CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › 2020: Hurry the Fuck Up
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2020: Hurry the Fuck Up - Page 3

post #101 of 175
Thread Starter 

English is either his third language, he was drunk, or there's a strong streak of potato in his DNA, but did you actually ban him for stating that Black Lives Matters happened under Obama rather than a Republican administration?  I'm not sure why that's a cogent or relevant point, but folks have been making flat out ridiculous comments in these threads (assassination/pro-death comments go by without a mention) for quite some time now and I'm curious why all of a sudden that warranted a ban. 

 

Also: toxic thread titles FTW.


Edited by Overlord - 11/13/16 at 5:01am
post #102 of 175

Was listening to a podcast where they discussed how 2018 is even more crucial at the statehouse level because that determines the 2020 census/gerrymandering after that. 

 

What I'm saying is we should have a 2018 thread. 

post #103 of 175
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

Was listening to a podcast where they discussed how 2018 is even more crucial at the statehouse level because that determines the 2020 census/gerrymandering after that. 

 

What I'm saying is we should have a 2018 thread. 

 

http://www.chud.com/community/t/156018/2018-never-too-soon-to-point-out-that-mid-term-elections-matter#post_4172136

post #104 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

English is either his third language, he was drunk, or there's a strong streak of potato in his DNA, but did you actually ban him for stating that Black Lives Matters happened under Obama rather than a Republican administration?  I'm not sure why that's a cogent or relevant point, but folks have been making flat out ridiculous comments in these threads (assassination/pro-death comments go by without a mention) for quite some time now and I'm curious why all of a sudden that warranted a ban.

I unbanned him.

 

I guess I'm the only one who thought his last post was racist but, you know, whatever.

post #105 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Shaver View Post

I guess I'm the only one who thought his last post was racist but, you know, whatever.

 

You're not the only one.

post #106 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Shaver View Post
 

I unbanned him.

 

I guess I'm the only one who thought his last post was racist but, you know, whatever.

 

 

I was ambivalent about the ban, but you don't have to prove anything to him. If Hill starts posting again and an issue arises, we'll deal with it then. No harm, no foul.

post #107 of 175
In subject: You can already see the shape of things to come...http://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2016/11/cory-bookers-brave-new-world-107289
post #108 of 175

I'll be shocked if Booker doesn't run in 2020.

post #109 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

I'll be shocked if Booker doesn't run in 2020.

 

Warren/Booker 2020?

post #110 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbrother View Post
 

 

Warren/Booker 2020?

 

If neither of them shits the bed in four years, sure. There are barrels on ink being spilled on the "how?" question right now, but one thing I do agree with is that choosing the guy who in high school was actually whiter and less cool than Richie Cunningham, did not fucking help her at all. It should have been someone who could appeal to the populism stoked by Trump w/out being diametrically opposed to her. That person was probably Booker.

post #111 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbrother View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

I'll be shocked if Booker doesn't run in 2020.

 

Warren/Booker 2020?

 

That's the ticket I would've preferred this year. I'm not sure Warren's going to want to run in 4 years. She's beloved but I can understand her wanting to stay in the Senate or wait for a cabinet position.

 

Also, she'll be 71 in 2020. I know HRC is close to that, but I don't know that Warren has harbored presidential dreams passionately enough to volunteer for the grueling experience of running for the highest office at age 70.

post #112 of 175

You don't get to where Warren is without ambition. I fully anticipate that unless something unusual happens, she's going to go for it in 2020. If one is in good health, 71 is fine. Reagan was 70 when he took office.

post #113 of 175

We'll see. Given that Trump's already broken about 3,000 campaign promises in less than a week, who the fuck knows what's going to happen over the next few years?

post #114 of 175

When the Republicans destroy her CFPB and what little little regulations and reform we have, I could see her getting pissed enough to go for it. Especially if this shit brings us another financial crisis with no one on Wall Street paying the price again.   

post #115 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbrother View Post
 

When the Republicans destroy her CFPB

 

Is this seriously part of their agenda?

post #116 of 175

I tend to think the DNC is going to fast-track Gavin Newsom (assuming he becomes CA Governor in 2018). He's a younger white male politician who is also extremely progressive. That's like a leprechaun riding a unicorn.

