1. #36406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by babyblob View Post
    It would be a huge mistake to have Buttigieg as the Nom in 2024. A I dont think he is ready. I dont think he appeals to enough of the voters out there as he isnt a huge name. And I hate to be this guy but I will. You want to drive the GOP to polls in massive numbers to vote Trump? Run a gay guy as your candidate in 2024. its sick that is where the country is right now but as much as we want to change that the change is not going to happen by 2024.
    I mean, yeah. This would only further galvanize Evangelicals around Trump. They already look past him being a guy who treats the Ten Commandments like a to-do list of rules to break, but "at least he's not gay".
    X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.

  2. #36407
    Ultimate Member babyblob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    New Richmond Ohio
    Posts
    12,250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by worstblogever View Post
    I mean, yeah. This would only further galvanize Evangelicals around Trump. They already look past him being a guy who treats the Ten Commandments like a to-do list of rules to break, but "at least he's not gay".
    Hey he is one of them. he held a bible that didnt belong to him upside down in front of a church he didnt go to.
    This Post Contains No Artificial Intelligence. It Contains No Human Intelligence Either.

  3. #36408
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    31,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by babyblob View Post
    It would be a huge mistake to have Buttigieg as the Nom in 2024. A I dont think he is ready. I dont think he appeals to enough of the voters out there as he isnt a huge name. And I hate to be this guy but I will. You want to drive the GOP to polls in massive numbers to vote Trump? Run a gay guy as your candidate in 2024. its sick that is where the country is right now but as much as we want to change that the change is not going to happen by 2024.
    You’re not alone. A Buttigieg candidacy in 2024 would be a nightmare for Democrats. Homophobia is still strong in this country, and yeah, an openly gay man as the Dems’ standard bearer would drive enraged bible thumpers to the polls in unimaginable droves to keep the country from becoming a 21st century Sodom and Gomorrah in their warped minds. Even worse, the party would risk losing African-American voters, a goodly portion of whom are no more tolerant of gays than white evangelicals. Chances are it could be decades, perhaps longer before minds change enough to the point where a gay man running for president isn’t a big deal, but right now, the opposite is true.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  4. #36409
    BANNED Xheight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPhillyPunisher View Post
    Because Trump gave free reign for that segment of the public to be their absolute worst selves. He made it permissible for his lemmings to be racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic and every other ugly and revolting aspect of human nature, and they LOVED that freedom. That's why his lemmings turned a blind eye to Trump's litany of failures and sought to overturn the election back on 1/6 to keep him in power because they don't want to go back under their rocks. This isn't hyperbole, the madness with Trump won't end until he's in the ground.
    I pretty much don't share you views but this time I do think your assessment is very close to target. Of course what you see as the worst and its attendant censorious labels is what those that bother to think about it are the freedoms that gave this country its unique and successful character, vulgar as it may be that put individuals first.

    In fact all of those labels ask that we dispose with Ruggedness that comprises Rugged individualism, but the Myth is for many aspirational not something that just means a fiction. It also coalesces in their minds the character of those that oppose it, for them as snowflakes, etc. but ultimately as people of poor character and poor choices. 1/6 in that regard is entirely credible as an defensive action as the powers that brought it, the Steal, off are fundamentally understood to be double dealing, ends justify the means types which they understand is part of the same human nature you deplore and have always depended on individual competition to check.
    I agree Trump may have given it its greatest expression in our life times but I don't see it as limited to Trump as we saw this begin with the Rhetoric of the Tea Party in this surge of populism and what you describe is really just a figure to rally around to is being driven by a critique of power. Of course the Left always thinks it has the ONLY critique of power based on various distillations of Marx by class and race...when it simply has more people knowledgeable of such formal critiques. Making the world safe for foul language and ass grabs is only part of the story.
    Last edited by Xheight; 11-16-2021 at 02:29 PM.

  5. #36410
    BANNED Xheight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    Don't care, as long as he is pain, financially or otherwise, for as long as possible. People like him profit over the pain of others. It's long past time they reap what they have sowed.

    If he still has supporters after this, then so be it. But the more of their 'Idols' get their due, eventually some among them will start having second thoughts about following their path of hate and intolerance.
    I really think you are making assumptions about him and them as to what causes them pain, people who get that big financially might be vested in the game but it is nothing like the existential crisis that regular people and business experience.

    The Wall scam should be instructive about fantasies of perp walks. Then again the left is more prone to believe in systems than the right so...

  6. #36411
    BANNED Xheight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    Inflation seems to be a legitimate concern.

