2020 Democratic presidential primary

I dont know what sic is talking about

your conception of facts about international politics, as expressed in your posts

― sans lep (sic), Friday, 4 January 2019 22:54 (yesterday) Permalink

I just have no clue what you’re referencing. Perhaps you’re mixing me up with another poster.

I don’t care though

just so Gillibrand doesn't get uniquely pilloried for this

Some context: Almost every significant possible 2020 Democratic candidate, including Gillibrand, has been reaching out to New York/Wall Street for months, though typically they've reserved explicitly talking 2020. https://t.co/wlMiNWTrFp https://t.co/rk91dfCP7w

— Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) January 4, 2019

I hate concentration of economic power/wealth. But I still kind of still live in NYC sometimes and have worked on "wall street" (two major investment banks and one of the big three ratings agencies), while having super leftist views and knowing others with super leftist views or are self proclaimed bleeding heart liberals. It's an industry like any other with jobs that end up going to low wage immigrants supporting families on one salary. All of it has to change. I just really don't know how to most effectively manipulate the system that exists and actually win. You can get an AOC but she is a unicorn in a perfect set of circumstances; and I love her for existing. I just really know that voting in another white man is nothing more than treading water while holding a cinderblock above our heads.

I mean, AOC probably has lots of connections to elites she could reach out to if she felt it was worth the potential compromise down the line.

the way campaigns are financed need to be reformed. but the system being what it is, most candidates will need to play ball. the only way to self-fund a campaign is to have some massive grassroots movement like bernie did, which is not going to happen to someone like gillibrand.

xpost, she was working in a bar before she was running for office. I've worked in a bar/record store in brooklyn, I dunno if i would've known who to reach out to besides someone who knew, like, The R4pture, Br00klyn Brewery or d selzer. I then went to an investment bank literally one day randomly. it opens up an entire world that is not actually a much different place. Non-white non-old wealth men have to work within an entirely different world. She has a lot of connections now. She doesn't have to use them now and this is not the norm.

i mean, i'll bet since AOC became prominent a lot of people she's met along the way who she might have never really been close to would be open to hearing from her

old college classmates etc

Like, I haven't had to struggle despite a lot of things not being in my favor. But this is not the norm, and I keep in mind constantly that this is not the norm. I understand why people like Hillary Clinton have had to approach and manage their situation by the year in which they were born. It sucks. You can judge them but judge the white men who made it this decrepit, cowardly society first.

@Treeship yeah, that's what I meant.

Gillibrand and Sirota are hashing it out as we speak.

That’s good to know — and those are definitely good votes to promote.

Related question: why did you help Republicans kill this major Democratic bill to break up the big banks? https://t.co/vtIafeyCb5 https://t.co/MQmDnCaJ3m https://t.co/y7B6tcZVex

— David Sirota (@davidsirota) January 5, 2019

I don't like Gillibrand because she's completely centrist/moderate/, regardless of the wall street thing.

or the stupid Franken thing.

Did she back Franken on that? I'd forgotten.

oh it was the reverse! disregard/lol

gillibrand has a good recent voting record but sheesh her pre-senate career was bad

blue dog, lawyer for big tobacco, having a 100% rating from the NRA (!) when she was a representative, etc

For starters, Sirota is a dork.

But additionally, Gillibrand seems to be getting enlightened in front of our very eyes. If you listen to her in interviews, she doesn't talk like someone who's triangulating to be perceived as more progressive than her past indicates. She talks like someone who had just been clued into the intricacies of progressive thought and is hungry to learn more. It's earnest and believable imo.

i don't think we need someone who's just been clued in to progressive thought. i'm all for people evolving but i want someone whose commitments run deep.

And Buttigieg! What about my man Buttigieg?!

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, February 1, 2017 4:11 PM (one year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It is happening people

NEW: At an off-the-record with journalists and political types in Manhattan last night at @MollyJongFast's house, South Bend Mayor @PeteButtigieg left the distinct impression he's not only running for president in 2020 but could announce very soon, per attendees.

— Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) January 5, 2019

the mayor of south bend?

