2020 Democratic presidential primary

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.

Terry McAuliffe restored the franchise to thousands of Virginians with felony convictions in his gubernatorial term, I know he was a Clinton-era apparatchik but he has done at least that one unqualified good thing.

Restoring voting rights to felons is baseline liberal policy. Congratulations to him, I guess.

I’m not saying vote for him for president or anything I just wanted to mention it

If he hadn't done that, Ralph Northam would've. It was inevitable.

My gripe with McAuliffe is now he wants to be the "common sense" guy and say things like no-cost university education and Medicare for All are extreme pipe dreams and devoting energy to them is a fool's errand. Go piss in someone else's punch, my guy.

*punch pissing comment @ McAuliffe, not you silby

leaning, leaning

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/08/beto-orourke-2020-campaign-decision-1088552

politico's hard-on for Beto is really gross

yup

I'm surprised they haven't written something like "This smooth, long piece of Texas beef jerky stands the best chance of beating Donald Trump in 2020..."

guess not throwing up on himself on tv wasn't enough

Sen. Murkowski says she’s going to share her concerns about government funding impasse with Trump today. She wants party to reopen government and deal with border fight after

— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) January 9, 2019

Collins, Murkowski, and Gardner aren't going to be enough to sway McConnell to bring a bill to the floor that Trump will veto. I doubt he'll do it even if enough of his caucus is willing to defy the shitbag and vote to override said veto.

uh these should go on the rolling US politics thread, no?

yeah sorry, wrong thread.

Down the thread, Gillibrand’s spokesperson says she regrets this. But what I really think former con/centrist Dems need to do if they want people to take their conversion seriously is explain forthrightly why they took these positions in the past beyond “my views evolved” stuff. https://t.co/oN6mcpNUdj

— Josh Mound (@JoshuaMound) January 18, 2019

explain forthrightly why they took these positions in the past

"When you run for office, it is better to win than to lose. When you need to attract the votes of thousands of people who aren't exact duplicates of yourself, you sometimes take positions that appeal to them more than the positions that appeal to you."

That's a shitty answer that would, ironically, lead to its speaker losing. Which is why we're seeing these half-assed apologies instead.

yeah no sane candidate is going to say "i took this terrible position that i didn't actually believe in because i wanted to win"

politics are often shitty. luckily, no politician is indispensable, so you can dispose of one and replace them with another one you like better. but don't kid yourself that the new one isn't going to employ the same shitty calculations in order to get elected. they'll just apply the calculations to different positions on different contentious issues than the old ones voters have moved on from.

i'd be more interested in politicians explaining forthrightly why and how the position changed. it would force them to walk through how you could get from A to B, "i once thought X but as i talked to Y it became clear to me that i was seeing the whole thing wrong in Z way" or whatever. maybe not a great soundbite but more revealing to a potential voter, and more useful in advancing the national conversation. but i also spent way too much time last evening to argue with an anti-immigrant cousin on facebook so i also have emotional stakes in the idea of "there's surely some way to put this into words that helps fox viewers on the journey to realizing they've been duped"...

bizarre to me that people hold it against an elected official for accurately representing the desires of their constituents. that is the fucking job.

Seems to get overlooked that Gillibrand has been a liberal senator for way longer than she was a conservative congresswoman

that's because the only things that matter are the bad things duh

which she did because of the pure evil in her heart, whereas the good stuff was all just done to appease voters

bizarre to me that people hold it against an elected official for accurately representing the desires of their constituents. that is the fucking job

if that's the job then basically no one is doing it? public opinion on many issues is consistently well to the left of most liberal orthodoxy as we literally just saw w. the AOC tax kerfuffle

I'm impressed that silby got Jay Inslee on this poll two full years ago

bizarre to me that people hold it against an elected official for accurately representing the desires of their constituents. that is the fucking job.

― Οὖτις, Friday, January 18, 2019 12:05 PM (thirty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

…is it? I don't think of it that way

xp local bias

like it was blatantly knuckleheaded of me to miss Gillebrand

*Gillibrand

if that's the job then basically no one is doing it? public opinion on many issues is consistently well to the left of most liberal orthodoxy as we literally just saw w. the AOC tax kerfuffle

lol @ equating public opinion with legislating. I know you know this but... the only person representing the entire country is the President, and yes he is doing his level shittiest. But everybody else represents *specific sets of the population* and for the most part Senators and Representatives do that very well, which is (broadly speaking) why they win re-election. If they don't represent their constituents they lose office

that's fine but to say they're "accurately representing the desires" of constituents rather than "doing an acceptable job based on what people generally perceive as being possible within the restraints of the current political system" are different statements

anyway

No one will confuse Gillibrand’s rhetoric with Warren, the other senator in the race right now. “Your economy only grows when you right-size immigration.”

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) January 18, 2019

are different statements

are they?

imo yes but let's not bore everyone with this all day

Yeah, forget everything I ever said about KG up thread. She's decided her path to the nomination is a total disimpassioned centrist voter who doesn't exist in the party primary. Great strategy 👍

anyway

No one will confuse Gillibrand’s rhetoric with Warren, the other senator in the race right now. “Your economy only grows when you right-size immigration.”
— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) January 18, 2019
― resident hack (Simon H.), Friday, January 18, 2019 1:08 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

in fairness a replier says that's from 2006 and that she's recanted

https://t.co/rpGbyMVmNv pic.twitter.com/sCBGaZjql9

— Matthew Whelan (@sullivanst) January 18, 2019

i personally don't really forgive that kind of stuff but ymmv and maybe you weren't called a fucking refugee as a child by your peers

yeah I got mixed up cause Wiegel had just been posting current quotes. anyway yeah it's a shitty thing to say and to have to explain/walk back.apologize for

Shakey I don't agree with your oft-repeated thesis that seems to be basically elect anyone with a (D) after their name and they will somehow read your (and the rest of the voters of your district) mind and do your bidding once elected. Seems way more reasonable to me to vote for the person who has held and continues to hold views with which you agree.

Maybe you think opportunists are better at negotiation?

Or are you just arguing for calling your representatives more?

lol the "right-size immigration" quote was in fact from today apparently

Today! I was right next to her.

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) January 18, 2019

fuck

ugh, that's bad