 

And it'd be one of the rare times when a state's population is told their guy is about to ditch his job to run for higher office and they react with a, "GO! GO! GO!" chant.

post #117 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
 

I tend to think the DNC is going to fast-track Gavin Newsom (assuming he becomes CA Governor in 2018). He's a younger white male politician who is also extremely progressive. That's like a leprechaun riding a unicorn.

 

And it'd be one of the rare times when a state's population is told their guy is about to ditch his job to run for higher office and they react with a, "GO! GO! GO!" chant.

I like Gavin Newsom as well and I'll certainly vote for him when he runs to be our governor in a couple of years. However, I don't see him going for the presidency in 2020. I don't know if he'll have the political capitol, also to go from practically being sworn in as governor to start campaigning for president seems way to quick of a turnaround.  

post #118 of 175
Robert Hill posted as eenin for another 10 years before that, no? He's one of the oldest-timers we still have.
post #119 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

 

Is this seriously part of their agenda?

 

Kind of.  

 

I assumed it would be part of eliminating Dodd-Frank

post #120 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by History Buff View Post
 

I like Gavin Newsom as well and I'll certainly vote for him when he runs to be our governor in a couple of years. However, I don't see him going for the presidency in 2020. I don't know if he'll have the political capitol, also to go from practically being sworn in as governor to start campaigning for president seems way to quick of a turnaround.  

 

It would definitely be fast. A Hilary win would've been a boon to his schedule, giving him a term as Governor while she ran for re-election.

 

But with the stakes so high, a dearth of strong candidates who aren't well past retirement age, and the possibility of getting locked out of a bid for 8 years if the Dems win, I suspect he and the Dems will both have good reason to push his schedule up (for all our sakes).

 

Plus, usually the major drawback of going from winning a job directly to campaigning is losing the support of your own state. That's unlikely to be a concern here, as I believe Californians would happily vote for him in -hopes- he would run for President.

post #121 of 175

I dreamed last night that cold fusion was discovered about a week after Trump took office. The discovery led to an economic boom. The stable, massively growing economy made Americans more willing to reexamine social issues and... well, eventually Trump became the most beloved President in history. By accident.

post #122 of 175

That California gubernatorial race is going to be murder. Newsom (Board of Supervisors for 7 years, Mayor of SF for 7 years, LG for...7 years), John Chiang (the Treasurer who at one point stood up to Arnold), Antonio Villaraigosa (Assemblyman for-ever, and mayor of LA for 8 years)...and that's just on the dem side. The positive thing is that if the Dems do win in CA and then decide to run whoever in 2020, they'll all have a wealth of experience to back their bid up on.  

 

Unless we all go mad and elect George Clooney. 

 

That said, I do think 2020 you're going to see a city/country bid. I would put a lot of money it being on a white male Senator* or Governor from a Midwestern, Rust Belt state and a female minority from a coastal or heavily urban area. 

 

*plz run for gov of ohio sherrod

post #123 of 175

Will he or won't he?  As old as he'll be, I'd totally vote for him:

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/joe-biden-predicts-he-will-run-for-president-in-2020-adds-that-he-is-not-yet-committed.html

 

Still, I think the Democratic Party needs an injection of youth.

post #124 of 175
I'd vote for him too. Just can't see him actually doing it.

I'm still of the mind that he would have beat Trump. Especially with a younger guy like Booker as his Veep and the fact he would have gone into the ares that Hillary ignored and Trump won.
post #125 of 175
I think the worst thing about Hillary running was the culture around her and the Democratic Party that it was "her turn". I think Beau dying was one reason for bowing out but more than likely, it was his friendship with Clinton. It's sad because Biden would have kept he Obama coalition together AND defended the White working class vote from Trump.
post #126 of 175
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post

I think the worst thing about Hillary running was the culture around her and the Democratic Party that it was "her turn". I think Beau dying was one reason for bowing out but more than likely, it was his friendship with Clinton. It's sad because Biden would have kept he Obama coalition together AND defended the White working class vote from Trump.

