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 4

post #151 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malmordo View Post
 

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

 

Four years is a long time, particularly since Warren is one of the current stars of the Democratic party who can speak to a lot of the concerns of the party and the nation, particularly as Trump sells out the people who elected him. 

post #152 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

 

...ON PAR WITH TRUMP.

 

...ON  PAR WITH TRUMP.

 

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

 

 

Tip O the Iceberg my friend....

 

post #153 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

 

So not on par, then.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Both fair points. 

 

Hillary decided to try to retain (or maintain) "the Obama Coalition" but that coalition came out for Obama personally. 

 

She didn't bother with the White Middle or Lower class vote. So they didn't vote for her. 

 

The lack of African American votes was pretty amazing imo. I mean both Clinton's spent decades building ties with the African American community. Obama kind of took that away from them (Bill didn't help with his comments in South Carolina in 2008: I think that soured a LOT of people on him).

 

"Voter Suppression" is a better explanation for the results of this election than trying to suss out who people voted for. 

 

I put that phrase in quotes because I'm not talking about organized attempts to dissuade people at a polling station from voting. 

 

I mean the ugliness and tawdriness of the campaign, and the long standing desire by professional politicians to restrict voting to (hopefully their) partisans. 

 

Every time you see an Olde Time Politician in an interview and he/she is droning on in Washington Speak such that you start feeling sleepy, that is voter suppression. They want you to be bored and disinterested. That let's them stay in office and do whatever the fuck they want. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malmordo View Post
 

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.

 

She has 4 years to get it back. And she's got a great foil in the new President. 

 

What I think hurts her, and in fact most potential candidates, is how fucking old these people are. How did we go from Barack "40 something" Obama in 2008 to a race where both candidates were pushing, or past 70?! And I don't see anyone on the Horizon of 2020 not in the same category. 

post #154 of 175

Here's a short list of potential nominees for Pres or VP, based on their age in 2020:
 

Cory Booker - 51

Kamala Harris - 56

Gavin Newsom - 53

Tammy Baldwin - 58

Tammy Duckworth - 52

Julian Castro - 46

Tom Perez - 59

Keith Ellison - 57

Sherrod Brown - 68

Duane Johnson - 48

post #155 of 175
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

 

The lack of African American votes was pretty amazing imo. I mean both Clinton's spent decades building ties with the African American community. Obama kind of took that away from them (Bill didn't help with his comments in South Carolina in 2008: I think that soured a LOT of people on him).

 

"Voter Suppression" is a better explanation for the results of this election than trying to suss out who people voted for. 

 

I put that phrase in quotes because I'm not talking about organized attempts to dissuade people at a polling station from voting. 

 

I mean the ugliness and tawdriness of the campaign, and the long standing desire by professional politicians to restrict voting to (hopefully their) partisans. 

 

Every time you see an Olde Time Politician in an interview and he/she is droning on in Washington Speak such that you start feeling sleepy, that is voter suppression. They want you to be bored and disinterested. That let's them stay in office and do whatever the fuck they want. 

 

In no way do I want to exculpate HRC from actively losing African-American votes, but actual, organized voter suppression is a real thing and I think it definitely affected the results this time.

 

Samantha Bee, as always, is on it:

 

post #156 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

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.

Clinton was well-liked by her Senate colleagues. She won a lot of goodwill by avoiding the spotlight, putting her head down, and working hard. Had she stayed in the Senate and moved up the leadership ranks, I think she would have gained a reputation similar to Biden's.
post #157 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

Here's a short list of potential nominees for Pres or VP, based on their age in 2020:
 

Cory Booker - 51

Kamala Harris - 56

Gavin Newsom - 53

Tammy Baldwin - 58

Tammy Duckworth - 52

Julian Castro - 46

Tom Perez - 59

Keith Ellison - 57

Sherrod Brown - 68

Duane Johnson - 48

 

We're not really taking this Dwayne Johnson for President thing seriously, are we?

post #158 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil spurn View Post
 

 

We're not really taking this Dwayne Johnson for President thing seriously, are we?

 

no that's dumb

 

yes

post #159 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil spurn View Post
 

 

We're not really taking this Dwayne Johnson for President thing seriously, are we?


My biggest takeaway from the 2016 Election is that the biggest personality wins.  This has been true my entire life.  The democrats need a candidate with a loud voice and electrifying personality.  Trump shows that experience and policy do not matter to large numbers of voters.  Why not the Rock? 

post #160 of 175
Johnson, at the 2020 Republican debates: "...and that's why Donald Trump is a rooty-poo, candy-ass Jabroni."

By-now disgruntled Republican primary voters: "He says what we're all thinking!"
post #161 of 175

Matt Taibbi.  Smart guy, knows how things work, takes no guff.  You need someone who won't take guff.

post #162 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

Johnson, at the 2020 Republican debates: "...and that's why Donald Trump is a rooty-poo, candy-ass Jabroni."

By-now disgruntled Republican primary voters: "He says what we're all thinking!"

 

Would that I could just laugh this off.  But I can't think of a reason why this couldn't work.  After this year, I just don't know anything anymore.

post #163 of 175

Some interesting data on the white Obama voters who went with Trump.  Was it all economic?  Evidently not:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/07/obama-won-lots-of-votes-from-racially-prejudiced-whites-and-some-of-them-supported-trump

 

Quote:

At the same time, about one quarter of whites who didn’t even think blacks and whites should date each other still supported Obama for president. An analysis by political scientists Sam Popkin and Doug Rivers showed the same thing: 20-25% of whites who opposed interracial dating supported Obama throughout the 2008 campaign.

