All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[numberthirty]

Harris vs Gabbard. Gabbard doesn't belong on that stage.

Gabbard doesn't, but if her only contribution was that she tanked Harris' campaign, I'm cool with it

Women disagree.

"Best debate I've heard Kamala Harris had"-@JoyAnnReid


"I agree."-@clairecmc


"A lot of women were watching her tonight and saying , "you know what? She gets me."-@JoyAnnReid


"She's relatable."-@clairecmc

Chalk one more up for Joy Reid not really having any idea what regular folks are thinking.

[AnakinFlair]

My biggest fear at this point is that Moscow Mitch will acquit him in the Senate trial, and then during the build-up to the election Trump can run adds saying he was 'Fully Exonerated!" And then the Democrats will run ads highlighting his crimes, and he'll just scream 'Fake News!'

I think what it all comes down to is are there enough people who did vote for Trump last time sick of what he's done and willing to vote Democrat.

[numberthirty]

My biggest fear at this point is that Moscow Mitch will acquit him in the Senate trial, and then during the build-up to the election Trump can run adds saying he was 'Fully Exonerated!" And then the Democrats will run ads highlighting his crimes, and he'll just scream 'Fake News!'

I think what it all comes down to is are there enough people who did vote for Trump last time sick of what he's done and willing to vote Democrat.

When it comes to this, Democrats just need a playbook that is more than what you just described.

If they are going to bet every dime that they have on that the Impeachment will be a silver bullet, that could very easily go wrong.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Chalk one more up for Joy Reid not really having any idea what regular folks are thinking.

I said before and I'll say it again, Joy Reid and Claire McCaskill have some of the dirt worst political instincts you will ever find that people give credence to. You will not find someone more wrong about 2016 than Reid and Claire literally lost her seat because she had the most tone deaf campaign you can imagine.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

My biggest fear at this point is that Moscow Mitch will acquit him in the Senate trial, and then during the build-up to the election Trump can run adds saying he was 'Fully Exonerated!" And then the Democrats will run ads highlighting his crimes, and he'll just scream 'Fake News!'

I think what it all comes down to is are there enough people who did vote for Trump last time sick of what he's done and willing to vote Democrat.

And that's why Pelosi was very hesitant to go the impeachment route. The most likely outcome is that he is going to get acquitted in the Senate and he is going to run on an exoneration and Democrats are going to be stuck making the case that he was wrong but with nothing to show for it.

Personally I would have impeached him during the election when it might effect polling.

[aja_christopher]

Chalk one more up for Joy Reid not really having any idea what regular folks are thinking.

Actually, all you are doing is showing that you don't have any clue what many black voters -- especially black women -- are thinking.

Given the fact that they tend to be more loyal to the Democratic party than you (or Sanders) are, you dismiss and ignore their values and opinions to the detriment of the party as a whole.

Par for course, but still worth mentioning, especially given the "diversity" of primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

Kamala was done the moment she mentioned reparations -- everyone here knows that's a non-starter with many white voters.

Same thing goes for Beto and gun control -- all they've proven is that "progressives" aren't worth chasing in a mainstream election.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Actually, all you are doing is showing that you don't have any clue what many black voters -- especially black women -- are thinking.

Given the fact that they tend to be more loyal to the Democratic party than you (or Sanders) are, you dismiss and ignore their values and opinions to the detriment of the party as a whole.

Par for course, but still worth mentioning.

Kamala had an issue with black voters. People underestimate how much her prosecutorial record really rubbed them the wrong way and why she didn't have huge groundswells of support amongst African Americans and people in her own state.

Ironically, Bernie Sanders actually does do well with black voters. Biden and Bernie consisnently have strong support there. The issue is that Biden has it with the older voters in the South and Bernie has it with the younger voters.

[aja_christopher]

"Recent polling has found that an overwhelming majority of black voters (85 percent) will back any of the Democrats over Trump in 2020. Their level of enthusiasm, however, is a genuine cause for concern.

The four-million-plus Obama voters who sat out 2016 and may have cost Hillary Clinton an electoral college victory were disproportionately black and brown. In fact, black turnout dropped for the first time in decades in the last general election contest. President Trump even went so far as to thank them for not showing up.