FOR NOW

Let’s get more mayors running for President imo

Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kucinich

Running for prez is a demanding gig. He should quit his day job or at least take a pay cut for all the hours he's going to be futzing around in Iowa this year.

that's always the issue with officeholders running for a higher office

i don't think we need someone who's just been clued in to progressive thought. i'm all for people evolving but i want someone whose commitments run deep.

Pretty rich coming from someone who's on here literally every day wide-eyed with shock after learning some thing the rest of us have known for decades.

Further, re Gillibrand:

14. It is beginning with AOC, even as we speak. The "narrative" is that (because she's young, female, & attractive) she's a ditz. Journos will pluck things out of context, quote anonymous sources, refer to one another ... the narrative will be self-reinforcing.

— David Roberts (@drvox) January 4, 2019

Sorry, the start of the thread is here:

1. Since we're thinking about the role of media bullshit in presidential campaigns, let's take a look at how it works. As a preface to this thread: I like Gillibrand fine, but I'm not stanning for her or anything -- this is just an examination of media dynamics.

— David Roberts (@drvox) January 4, 2019

"she's a ditz" thinks no one for real but people who voted for 2scoops. who gives a shit about them

unperson: use the killfile feature. i don’t want to hear your thoughts on how i am too young and naive. it’s really not wnjoyable or helpful for me.

i don't think we need someone who's just been clued in to progressive thought. i'm all for people evolving but i want someone whose commitments run deep.

― Trϵϵship, Friday, January 4, 2019 11:18 PM (yesterday)

A commitment can't run deep if it's been made recently? This is ridiculous and unperson is otm. How old does commitment to progressivism have to be before it's ripe enough to consume?

Why would someone vote for her when they could vote for Warren?

The candidate sets the priorities of the party. It’s different if someone is learning to embrace economic progressivism vs. It being the central theme of their political career for 6+ years. It’s different to me anyway.

just heard a soundbite of Warren defining her career in terms of "working families"

ok, NEXT

I don't expect everyone's progressivism to be deeply rooted, but I can see how it could be risky to bank on someone's political commitments when those commitments are currently in flux.

Oh cool this argument again

why do we always come here
I guess we'll never know

lot of "smart" democrats, esp of the hilary over bernie types, are being very critical of AOCs gaffes and presumed lack of smarts.

Don't know about the gaffes but other dems have a lot to learn from her top-tier meme game.

what gaffes? I wasn't aware of any so far. She's under such scrutiny by opponents looking for flaws that those who would like to create that narrative will magnify whatever they find to enormous proportions, like those electron microscope pictures of dust mites.

She once referred to the 'three chambers of Congress'. Utterly unforgivable.

AOC saying things other politicians are afraid Chuck Todd will make a sad face at them if they say = "gaffes"

I think this might be a fantasy

“lot of "smart" democrats, esp of the hilary over bernie types, are being very critical of AOCs gaffes and presumed lack of smarts.”
― dan selzer, Saturday, 5 January 2019 18:21

Seriously?

I'm responding to the many threads I've seen on facebook from Hillary supporting liberal democrats critiquing AOCs gaffes, like the aforementioned 3 chambers of congress thing. There are other cases where her numbers didn't add up and it's not just republicans who are calling attention to that.

I voted for her, I still donate monthly, I marched with her in Corona. I'm a fan. But it's bullshit to think only Trump voters are critical of her.

Anyway, AOC describing Ben Shapiro as a catcaller for challenging her to a debate and that line about how republicans are 'drooling over footage of her in slo-mo' were first-rate zingers, much better than Warren's lame response to Trump's third grade 'Pocahontas' schtick. Such moments matter when politics is a mere extension of middle school.

Yeah I follow a fair amount of people like that and the lib vs left discourse stuff very closely and the people get mad at her “gaffes” is 100% from conservatives from what I’ve seen.

xpost

I guess it wouldn’t shock me if there were like two people in comment sections/twitter threads like that

Although I will say the amount of people I’ve seen echoing the nonsensical “Bernie is Putin’s puppet” stuff I’ve encountered is scary off the charts in volume lately, so maybe it’s out there.

The Terry McAuliffe wing of the party is growing tinier by the day. Let them fizzle out without undue attention.