 

Even though racial attitudes were a bigger factor in Obama’s elections than previously, they were by no means the only factor. The most important determinant of Americans’ votes in 2008 and 2012, as always, was party identification.

 

But until Obama’s presidency, there were nearly as many white Democrats with explicitly prejudiced views as white Republicans. That meant that lots of racially prejudiced Democrats wound up supporting Obama.

 

Racially prejudiced whites, however, have increasingly left the Democratic Party during Obama’s presidency — especially racially prejudiced whites without a college degree.  That partisan sorting by racial attitudes, combined with Trump’s explicitly racial presidential campaign, opened the door for racially prejudiced Obama voters to defect to Trump in 2016.

 

And yet more wrinkles emerge in the "economic anxiety" narrative:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/

 

Quote:

But here is the troubling reality for civically minded liberals looking to justify their preferred strategies: Hillary Clinton talked about the working class, middle class jobs, and the dignity of work constantly. And she still lost.

 

She detailed plans to help coal miners and steel workers. She had decades of ideas to help parents, particularly working moms, and their children. She had plans to help young men who were getting out of prison and old men who were getting into new careers. She talked about the dignity of manufacturing jobs, the promise of clean-energy jobs, and the Obama administration’s record of creating private-sector jobs for a record-breaking number of consecutive months. She said the word “job” more in the Democratic National Convention speech than Trump did in the RNC acceptance speech; she mentioned the word  “jobs” more during the first presidential debate than Trump did. She offered the most comprehensively progressive economic platform of any presidential candidate in history—one specifically tailored to an economy powered by an educated workforce.

 

What’s more, the evidence that Clinton lost because of the nation’s economic disenchantment is extremely mixed. Some economists found that Trump won in counties affected by trade with China. But among the 52 percent of voters who said economics was the most important issue in the election, Clinton beat Trump by double digits. In the vast majority of swing states, voters said they preferred Clinton on the economy. If the 2016 election had come down to economics exclusively, the working class—which, by any reasonable definition, includes the black, Hispanic, and Asian working classes, too—would have elected Hillary Clinton president.

 

The more frightening possibility for liberals is that Clinton didn’t lose because the white working class failed to hear her message, but precisely because they did hear it.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Trump tapped into a potent brew of economics + culture.  Unless Democrats go the whole hog on exploiting the latter, they won't be able to replicate Trump's appeal.  It's possible that the best thing we can do is play the demographic waiting game and turn around the gerrymandering that has favored the GOP.

post #164 of 175

I felt a great disturbance in the Force...as if a million disrupting edgy white liberals cried out in joy and were suddenly silenced: 

https://twitter.com/jesseberney/status/822060169446195200

Coming 2020: "If these guys were capable of running the country - they'd be running the country!" 

post #165 of 175
I'm ready for tech billionaires to downsize the politicians and just run for office themselves. It's a natural evolution of what Silicon Valley is doing to everybody else in this country.
post #166 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

I'm ready for tech billionaires to downsize the politicians and just run for office themselves. It's a natural evolution of what Silicon Valley is doing to everybody else in this country.

 

Prediction - Peter Thiel's bid for CA governor may or may not be a trial balloon for this. 

post #167 of 175
.
Edited by Agentsands77 - 5/5/17 at 4:47am
post #168 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

Johnson, at the 2020 Republican debates: "...and that's why Donald Trump is a rooty-poo, candy-ass Jabroni."

By-now disgruntled Republican primary voters: "He says what we're all thinking!"

 

Trump would vote for him.

post #169 of 175

I've long felt that we as a species are heading for the disillusion of traditional nation states and the rise of Corporation-controlled city encalves. 

 

And more and more I'm getting convinced of that. The future's looking very Cyberpunk-y. 

post #170 of 175
.
Edited by Agentsands77 - 5/5/17 at 4:42am
post #171 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

I've long felt that we as a species are heading for the disillusion of traditional nation states and the rise of Corporation-controlled city encalves. 

 

And more and more I'm getting convinced of that. The future's looking very Cyberpunk-y. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


The present is already very Cyberpunk-y.


My best friend and I have joked ever since Citizens United that we're about one Supreme Court Decision and a Dragon on Mt. Fuji away from Shadowrun being reality.

 

Honestly...while certainly there's a lot that didn't (yet) come to pass, it certainly does seem the Cyberpunk sub-genre has by far been the most prescient of 70's/80's science fiction.  Just with the timeline perhaps a bit more stretched out to get there.

post #172 of 175

My bet on the future is still Soylent Green, because people are people.

post #173 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

Prediction - Peter Thiel's bid for CA governor may or may not be a trial balloon for this. 

 

There's a lot of speculation surrounding Mark Zuckerberg after his announced 30-state listening tour.  I wouldn't be surprised if self-funded billionaire politicians, galvanized by Trump winning the presidency with no relevant public sector experience, become more common over the next decade, particularly in Congress and state governorships.  

post #174 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco Senior View Post
 

 

There's a lot of speculation surrounding Mark Zuckerberg after his announced 30-state listening tour.  I wouldn't be surprised if self-funded billionaire politicians, galvanized by Trump winning the presidency with no relevant public sector experience, become more common over the next decade, particularly in Congress and state governorships.  

 

Zuckerberg or Gavin Belson or whoever could easily buy themselves to a small-ish state governorship, but I suspect the egos involve will insist on California or nothing, which will be harder to pull off.

post #175 of 175
That would be an interesting race to watch. A lot of these tech zillionaires are despised in San Francisco for the effect they've had on the cost of living there.
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