty well won the West). Adlai Stevenson, the Democrat, won a lot of the South against Eisenhower, the Republican, in 1952 and again in 1956, but that was about all Stevenson won.
Harry Truman was another one who won a lot of states all over, in 1948, although I'm surprised to see that Thomas Dewey won much of the Northeast, and Strom Thurmond Sr. won a handful of Southern states.
So, anyway, yeah... The idea that a Southerner has either party in her blood is pure "monkey muffins", as Col. Potter once said. Try thinking for yourself today, lady, just to see what happens.
Last edited:
- Status