That was bad. But the worst thing about Hillary Clinton running was that Hillary Clinton was running.
post #127 of 175

I love how people still cling to Biden as some sort of lost savior. He's a Gaffe machine on par with Trump (just doesn't tweet). And he's still a greasy Establishment politician. I doubt the outcome would have been materially different if Biden had run instead of Clinton. 

post #128 of 175

I'm not so sure that Joe Biden would have won in a Trump match-up. It would have been easier to tie him to the administration's perceived failings, for one, and if Hillary's positions on trade etc. were problematic, what about Biden's support for NAFTA and, more recently, his advocacy for the TPP? His early support for the Iraq war? Aside from the email issue and Benghazi (which overwhelmed nearly any coverage of Clinton's policy proposals, sadly), what differences did he have to contrast his candidacy with Clinton's?  

 

There's also the interesting point that his Senate record, according to an analysis by Nate Silver, put him to the right of Clinton, who was generally ranked as one of the more liberal Senators according to her voting record (yeah, I know, I know, she's a neoliberal right-wing sellout).  

post #129 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

He's a Gaffe machine on par with Trump

 

...ON PAR WITH TRUMP.

 

...ON  PAR WITH TRUMP.

 

Here's my thing: We can have different opinions, but we cannot occupy different realities.

post #130 of 175

Yeah, Biden has the tendency to make some odd comments that he probably shouldn't have, but on par with Trump?  

post #131 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco Senior View Post
 

I'm not so sure that Joe Biden would have won in a Trump match-up. It would have been easier to tie him to the administration's perceived failings, for one, and if Hillary's positions on trade etc. were problematic, what about Biden's support for NAFTA and, more recently, his advocacy for the TPP? His early support for the Iraq war? Aside from the email issue and Benghazi (which overwhelmed nearly any coverage of Clinton's policy proposals, sadly), what differences did he have to contrast his candidacy with Clinton's?  

  

 

Um. Likability.

post #132 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

 He's a Gaffe machine on par with Trump (just doesn't tweet).

 

So not on par, then.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco Senior View Post
 

I'm not so sure that Joe Biden would have won in a Trump match-up. It would have been easier to tie him to the administration's perceived failings, for one, and if Hillary's positions on trade etc. were problematic, what about Biden's support for NAFTA and, more recently, his advocacy for the TPP? His early support for the Iraq war? Aside from the email issue and Benghazi (which overwhelmed nearly any coverage of Clinton's policy proposals, sadly), what differences did he have to contrast his candidacy with Clinton's?  

 

There's also the interesting point that his Senate record, according to an analysis by Nate Silver, put him to the right of Clinton, who was generally ranked as one of the more liberal Senators according to her voting record (yeah, I know, I know, she's a neoliberal right-wing sellout).  

 

Hillary didn't lose because she wasn't liberal enough.   I mean yes, the Stein protest votes did cost her the election, but so did working class whites, and you can't claim more of both by moving farther left.

 

 

post #133 of 175
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco Senior View Post

.... what differences did he have to contrast his candidacy with Clinton's?  

.....his biggest advantage is that he specifically was NOT Hillary Clinton.
post #134 of 175

If one of Clinton's fatal disadvantages was being the "establishment" candidate, you don't get more establishment than Biden.  I'm not sure how much more he would have appealed to the working class when he was a supporter of NAFTA and TPP.  Depending on how decisive the email and Benghazi issues were, I suppose he might have performed slightly better - but as VP, it would have been easier to pin the "failures" of the Obama administration on him than Clinton, who left the Sec of State position years ago.

post #135 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco Senior View Post

If one of Clinton's fatal disadvantages was being the "establishment" candidate, you don't get more establishment than Biden.  I'm not sure how much more he would have appealed to the working class when he was a supporter of NAFTA and TPP.  Depending on how decisive the email and Benghazi issues were, I suppose he might have performed slightly better - but as VP, it would have been easier to pin the "failures" of the Obama administration on him than Clinton, who left the Sec of State position years ago.