Renewed engagement in off-year elections from voters of color should be encouraging for the Democrats, and many of the party’s brightest new stars like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Stacey Abrams are non-white.

And yet, in the presidential field, the candidates of color have so far been coming up short.

After a brief surge, Sen. Kamala Harris is now fending off reports of a campaign in disarray. Once viewed as a serious threat to win the predominately black South Carolina primary, her support there is at 3 percent. Sen. Cory Booker, who never forgets to remind debate audiences that he lives in a predominately black community, is at 1 percent in South Carolina. Former Housing Secretary Julian Castro, who set himself apart from the rest of the 2020 field early with ambitious policies on immigration, wasn’t even able to make the most recent debate stage. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s campaign, while surprisingly resilient, has been frequently overshadowed by her stubborn refusal to fully condemn Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and the fact that white supremacists like David Duke think they have common cause with her.

Only Andrew Yang, the least well-known of all the minority candidates prior to the primary, has seemed to inspire a devoted following though he’s largely viewed as a one-issue candidate and hasn’t cracked the top tier of any presidential polls so far.

With Booker and Harris in particular, their underperformance is stunning. While perhaps not as well-known as Sanders, Warren, or Biden, both had built some national name recognition and both leaned heavily on their backgrounds as an advantage when it comes to building the kinds of coalitions that power Democrats to victory.

And yet, despite widely lauded debate performances, neither candidate has really broken though. It’s true that both have faced withering criticism from the left wing of the party’s base—Booker for his longstanding ties to the financial industry and Harris for her controversial record as a prosecutor—but there may be something more insidious at play.

It appears that many Democratic voters—black and brown ones very much included—have internalized the racialized rush to judgment about electability that took place after the 2016 contest. Although Hillary Clinton was a white candidate, many pundits felt in hindsight that she had leaned too hard on her black and brown constituency, losing the mostly white so-called heartland in the process. Most of those pundits ignored the fact that Democrats have been bleeding support from these voters for decades.

It’s fair to say most Democrats were shell-shocked after election night, and black voters, who have historically been distinguished by their pragmatism, took to heart the idea that following eight years of Obama maybe what America wanted was a white person in the White House. A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times national poll from this summer found that Democrats on the whole believe that at an older, moderate white man would be their ideal candidate to take down Trump. While that same poll found that African-Americans preferred a candidate of color, it’s fair for their read of white voters’ inclinations to be more cynical.

This may account for some of Biden’s unwavering support in the black community, which he claimed to be a part of at the most recent debate. It’s true that there is a genuine affection and appreciation for his loyal support of the first black president and that his is the field’s most familiar face. But he also has enjoyed the privileges of being a straight white man running for president.

He can stumble through debates and stick his finger in Sen. Warren’s face and emerge relatively unscathed, while Harris, Booker and every other candidate of color must somehow persuade a 98 percent white electorate in the first two primary contests to take a chance on them instead."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-...-primary-field

[numberthirty]

Actually, all you are doing is showing that you don't have any clue what many black voters -- especially black women -- are thinking.

Given the fact that they tend to be more loyal to the Democratic party than you (or Sanders) are, you dismiss and ignore their values and opinions to the detriment of the party as a whole.

Par for course, but still worth mentioning, especially given the "diversity" of primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

Kamala was done the moment she mentioned reparations -- everyone here knows that's a non-starter with many white voters.

Same thing goes for Beto and gun control -- all they've proven is that "progressives" aren't worth chasing in a mainstream election.

Just going to point out that it makes right around "Zero..." sense to talk about what a guy on a comic book message board is doing to the detriment of The Democratic Party when what you mentioned in blue is squarely the "Party" plan and not some regular "Joes"/"Janes" on a comic book message board.

We are at least a couple of decades past where the order of primary elections should have been rotating so as not to slant it in a particular direction, but I don't really see The Democratic Party doing that any time soon.

[aja_christopher]

Kamala had an issue with black voters. People underestimate how much her prosecutorial record really rubbed them the wrong way and why she didn't have huge groundswells of support amongst African Americans and people in her own state.