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/13/econo...ner/index.html

    They were processing legal and authentic ballots, though.
    I think we have reached our Who's on First Base moment. Legal by sweeping emergency authority and unproven and perhaps unprovable authenticity.

    Well we'll agree Inflation is very real and very damaging.

  7. #36412
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by worstblogever View Post
    Unless it's a historic first gay candidate like Pete Buttigieg coming in. Elizabeth Warren making a run for the first female president... although, again, she doesn't want to be president, she's content to be a Senator. But if there's a void that needs to be filled, she'd step up. I feel like there are other front-runners who would get the nod ahead of her.
    I'm trying to consider political strategy rather than the merits of candidates. So this is not about what I'd like to see, but my understanding of Democratic primary voters.

    Warren would have slightly better optics as an accomplished Senator in her 70s than other challengers. It would be hard to suggest that she should wait her turn. The big question is whether she would have enough of a constituency. There was an interesting trend over the primary that she had outsized support among some corners of the media.

    https://www.vox.com/2020/3/3/2116252...izabeth-warren

    Her supporters feel somewhat baffled: How did she evaporate from the top tier of contention, especially since so many of the people they know also like her?

    There are specific tactical decisions (by both her campaign and her rivals) that brought her to this point. But a larger context to understand is that if you, like many of my friends, find the situation puzzling, that is probably because you know a lot of people who are demographically similar to yourself. I’m a highly educated white person, and most of my friends and acquaintances are also highly educated white people. Elizabeth Warren is very popular with people like us.

    The reality is that there aren’t that many people like us — and there’s a valuable lesson in that, not just about the Warren campaign specifically but about some of the larger dynamics in American politics.
    She also has a lot to lose in a failed bid. It would come at the same time as a decision to run for a third term in the Senate, which is a delicate dance for presidential contenders. She'll also have to work with the White House to get stuff done, which can be complicated when she's running against them.

    Finally, she didn't do very well last time. She finished third in her home state, before she dropped out.

    Buttigieg has overcome some of his weaknesses last time. As a consequential cabinet secretary, he now has decent qualifications for national office. And he has kids, which is an advantage for candidates.

    It would still be hard for him to win the nomination. There are plenty of Democrats who would love to see a historic gay President, but it seems that more want to see a woman finally take the office, especially with Buttigieg positioned for a later run. Younger voters might like a historic candidate in his early 40s, but may also see him as too centrist. Kamala Harris would presumably do well among the African-American primary voters who decided the last few primaries. And she has fans among the media (a major example is how Biden wasn't the Time Magazine person of the year in 2020; it was the Biden/ Harris ticket.)

    I'm sure some more progressive candidate will run, but that individual will have a tough time winning. Sanders is likely too old. The squad has yet to show they can win statewide office, let alone a national primary. There remains the problem that liberal twitter is not representative of primary voters, which helps explain Biden's win last time.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...real-life.html

    I don't see Harris as an impressive general election candidate, but I see less of a strategy in defeating her in the primaries. The main hope may be in some executive doing something impressive, or someone using a major success in the midterms to launch a presidential bid.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  8. #36413
    BANNED Xheight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I'm trying to consider political strategy rather than the merits of candidates. So this is not about what I'd like to see, but my understanding of Democratic primary voters.

    Warren would have slightly better optics as an accomplished Senator in her 70s than other challengers. It would be hard to suggest that she should wait her turn. The big question is whether she would have enough of a constituency. There was an interesting trend over the primary that she had outsized support among some corners of the media.

    https://www.vox.com/2020/3/3/2116252...izabeth-warren



    Buttigieg has overcome some of his weaknesses last time. As a consequential cabinet secretary, he now has decent qualifications for national office. And he has kids, which is an advantage for candidates.

    Performance not titles matters and it remains to be seen if BIF will be wind at his back or just a place for more stumbles like https://www.timesunion.com/churchill...d-16622617.php
    during his presser to address the supply chain melt down.

    Would Warren raise the same interest as Bernie or be the compromise?

  9. #36414
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xheight View Post
    I think we have reached our Who's on First Base moment. Legal by sweeping emergency authority and unproven and perhaps unprovable authenticity.

    Well we'll agree Inflation is very real and very damaging.
    There may be a motte and bailey issue here where some people arguing about January 6 move the goalposts.

    It is one thing to say that there are legal questions regarding the use of emergency authority, and that this has implications on the results of the election.

    It is another to suggest a conspiracy to fabricate enough votes to make a difference. For example, we argued a few days ago about a guy who sued Georgia claiming he found 20,312 ballots cast by people who didn't satisfy residency requirements, but he wasn't willing to tell the courts how he verified this, which is part of why his complaints were dismissed.

    https://community.cbr.com/showthread...28#post5809928

    I'll note I do really like the term "motte and bailey fallacy" as a way to describe a common strategy in political discussions.