But you also get a straight shooter, from the hip kind of guy, clearly the most important criteria for the the Mob. Also, added bonus over Trump, here's a guy you could actually picture yourself getting a beer with!

Again, likability.
post #136 of 175

It all depends on which narrative you think explains Trump's victory.  I don't think Biden would have thrown groups under the bus - immigrants, refugees, etc. - as freely as Trump did.  He would have been boxed into a position of defending the Obama administration's less popular positions on trade and a perceived lack of economic progress.  More than Hillary, he would have been vulnerable to the "Why didn't you do more?" attack because he was in a serious position of power for the last eight years.

 

He's definitely a more traditional retail politician.  He might have done better, I'm just not convinced he would have won where Clinton failed.

post #137 of 175

The dynamic w/ Biden is different enough that you can't really do a straight comparison. Biden certainly would've been able to more effectively needle Trump w/ humor than Clinton (he ended Giuliani in '08 with noun/verb/911), and he knows how to go for the heart in a big way, and to talk to those rural WWC voters in states like Pennsylvania. He would've made Trump the humorless one in the room, not the fun one, and that would've driven Trump to distraction  - he would've just completely focused on rebutting Biden's jokes.

 

That being said, you'd also have the whole Fox contingent gibbering on about all the failures of the Obama administration and trade deals, and probably a similar dynamic w/ Sanders in the primary (of course he runs against Biden if he ran against Clinton), so it would've been TPP 24/7 instead of Emails 24/7. And TPP is a losing proposition even among Democrats. Biden would've absolutely needed a young Progressive to balance him out.

 

Regardless of whether or not Biden runs in 2020 or not, I do think you need a Democratic candidate who could authentically put his or her arm on your shoulder, point at Trump, and go "This fuckin' asshole, amirite?" That's the kind of candidate who pokes a needle in the Trump balloon.

post #138 of 175

Biden will be in his late seventies if he runs for 2020.  I like the guy, but I'm not sure that's the kind of standard-bearer the Democrats should be looking for.

post #139 of 175

Biden's approval rating right now is 50 percent.  Thirty-eight percent disapprove.  Obviously, those numbers would be different after a long campaign season, but in which way, I'm not so sure.

 

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/joe-biden-favorable-rating

 

Once Trump got the nomination in Indiana, I stopped making opinions on this election, but Obama's approval ratings were like catnip to me.  I studied them often, and his resurgence was what kept me sane.  Would Biden have gained the same numbers if he had been in the spotlight, running for president?  Hard to say, but he's a likable guy. 

 

Many Republicans like Biden, despite the "he's a buffoon" talking point.  One of the more moving things I watched during the whole campaign season was an MSNBC interview with Lindsey Graham where he got emotional talking about his friendship with Biden and how awful he felt about his son's death; if you haven't seen it, you really should.  Plus, earlier today, Biden got emotional when the Senate renamed a cancer research bill after Beau.  Mitch McConnell went out of his way to have the new name of the bill said publically while Biden was present.  Politics are politics, but I'm convinced most people who know Biden personally respect him.

 

At the end of the day, this was a very winnable election for Democrats, regardless of who was running.  But mistakes were made.  Clinton got cocky in the Midwest, and she often didn't attend rallies there.  Pleas for more money and volunteers in that region were ignored.  In hindsight, Tim Kaine's debate performance probably should've shed light on Pence, the guy who will often be running the show (if V.P. debates even matter - the ratings were bad for this one).  Hell, I'm still convinced Sherrod Brown would've been the best choice for her running mate because he was actually on record voting against NAFTA.  Obviously, there were other factors.  Clinton's e-mail scandal cut the deepest, and her "I made a mistake" talk didn't work well in the "no apologies" Trump era (but I was personally glad that she owned up to it).  Then, there was everything else (the FBI, WikiLeaks, Putin, voter suppression, fake news, etc.), but it is what it is.  The cards were uniquely stacked against Clinton, and a good amount of that was her own doing.  And a whole lot of it wasn't.  And, yes, I'll throw misogyny in there; I talked with a male Democrat a few weeks ago who told me he went for Trump because "women aren't smart enough" to run a country.