Ironically, Bernie Sanders actually does do well with black voters. Biden and Bernie consisnently have strong support there. The issue is that Biden has it with the older voters in the South and Bernie has it with the younger voters.

I'm a "black voter" -- don't try to lecture me about which candidates I have "issue with" since Sanders would be higher on that list than Harris.

The real issue at hand is pragmatism -- many black people simply don't want to take that risk, just like they didn't with Obama until he won ("white") Iowa.

Even Harris supporters know the moment Trump plays back Harris' comments on reparations and "forced busing", it's practically game over in a general election -- it's just not an honest dialogue that America is willing to have at this point in history, if ever.

Obama generally avoided those kinds of issues for exactly that reason.

----

"It’s fair to say most Democrats were shell-shocked after election night, and black voters, who have historically been distinguished by their pragmatism, took to heart the idea that following eight years of Obama maybe what America wanted was a white person in the White House."

[numberthirty]

I said before and I'll say it again, Joy Reid and Claire McCaskill have some of the dirt worst political instincts you will ever find that people give credence to. You will not find someone more wrong about 2016 than Reid and Claire literally lost her seat because she had the most tone deaf campaign you can imagine.

As for this...

I don't even know that I would put the blame just on those two women.

I think that a lot of the network that they work for is trying to push things in a particular direction(think back to one of it's moderators teeing Gabbard up to talk about "Rot In The Democratic Party...") than they are just calling balls and strikes.

[aja_christopher]

Just going to point out that it makes right around "Zero..." sense to talk about what a guy on a comic book message board is doing to the detriment of The Democratic Party when what you mentioned in blue is squarely the "Party" plan and not some regular "Joes"/"Janes" on a comic book message board.

You claimed "no one" supported Harris for president, openly ignoring and dismissing the support of many voters of color, especially black women.

You likewise claimed that Joy Reid has no idea what "regular folks" are thinking when she says many women feel Harris understands their problems.

If you want to sit here and try to rephrase that in order to make it more acceptable then go ahead, but that won't change the core problem with said assumptions.

As for Sanders vaunted "black support" -- let's see how far it gets him this time in the primaries, much less the general election.

[numberthirty]

You claimed "no one" supported Harris for president, openly ignoring and dismissing the support of many voters of color, especially black women.

You likewise claimed that Joy Reid has no idea what "regular folks" are thinking when she says a lot of feel Harris understands their problems.

If you want to sit here and try to rephrase that in order to make it more acceptable then go ahead, but that won't change the core problem with said assumptions.

That's because Reid has no clue what "Regular Folks" are thinking.

She laughed when Ann Coulter said Trump would win. Guess what regular folks thought about that?

She said herself that she actually had to see younger folks not come out for HRC before she believed that it was actually an issue. Guess what "Regular Younger Folks" thought about that?

If there were a lot of women who thought what Reid said, nothing we have seen since then reflects said reality.

Also, being realistic about what support Harris actually had isn't dismissing her support any more than being realistic about Moulton's odds dismissed his supporters.

"No One" was supporting them.

Never mind that focusing on that avoids talking about how The Democratic Party runs it's primary system.

[BeastieRunner]

Harris' campaign was bleeding support and had 3 major losses in a row.

The rest is conjecture and spitballing.

She got out before it got worse.

[aja_christopher]

"No One" was supporting them.

You mean no one you care about was supporting them -- plenty of black women supported Harris, but they are a small demographic overall.

Again, just because you ignore and dismiss them at will -- just as you did when you tried to use them to repeatedly attack Hillary in support of Sanders -- doesn't mean they aren't relevant. Apparently, however, they are only relevant to you when you can use them to attack other candidates and the Democratic party as a whole.

I'll add that this is pretty typical of many Sanders supporters -- attack other candidates and the Democratic party at will, while ignoring the most loyal base of the Democratic party, namely black women.

Again, there's no point in arguing this -- let's just see how many of those "black voters" show up for Sanders since you're so concerned about "reality".

The same reality in which Sanders lost to Hillary by millions of votes, many of them cast by voters of color.

------
"Black Women Voters Are Key to the 2020 Presidential Race"

https://fortune.com/2019/09/12/joe-b...kamala-harris/