    The name comes from a castle-defense system developed in the 10th century in northern Europe. One part was a courtyard area, called a bailey, where people would trade, eat, and work. On a nearby hill was a fortified tower called a motte. The motte was an unproductive place to hang out, but it was safe. So, during attacks, residents would flee the bailey for the motte, where they could ward off enemies.

    In rhetorical terms, the bailey is the desired but hard-to-defend controversial opinion. The motte is the less desired yet defensible opinion that nearly everyone agrees with, and which the arguer retreats to if unable to defend the bailey.

    There's a good description in another blog.

    https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/0...-in-the-motte/
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  10. #36415
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPhillyPunisher View Post
    You’re not alone. A Buttigieg candidacy in 2024 would be a nightmare for Democrats. Homophobia is still strong in this country, and yeah, an openly gay man as the Dems’ standard bearer would drive enraged bible thumpers to the polls in unimaginable droves to keep the country from becoming a 21st century Sodom and Gomorrah in their warped minds. Even worse, the party would risk losing African-American voters, a goodly portion of whom are no more tolerant of gays than white evangelicals. Chances are it could be decades, perhaps longer before minds change enough to the point where a gay man running for president isn’t a big deal, but right now, the opposite is true.
    I don't think it hurts among most swing voters. But it can certainly be a problem with voters of color, just because there are enough socially conservative African-Americans who vote for Democrats (white social conservatives joined the Republicans years ago.)

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    It would be a mistake to honestly run anybody but Biden. He’s unpopular but Kamala is tied to him and she really has never done well in national polls. Her and Pete are one of those ideas that the DNC donors fall in love with and then get gob smacked when they are so wrong and don’t get momentum.

    Democrats probably need to live with the fact that 2020 was the election to decide who would face this incarnation of the GOP down and the panic to get rid of Trump ended up meaning they went for who was perceived as the safe voting candidate, and for one of the first times ever on a national scale, they were able to get someone mediocre in off the negatives of his opponent.

    The only reason Biden is unpopular is because his party is dysfunctional in Congress and ripped apart a bill that was popular for yet another handout (which happened to be their only leverage on the popular bill) and he isn’t living up to his rhetoric. So the onus is on the Democratic politicians to get their **** together and make Biden a success because there isn’t some secret way out to maintain the executive and ignore current shortcomings in the party across the board (which is honestly what this is about). They have to do the hard work and govern and turn the ship. No silver bullets.
    It's certainly possible for Biden's numbers to go up.

    It's possible that he hits electoral college sweet spots in a way no other Democrat can (He's seen as moderate so he doesn't need to attack/ turn off progressives to appeal to centrist voters, He was born in a key swing state, He has high approval ratings among African-American voters thanks to his work as Obama's VP.)

    Quote Originally Posted by CSTowle View Post
    I think if it means winning they should say "F##k optics" and kick Harris to the curb. Push Abrams, at least you know she's motivated and is willing to fight and make connections even when it's not about herself. And so far (though it's early yet) the "advantages" of being Vice President in this administration might not be the strength it is in normal election years. I just see nothing that makes me want to vote for her. Vote against another Trump run? Sure, but you could have put any of the Democratic candidates in Biden's slot (and quite a few Republicans, barring another choice) and I'd have voted against Trump. I'd like to vote for someone again instead.
    It's easy to say the hell with optics, but you need to get everyone on board. The party isn't a monolith capable of pushing just anyone to the nomination.

    If Abrams wins, that can change the presidential race. But she may very well lose (or opt not to run.)

    Quote Originally Posted by SUPERECWFAN1 View Post
    I'd say keep an eye on Mitch Landrieu and his new role he was given by Biden. Its a high profile position with being in charge of this new bill and spending on projects. As a former Lt. Governor of Louisiana and Mayor of New Orleans he has the pedigree to move into a key candidate.
    I really liked some interviews with Landrieu, when he was seen as a long-shot presidential contender.