 

Considering the populism that Trump rode in on, the argument could be made that Biden was better equipped to face him than Clinton in the Midwest.  But who knows?  Maybe Trump still wins.  Biden did​ spend a lot of time campaigning for Clinton in the Midwest, after all.  Or maybe Clinton picks Brown and nabs the Midwest in some alternate reality.  Or still loses.

 

Regarding 2020, I don't know if Biden will run.  He'll be pretty old, but the primary season would be more interesting with him in the mix.

post #140 of 175
An interesting point on populism and the Midwest is Russ Feingold's Senate loss in Wisconsin. You obviously can't draw too many conclusions from a single state, but it does suggest that a more economically populist message may not have been sufficient. Trump's brew of economics and culture was potent, and it would have been difficult for a lot of Democrats to capitalize on the latter without being as vocal on immigration etc. as Trump was.
post #141 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco Senior View Post

An interesting point on populism and the Midwest is Russ Feingold's Senate loss in Wisconsin. You obviously can't draw too many conclusions from a single state, but it does suggest that a more economically populist message may not have been sufficient. Trump's brew of economics and culture was potent, and it would have been difficult for a lot of Democrats to capitalize on the latter without being as vocal on immigration etc. as Trump was.


​That is a very good point.  I don't think any loss shocked me as much as Feingold's.  He was a sure bet for a long time, and I figured he'd have the messaging to combat against Trump.

post #142 of 175

The "what if Biden" narrative is something I was thinking about because of this thread. The fact that he was well-liked his Senate colleagues in a way that Clinton wasn't is worth discussing. People kept comparing Trump to Goldwater, who was painted as completely unfit for the Presidency, but the difference between Trump and Goldwater is that Goldwater was running against Johnson. Different times and all that, but Johnson, a former member of the house and Senate for decades, had enough long-term friendships and relationships with folks on the other side of the aisle that he gave them cover. If Biden had run, I wonder if his long-term relationships and deep friendships/affection with folks like McConnell and Graham and others would have allowed the Republican leadership to definitively break with Trump and condemn him in a way they weren't able to or didn't want to because of Clinton. 

 

Speaking of Midwestern senators from states that end in N, the one that haunts me is that there was, for a brief moment, talk of a Clinton-Franken ticket.

post #143 of 175

Given that Clinton won the popular vote despite being herself, I don't think it's a stretch to think that Biden could've cinched the additional votes needed to win the EC. This cycle proved that being gaffe-prone was, if anything, a positive, and Biden definitely has a personal narrative that would've resonated with a lot of folks who voted Trump.

 

But I think he's effectively aged out of the 2020 race. The Dems need someone who can energize the under 40 voters. A Warren/Booker ticket seems like a no-brainer at this point, but a LOT can change over the next 30 months. 

post #144 of 175

Fuck identity politics, Booker/Duckworth 2020. 
 

Although I was listening to one of my podcasts this morning and a host pointed out that maybe we should be looking for candidates outside those currently serving in public life. 

 

So...we're back to The Rock?

post #145 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post


Speaking of Midwestern senators from states that end in N, the one that haunts me is that there was, for a brief moment, talk of a Clinton-Franken ticket.

Minnesota doesn't end in 'n'.
post #146 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post


Minnesota doesn't end in 'n'.

 

I was both up late and up early. Serves me right for trying being clever under the circumstances.

post #147 of 175
Maybe you were thinking he's a MonnesotaN?
post #148 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post

Maybe you were thinking he's a MonnesotaN?

 

That's exactly it. 

post #149 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
A Warren/Booker ticket seems like a no-brainer at this point, but a LOT can change over the next 30 months. 

Warren was nearly shouted off the stage at the DNC ("We trusted you!!") I think she lost credibility with a lot of voters when she backed Clinton, and I wouldn't bet on her in a presidential race.

post #150 of 175

I think those Bernie Bros might be singing a different tune after 30 months of President Trump.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › 2020: Hurry the Fuck Up