All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

So many Dem candidates running for president and only three are from South.
Julian Castro (Texas) Beto O'Rourke (Texas), and Michael E. Arth (Florida)


Three of the last four presidents are Southerners. Bill Clinton is from Arkansas. George Bush Sr. and Jr. are from Texas.

There are two other presidents from the 20th century who hail from the South
Carter is from Georgia. Johnson is from Texas.

I really don’t think it’s winning strategy imo to go for the South. They’ve been abandoning Dems in virtually every election.

[ZombieHavoc]

One random thought, when it comes to independents/progressives: even when they don't like Trump, they seem to be the group of people saying, even if there was election meddling, there's nothing saying votes were changed by the propaganda/influence to get Trump elected.

They also seem to be the same group that is adamant that Hillary was coming in behind primary voters directly and changing their votes from Bernie to her to steal the primary election.

[ZombieHavoc]

The ideal candidate has to be severely anti-Trump but carry the facade that their platform is about policy/issues.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Except Bill Clinton.

He won Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia and Tennessee in 1992 election

He won Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida and Tennessee in 1996 election

Texas and Florida are respectively the 2nd and 3rd most populous states in the US, therefore they carry more Electoral College votes than any other state except California.

Obama, a northerner, won Florida in both elections

Texas isn’t going Democrat. Even if Beto runs

[ZombieHavoc]

Texas and Florida are respectively the 2nd and 3rd most populous states in the US, therefore they carry more Electoral College votes than any other state except California.

Obama, a northerner, won Florida in both elections

Yeah but Texas and Florida are gone.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The ideal candidate has to be severely anti-Trump but carry the facade that their platform is about policy/issues.

So basically anyone whose a Democrat is anti Trump. The policy will be the differentiators

[aja_christopher]

The ideal candidate has to be severely anti-Trump but carry the facade that their platform is about policy/issues.

There is no real "ideal" candidate -- that's the fallacy.

Even Obama came in as a centrist, corporate, moderate Democrat -- yet he was still one of the best presidents in modern history and if more "progressives" had supported him in the mid-terms we'd probably have the health care system, civil rights legislation, environmental protections (etc) that many on the "left" claim to want to seen enacted.

It's simply a lot more practical for Democrats to run in the "center" which is why candidates like Bill and Obama (and in my opinion Hillary as well if it hadn't been for unprecedented interference) tend to win the general election, while people like Warren and Sanders (and Kucinich and Nader) rarely get anywhere near the same level of support.

Idealism is great -- but when it isn't effective it's best to get realistic and consider other options.

So basically anyone whose a Democrat is anti Trump. The policy will be the differentiators

While you're right, I don't really see it like that since I'm more "anti-Trump" than most of the Democrats in Congress -- where Pelosi and Schumer are trying to craft "bipartisan legislation" with Trump and other Republicans, I'd most likely be at the podium calling them out for being snakes on an almost daily basis.

That would be my ideal position -- not to work with the snakes but to call them out publicly at every opportunity.

The only one who even seems to approach the level of distaste I have for Trump and the modern Republican party is AOC and she's definitely a different brand of "Democrat" than those who came before her.

Outside of maybe Maxine Waters and Ted Leiu and the like, I really don't see the Democrats as "anti-Trump" so much as "pro-middle class" -- in terms of both rhetoric and policy.

[ZombieHavoc]

Plus voting for Nader (and Sanders) was punk AF.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Plus voting for Nader (and Sanders) was punk AF.

More Hillary voters went against Obama in 08 that’s Sanders went against Hillary

[ZombieHavoc]

More Hillary voters went against Obama in 08 that’s Sanders went against Hillary

Yeah but that doesn't have anything to do with being punk rock.

[ZombieHavoc]

Florida voted for Obama twice.

The country is changed. I can almost guarantee the electoral wins will be the exact same as 2016.

[wjowski]

Except Bill Clinton.

He won Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia and Tennessee in 1992 election

He won Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida and Tennessee in 1996 election

Texas and Florida are respectively the 2nd and 3rd most populous states in the US, therefore they carry more Electoral College votes than any other state except California.

Obama, a northerner, won Florida in both elections

Clinton's runs were over twenty years ago. That's practically another world in terms of demographics.

[ZombieHavoc]

in some ways, except for the fact that Sarah Palin would've likely run for pres later, I almost wonder if we shoulda given them McCain.

I mean, all the good stuff Obama did has been reversed, and even his healthcare initiative was gutted from the start. If they had gotten McCain, maybe they wouldn't have been so butthurt into electing Trump.

Who knows. Plus Palin.

[aja_christopher]

More Hillary voters went against Obama in 08 that’s Sanders went against Hillary

Yet those Sanders voters (and non-voters) still helped Trump win the election, so let's move on with that in mind and leave the divisiveness in the past, since "it didn't work the first time around."

As I pointed out in a previous post, all "progressives" have to do is give "centrist" Democratic candidates support in the midterms and then they will see the changes they want to see in the government -- that's something Republicans (maybe typically being older) seem to instinctively understand but Democrats are just starting to recognize.

-----
"Bernie Sanders supporters switched their allegiance to Donald Trump in large enough numbers last November to sway the election for the real estate billionaire, according to an analysis of voter data released Tuesday by the blog Political Wire. Since Trump’s shock victory over Hillary Clinton, much discussion has focused on the degree to which passionate Sanders supporters’ refusal to embrace Clinton led to the Republican winding up in the White House.

According to the analysis of the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, fewer than 80 percent of those who voted for Sanders, an independent, in the Democratic primary did the same for Clinton when she faced off against Trump a few months later. What’s more, 12 percent of those who backed Sanders actually cast a vote for Trump.

The impact of those votes was significant. In each of the three states that ultimately swung the election for Trump—Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania—Trump’s margin of victory over Clinton was smaller than the number of Sanders voters who gave him their vote...."

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sand...lection-654320

[ZombieHavoc]

Yet those Sanders voters (and non-voters) still helped Trump win the election, so let's move on with that in mind and leave the divisiveness in the past, since "it didn't work the first time around."

-----
"Bernie Sanders supporters switched their allegiance to Donald Trump in large enough numbers last November to sway the election for the real estate billionaire, according to an analysis of voter data released Tuesday by the blog Political Wire. Since Trump’s shock victory over Hillary Clinton, much discussion has focused on the degree to which passionate Sanders supporters’ refusal to embrace Clinton led to the Republican winding up in the White House.

According to the analysis of the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, fewer than 80 percent of those who voted for Sanders, an independent, in the Democratic primary did the same for Clinton when she faced off against Trump a few months later. What’s more, 12 percent of those who backed Sanders actually cast a vote for Trump.

The impact of those votes was significant. In each of the three states that ultimately swung the election for Trump—Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania—Trump’s margin of victory over Clinton was smaller than the number of Sanders voters who gave him their vote...."

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sand...lection-654320

That part is so crazy to me. If you supported Sanders and then voted for Trump, you did not give a shit about any of the things Sanders does. Except maybe ending TPP. That's like the only thing.

If your content to let the country burn because your candidate didn't get the nom...man.