    My guess is he would still remain a long-shot contender, even if this is an ideal post (the guy who helps coordinate money to popular projects.) He probably rates higher as a potential Kamala Harris running mate than as a presidential contender.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  11. #36416
    Braddock Isle JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    17,184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by worstblogever View Post
    I mean, yeah. This would only further galvanize Evangelicals around Trump. They already look past him being a guy who treats the Ten Commandments like a to-do list of rules to break, but "at least he's not gay".
    It's funny you say that because check this out. The GOP chairwoman last weekend "announced the RNC Pride Coalition, an effort with Log Cabin Republicans to mobilize LGBTQ communities ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.”
    https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/11...ld-trump-pride

    However what the article doesn't mention is apparently some prominent figures in the GOP lashed out at this "coalition" and are calling for the chairwoman to resign and for voters to condemn it. It's gotten incredibly nasty and a state senator from Arizona said some horrible, disgusting things:
    https://twitter.com/WendyRogersAZ/st...660790788?s=20
    "Danielle... I intend to do something rash and violent." - Betsy Braddock
    Krakoa, Arakko, and Otherworld forever!

  12. #36417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jbenito View Post
    It's funny you say that because check this out. The GOP chairwoman last weekend "announced the RNC Pride Coalition, an effort with Log Cabin Republicans to mobilize LGBTQ communities ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.”
    https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/11...ld-trump-pride

    However what the article doesn't mention is apparently some prominent figures in the GOP lashed out at this "coalition" and are calling for the chairwoman to resign and for voters to condemn it. It's gotten incredibly nasty and a state senator from Arizona said some horrible, disgusting things:
    https://twitter.com/WendyRogersAZ/st...660790788?s=20
    The Log Cabin Republicans are... uh... not a good example of the party's movement on gay rights, because... they demonize their own. I don't know why the group are masochists who stick around when they literally right a party platform every four years that somehow is more hostile against them having simple human rights in every iteration, going back 20 years. The GOP has had gay candidates actively excluded from appearing at debates when they do run as candidates.

    Just... come on, man.
    X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.

  13. #36418
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    15,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I'm trying to consider political strategy rather than the merits of candidates. So this is not about what I'd like to see, but my understanding of Democratic primary voters.

    Warren would have slightly better optics as an accomplished Senator in her 70s than other challengers. It would be hard to suggest that she should wait her turn. The big question is whether she would have enough of a constituency. There was an interesting trend over the primary that she had outsized support among some corners of the media.

    https://www.vox.com/2020/3/3/2116252...izabeth-warren



    She also has a lot to lose in a failed bid. It would come at the same time as a decision to run for a third term in the Senate, which is a delicate dance for presidential contenders. She'll also have to work with the White House to get stuff done, which can be complicated when she's running against them.

    Finally, she didn't do very well last time. She finished third in her home state, before she dropped out.

    Buttigieg has overcome some of his weaknesses last time. As a consequential cabinet secretary, he now has decent qualifications for national office. And he has kids, which is an advantage for candidates.

    It would still be hard for him to win the nomination. There are plenty of Democrats who would love to see a historic gay President, but it seems that more want to see a woman finally take the office, especially with Buttigieg positioned for a later run. Younger voters might like a historic candidate in his early 40s, but may also see him as too centrist. Kamala Harris would presumably do well among the African-American primary voters who decided the last few primaries. And she has fans among the media (a major example is how Biden wasn't the Time Magazine person of the year in 2020; it was the Biden/ Harris ticket.)

    I'm sure some more progressive candidate will run, but that individual will have a tough time winning. Sanders is likely too old. The squad has yet to show they can win statewide office, let alone a national primary. There remains the problem that liberal twitter is not representative of primary voters, which helps explain Biden's win last time.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...real-life.html

    I don't see Harris as an impressive general election candidate, but I see less of a strategy in defeating her in the primaries. The main hope may be in some executive doing something impressive, or someone using a major success in the midterms to launch a presidential bid.
    Warren tried to position herself as a compromise candidate between the centrist wing and the left - not always a great thing in a primary. Plus, Biden's known good relationship with Sanders allowed him tobe both the centrist candidate AND the compromise candidate simultaneously.
    Dark does not mean deep.

  14. #36419
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    15,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jbenito View Post
    Speaking of Texas, this just happened:
    Texas House gains a Republican as South Texas Democrat Ryan Guillen switches parties
    https://www.statesman.com/story/news...ty/8626253002/

    Guillen is from Rio Grande City, close to where the border issues are taking place.
    I also remember reading that his chances of winning another term as a Democrat were torpedoed by the new gerrymander.
    Dark does not mean deep.

  15. #36420
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,621

    Default

    GOP rep from Alabama on twitter touting all the infrastructure funding that has been a "priority of his" since being elected to Congress. Except he voted no....

    https://twitter.com/USRepGaryPalmer/...700421644?s=20

    He's rightfully getting dragged on his own post for the hypocrisy. But, we may as well buckle up cause there will be a ton more GOP claiming credit when they not only voted no. But, tried to bash their own party members that did vote yes.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •