Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Mister CIA

***Official*** Beto O'Rourke Thread

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Phil Elliott said:

Cornyn is one of several names being mentioned as possible replacement of Sessions. This would result in an appointment to replace Cornyn and open up another senate run by Beto. If Beto could ‘t beat Cruz, he won’t beat Cornyn. But he might have a good chance of beating Cornyn’s replacement.

That would be so crazy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, proninja said:

I didn't feel the analogy needed to be exact to make the point I was going toward?

Edit. How about this. If you bet 50 to win 50 at 25 percent odds and win, it was a bad decision regardless of if the 25 percent chance hit. 

Agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

Could you expand on this a bit?  The GOP got trounced in the Senate races in all three Great Lakes states he flipped to win in 2016. And they lost in Ohio, a state they have to win to have any shot at the presidency. And they barely won in Florida, another state they have to win, despite running against maybe the least inspiring Dem candidate of the cycle.

I'm not saying Trump is gonna lose either Ohio or Florida in 2020, just asking you to explain what you mean with your post here.  Missouri, North Dakota and Indiana were already in Trump's column in 2020, that's not exactly a new development.

Sorry I didn't answer this yesterday.  

Midterm elections are different beasts than Presidential year elections.  So when I viewed what happened on Tuesday, I looked at it from a historical perspective.  In midterms, the party that won the Presidential, and especially first term Presidents, have a difficult time motivating their voter base (the exception to this was Bush 2 who had absurdly high approval ratings after 9/11).  I know in Pennsylvania, in 2016 65% of registered voters voted, in 2018 that number dropped to 45%.  I don't see the need to go through the numbers but elected Presidents almost always take it on the chin in both the House and Senate midterms elections.  Just because Reps and Senate hopefuls didn't win certain States isn't indicative of that same result playing out in 2020 (because again the midterms are different than the general).  

So when I look historically, every first term President who gained Senate seats and then ran for re-election, got re-elected.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

Sorry I didn't answer this yesterday.  

Midterm elections are different beasts than Presidential year elections.  So when I viewed what happened on Tuesday, I looked at it from a historical perspective.  In midterms, the party that won the Presidential, and especially first term Presidents, have a difficult time motivating their voter base (the exception to this was Bush 2 who had absurdly high approval ratings after 9/11).  I know in Pennsylvania, in 2016 65% of registered voters voted, in 2018 that number dropped to 45%.  I don't see the need to go through the numbers but elected Presidents almost always take it on the chin in both the House and Senate midterms elections.  Just because Reps and Senate hopefuls didn't win certain States isn't indicative of that same result playing out in 2020 (because again the midterms are different than the general).  

So when I look historically, every first term President who gained Senate seats and then ran for re-election, got re-elected.    

Appreciate this, it's a solid analysis.  I disagree (of course), for three reasons. 

One, I don't think Trump fits neatly into historical frameworks.  He's a unique candidate and president who produces extraordinary passion both for and against him.

Two, the pattern to which you refer is mostly a product of Democratic presidents surviving GOP midterm gains to win second terms, which is usually because the lower midterm turnout skews old/Republican and then the Dem recovers when the kids and city dwellers return to the polls for presidential elections. You have to go back to 1982 to find a Republican president who suffered a midterm loss (26 seats) and recovered to win a landslide in 1984.  But he recovered because by 1984 he was turning around an economy in recession.  Trump won't have that luxury- he lost far more seats (35+ despite gerrymandering) and it's virtually a guarantee that the economy will be in worse shape in two years than it is now, largely because it can't really get any better.  OTOH it's possible that Trump unearthed a new GOP support base of non-college educated voters that will also turn out in presidential years for him, but most reports seemed to say they showed up in big numbers Tuesday too.

Three is the geography.  Trump won because he surprised in WI, MI and PA, and the Dems didn't just win in all three on Tuesday, they dominated in two and did very well in Wisconsin. Nate Silver drew up an electoral map based on adjusted House voting patterns- here's a map that shifts those results +6 for Republicans and the Dem still wins. It's possible that Trump holds a unique sway over the region that others don't, but at a minimum it's clear that those states haven't magically become Trump/GOP strongholds and are very much in play.  And the next Dem candidate won't take them for granted and will do a huge GOTV effort in the urban areas of those states (all three states have big ones).

I don't think it's a done deal by a longshot, but I'm having a hard time seeing how these midterms were good news for Trump's reelection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Appreciate this, it's a solid analysis.  I disagree (of course), for three reasons. 

One, I don't think Trump fits neatly into historical frameworks.  He's a unique candidate and president who produces extraordinary passion both for and against him.

Two, the pattern to which you refer is mostly a product of Democratic presidents surviving GOP midterm gains to win second terms, which is usually because the lower midterm turnout skews old/Republican and then the Dem recovers when the kids and city dwellers return to the polls for presidential elections. You have to go back to 1982 to find a Republican president who suffered a midterm loss (26 seats) and recovered to win a landslide in 1984.  But he recovered because by 1984 he was turning around an economy in recession.  Trump won't have that luxury- he lost far more seats (35+ despite gerrymandering) and it's virtually a guarantee that the economy will be in worse shape in two years than it is now, largely because it can't really get any better.  OTOH it's possible that Trump unearthed a new GOP support base of non-college educated voters that will also turn out in presidential years for him, but most reports seemed to say they showed up in big numbers Tuesday too.

Three is the geography.  Trump won because he surprised in WI, MI and PA, and the Dems didn't just win in all three on Tuesday, they dominated in two and did very well in Wisconsin. Nate Silver drew up an electoral map based on adjusted House voting patterns- here's a map that shifts those results +6 for Republicans and the Dem still wins. It's possible that Trump holds a unique sway over the region that others don't, but at a minimum it's clear that those states haven't magically become Trump/GOP strongholds and are very much in play.  And the next Dem candidate won't take them for granted and will do a huge GOTV effort in the urban areas of those states (all three states have big ones).

I don't think it's a done deal by a longshot, but I'm having a hard time seeing how these midterms were good news for Trump's reelection.

The Republican lost so many seats because 36 incumbent Republicans did not seek re-election in the House.  Incumbents have an extremely high re-election percentage, something like 94-95%.   

Politically, the House flipping is a good thing for Trump.  He now has House Democrats to blame for anything that goes wrong.  If they decide to spend the next two years investigating him and his administration, I think it will blow up in their faces.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

The Republican lost so many seats because 36 incumbent Republicans did not seek re-election in the House.  Incumbents have an extremely high re-election percentage, something like 94-95%.   

I think you have the causation backwards here.  Lots of incumbent Republicans decided to retire because they suspected they would lose.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I think you have the causation backwards here.  Lots of incumbent Republicans decided to retire because they suspected they would lose.

Yeah, there was a real shift toward Republicans in Congress who are in lock step with Trump. Quite a few of those Republicans who have been critical of Trump chose to retire, or lost their races. Indeed, Trump appears to be gloating every bit as much about the losses of Republicans who weren’t lock step with him. The moderate Republican voices are dwindling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

The Republican lost so many seats because 36 incumbent Republicans did not seek re-election in the House.  Incumbents have an extremely high re-election percentage, something like 94-95%.   

Politically, the House flipping is a good thing for Trump.  He now has House Democrats to blame for anything that goes wrong.  If they decide to spend the next two years investigating him and his administration, I think it will blow up in their faces.  

wonder why.  im stumped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

The Republican lost so many seats because 36 incumbent Republicans did not seek re-election in the House.  Incumbents have an extremely high re-election percentage, something like 94-95%.   

Politically, the House flipping is a good thing for Trump.  He now has House Democrats to blame for anything that goes wrong.  If they decide to spend the next two years investigating him and his administration, I think it will blow up in their faces.  

Don’t know about all of them,  but many knew they were going to lose.

The Dems need to investigate anything that they were denied in the previous session. 

They can do this and still do their work. 

Of all the ridiculous #### Trump did yesterday him saying that if the Dems investigate then he won’t work with them was near the top of the list. 

For the millionth time the guy is the worst.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

How do people vote for Ted Cruz?

Gotta be mind control. I talked to him for 90 seconds and needed two showers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article by David Frum. The two things I'm not sure I agree with him about: (1) I'm not sure that Beto is much more progressive than Obama was. I'm less familiar with Beto, but he strikes me as more pragmatic than dogmatic. (2) I'm not sure that Beto is less likely to run for President in 2020 having lost the Senate seat as he'd have been had he won it. (And a third thing: I think the phrase "innumerably more numerous" is atrocious.)

Beto’s Loss Was a Blessing in Disguise for Democrats

 

The midterm elections delivered a less than fully satisfying result for Democratic voters, but an ideal outcome for the Democratic Party.

 


For Democrats, Election Night must have felt like the world’s slowest championship baseball game. Runner on base; runner on base; strike out; runner on base; run scored; fly out—and so through the night.

Almost every candidate in whom Democrats at the national level invested emotional energy—Beto O’Rourke in Texas, Andrew Gillum in Florida, Stacey Abrams in Georgia—appears to have lost. Almost every detested Republican appears to have survived: Devin Nunes, Ted Cruz, Ron DeSantis, even Duncan Hunter, a California Republican under indictment.

 

This was not a night of cleansing, righteous fire. It was, instead, an election that accomplished three necessary things.

First, the 2018 vote delivered enough Democratic success to introduce some oversight and accountability into the federal government after two years of executive impunity. The House Intelligence Committee will resume protecting Americans rather than covering up for Russians.

Second, the vote administered enough Democratic disappointment to check the party’s most self-destructive tendencies. If Beto O’Rourke had eked it out in Texas, Democrats might well have nominated him for president in 2020, almost guaranteeing a debacle. There is no progressive majority in America. There is no progressive plurality in America. And there certainly is no progressive Electoral College coalition in America.

Third, the vote reminded all concerned Americans how very, very difficult will be the struggle to preserve and restore liberal democracy after Trumpocracy. The American system of government has always mixed majoritarian and anti-majoritarian features. It should not have surprised anyone that as the United States evolved toward being a “majority minority” nation, the anti-majoritarian features of its democracy have gained ascendancy over the majoritarian ones.

For three-quarters of a century, the United States expanded and equalized voting rights. In 1913, the U.S. Constitution was amended to allow for the direct election of U.S. senators, rather than relying on corruption-tainted state legislatures. Votes for women followed in 1920; Supreme Court decisions against all-white primaries came in 1944 and 1953, and in 1962 against favoring rural over urban voters in state legislatures. Next was the 1964 constitutional amendment forbidding poll taxes; then the Voting Rights Act of 1965; votes for 18-to-21-year-olds in 1971; and a sequence of often misdirected but democratically intended reforms in presidential primaries, election finance, and the operations of Congress from 1972 onward. And then the pendulum reversed.

When the Electoral College and the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 produced the first non-plurality presidency since the 19th century, the outcome seemed a freak. But in the years since, the freakish has become the familiar.

You may deplore this, but between now and 2020 you will not change it. In the interim, you must adapt. That means devising your political plans for the terrain you have, not the terrain you might wish for. The names Barack Obama and John F. Kennedy still thrill Democratic hearts. But Obama and Kennedy were realists, who regularly disappointed and vexed their most liberal supporters. Senator Barack Obama voted for ethanol subsidies and regularly went awol from political tussles over gun control. Obama was no Beto—which is why Obama actually won his U.S. Senate race in 2004. Beto enthusiasts are today recalling that Abraham Lincoln lost a Senate race in 1858 before winning the presidency in 1860. They are not recalling the innumerably more numerous politicians who failed to win a Senate race before not winning the presidency.

It may not be right that the middle of the country exerts radically more political weight than the coasts, or that white votes typically count for more than nonwhite votes. Right or not, those things are true, at least for now, and as long as they remain true, political realists must reckon with them. If 2018 offered a promise of at least some restraint on the Trump presidency, it also yielded a reminder of the hardest facts of American life and politics. Be guided by that reminder—the struggle for liberal democracy is too real and too dangerous for hearts undirected by heads.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2018 at 7:19 PM, Grace Under Pressure said:

How do people vote for Ted Cruz?

My friend, bless his heart, is a seventh day adventist out on the east coast.  They're pretty much GOP arch-conservatives.  He ran into Ted Cruz and took a picture with him and their spouses. 

He's still a great friend and I'll probably be visiting them in the spring, but man alive, I can't think of my friend without picturing that ratlike goober.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sludge‏ @readsludge

BREAKING: Texas Rep. @BetoORourke has been removed from the "No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge" following Sludge's report that he received more than two dozen large campaign donations from oil & gas executives.

@david_turnbull of @OilChangeUS tells us he hasn't been able to reach Beto or a spokesperson. As things stand, he broke the pledge numerous times & he's off the list. https://t.co/Av9tTTGbI0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

My friend, bless his heart, is a seventh day adventist out on the east coast.  They're pretty much GOP arch-conservatives.  He ran into Ted Cruz and took a picture with him and their spouses. 

He's still a great friend and I'll probably be visiting them in the spring, but man alive, I can't think of my friend without picturing that ratlike goober.  

Saw Ted at an event last week.  He's gained a fair amount of weight and grown a beard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

Saw Ted at an event last week.  He's gained a fair amount of weight and grown a beard.

So I'm a trendsetter now?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I'm not familiar with Sludge but this opinion piece about these Oil and Gas employee donations seems fair:

https://readsludge.com/2018/12/10/beto-orourke-oil-and-gas-contributions-2018/

Frankly, I don't think I care about this.  I believe Beto will largely support progressive environmental policies.

When I first red ren's post, I mistakenly believed that Beto was getting donations from oil and gas PACs. Instead, this article is just complaining about getting donations from people who work in the oil and gas industry. For a Texas Senate election.

I mean ... 🤷‍♂️

Edited by whoknew
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, he didn't get as much oil&gas money as Cruz did.  It's certainly possible that he just happens to have a huge swath of support from o&g employees.  It's easy enough to chalk it up to Texas politics.  

After meeting with Obama, joining the corporate banking wing of the D party, and his newfound backing from people like Neera Tanden, it seems clear that the party is closing ranks around O'Rourke for 2020.  It's hard to see any compelling policy ideas coming out of this.  

https://twitter.com/GarethPorter/status/1067791970075099136

If people are more concerned with image than substance, having the 'best looking man money can buy,' just say so.  He's certainly more palatable on the surface than Trump, more marketable too.  It's a pretty understandable position.  Just be honest about it.  

But to let the Dems just skate on tackling systemic inequality in this country- after 2016, after Trump, facing an environmental crisis, as our civil and moral fabric are being torn apart- it just seems unacceptable to go with someone lacking the depth to really address those issues.  To go with a 'unifying' skater guy that can do ollies over oil barrels full of cash, over someone talking honestly and candidly about these issues- I just don't understand.

Edited by ren hoek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

I've seen this story floating around...I can sort of understand it, but as a Bernie supporter, I don't subscribe.

 

Under Trump we are in reverse.  We have to stop going backwards, and any movement in the other direction is welcome.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2018 at 12:43 AM, ren hoek said:

After meeting with Obama, joining the corporate banking wing of the D party, and his newfound backing from people like Neera Tanden, it seems clear that the party is closing ranks around O'Rourke for 2020. 

That's a pretty giant leap in logic. Obama also met with Andrew Gillum, who is thinking of running for president. Does that mean the party is closing ranks around him? And I'm not really sure what it means to say he "joined the corporate banking wing". Did he sign a contract? A blood oath?

I'm very deliberately not making any choices about who I'm backing in '20. I'm also not sure what I think of Beto, or if he should even run. I feel the same way about him as I do about most of the other potential candidates: some things I like, some things that give me a lot of concern.

It's also possible (probable?) that a lot of the anti-Beto rumblings we're hearing from Bernie supporters is just online epherema, not actually backed in the real world. Still, to the extent it is real, I find the whole thing creepy and annoying.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O'Rourke seems to have a real talent for uniting people. I'm not saying he's the only one. There may be others who are just as effective. But I think a uniter is what we need, and he fits the bill. Maybe Klobuchar or someone else would be even better. I don't know. But I'd be happy with O'Rourke as the next President.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

O'Rourke seems to have a real talent for uniting people. I'm not saying he's the only one. There may be others who are just as effective. But I think a uniter is what we need, and he fits the bill. Maybe Klobuchar or someone else would be even better. I don't know. But I'd be happy with O'Rourke as the next President.

Beto is number one on my list at this point but I’m uncertain anyone can be a “uniter” these days.  Unless you’re just referring to uniting liberals and left-leaning independents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, proninja said:

What exactly do you mean by "this BS?"

Nominating a relatively new to the scene young male from Texas without a ton of experience? Just like in 2016?

I mean whoever the nominee is, to fall for misinformation amplified by forces who aim to divide and discourage voting for the Democratic nominee. The “Bernie voters are upset” about a guy not even a candidate yet smacks of more of the same BS from 2016; political monkey wrenching. I simply don’t believe real progressives are hand wringing over the progessive purity of two guys who haven’t announced yet, and completely believe stuff like this is more of the same BS that worked to help a criminal become president.

Edited by ericttspikes
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ericttspikes said:

I mean whoever the nominee is, to fall for misinformation amplified by forces who aim to divide and discourage voting for the Democratic nominee. The “Bernie voters are upset” about a guy not even a candidate yet smacks of more of the same BS from 2016; political monkey wrenching. I simply don’t believe real progressives are hand wringing over the progessive purity of two guys who haven’t announced yet, and completely believe stuff like this is more of the same BS that worked to help a criminal become president.

Yes.  This.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2018 at 6:02 PM, ericttspikes said:

Progressives truly deserve Trump if they fall for this BS again. 

You know who deserves Trump?  It's not progressives.  Progressives backed a candidate that would have almost certainly beaten Trump.  It's the Democratic party apparatus that coronated the wrong candidate, actively promoted Trump, told their media contacts to take Trump seriously- giving him billions of dollars in free air time- then lost to him.  That's who created Trump.  That's who deserves Trump.

What BS are progressives falling for here?  All I see is substantive critique of Beto's congressional voting record.  They see a politician that voted inline with oil & gas companies, voted inline with the banking industry, voted inline with Trump's immigration stance, and is afraid to even be called a "progressive."  They are concerned that Democrats are foisting another centrist onto the national scene, who will not address the environment, healthcare, or systemic inequality on a scale commensurate with the problems at hand.

O'Rourke is tall, handsome, and a compelling speaker.  Great.  He also has a troubling voting record for a candidate that's supposed to reflect democratic/left values, and fixing to enter the national stage on their behalf.  If you think honest scrutiny of his congressional record and FEC data are some sort of misinformation campaign, I'm not sure exactly how else you expect people to evaluate him.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

You know who deserves Trump?  It's not progressives.  Progressives backed a candidate that would have almost certainly beaten Trump.  It's the Democratic party apparatus that coronated the wrong candidate, actively promoted Trump, told their media contacts to take Trump seriously- giving him billions of dollars in free air time- then lost to him.  That's who created Trump.  That's who deserves Trump.

What BS are progressives falling for here?  All I see is substantive critique of Beto's congressional voting record.  They see a politician that voted inline with oil & gas companies, voted inline with the banking industry, voted inline with Trump's immigration stance, and is afraid to even be called a "progressive."  They are concerned that Democrats are foisting another centrist onto the national scene, who will not address the environment, healthcare, or systemic inequality on a scale commensurate with the problems at hand.

O'Rourke is tall, handsome, and a compelling speaker.  Great.  He also has a troubling voting record for a candidate that's supposed to reflect democratic/left values, and fixing to enter the national stage on their behalf.  If you think honest scrutiny of his congressional record and FEC data are some sort of misinformation campaign, I'm not sure exactly how else you expect people to evaluate him.  

Good thing a centrist Democrat didn’t win and let Trump  take care of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2018 at 8:38 PM, ericttspikes said:

I mean whoever the nominee is, to fall for misinformation amplified by forces who aim to divide and discourage voting for the Democratic nominee. The “Bernie voters are upset” about a guy not even a candidate yet smacks of more of the same BS from 2016; political monkey wrenching. I simply don’t believe real progressives are hand wringing over the progessive purity of two guys who haven’t announced yet, and completely believe stuff like this is more of the same BS that worked to help a criminal become president.

The absolute worst thing that could happen would be for Sanders to run again. It will be a repeat from 2016. Sanders running in 2020 is a guaranteed Trump presidency until 2024

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ren hoek said:

You know who deserves Trump?  It's not progressives.  Progressives backed a candidate that would have almost certainly beaten Trump.  It's the Democratic party apparatus that coronated the wrong candidate, actively promoted Trump, told their media contacts to take Trump seriously- giving him billions of dollars in free air time- then lost to him.  That's who created Trump.  That's who deserves Trump.

What BS are progressives falling for here?  All I see is substantive critique of Beto's congressional voting record.  They see a politician that voted inline with oil & gas companies, voted inline with the banking industry, voted inline with Trump's immigration stance, and is afraid to even be called a "progressive."  They are concerned that Democrats are foisting another centrist onto the national scene, who will not address the environment, healthcare, or systemic inequality on a scale commensurate with the problems at hand.

O'Rourke is tall, handsome, and a compelling speaker.  Great.  He also has a troubling voting record for a candidate that's supposed to reflect democratic/left values, and fixing to enter the national stage on their behalf.  If you think honest scrutiny of his congressional record and FEC data are some sort of misinformation campaign, I'm not sure exactly how else you expect people to evaluate him.  

If ren thinks Beta is centrist, perhaps I should reexamine him. Centrist is what I want. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder is Beta O`Rourke is related to Baba O`Riley?

Out here in the fields
I fight for my meals
I get my back into my living
I don't need to fight
To prove I'm right
I don't need to be forgiven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?

REG: #### off!

BRIAN: What?

REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.

FRANCIS: Wankers.

BRIAN: Can I... join your group?

REG: No. Piss off.

BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.

PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.

REG: Stumm.

JUDITH: Are you sure?

BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.

REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.

BRIAN: I do!

REG: Oh, yeah? How much?

BRIAN: A lot!

REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the ####ing Judean People's Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah...

JUDITH: Splitters.

P.F.J.: Splitters...

FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.

P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

REG: What?

LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.

REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!

LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.

REG: People's Front! C-huh.

FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?

REG: He's over there.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JuniorNB said:

The absolute worst thing that could happen would be for Sanders to run again. It will be a repeat from 2016. Sanders running in 2020 is a guaranteed Trump presidency until 2024

It's hard to imagine the Bernie Bros voting third party again. With Trump in the race anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ericttspikes said:

Good thing a centrist Democrat didn’t win and let Trump  take care of it.

It’s just amazing that people view scrutiny of the stuff he’s actually done in his political career as ‘misinformation’ ‘amplified’ by ‘forces’ who ‘aim to divide and discourage’.  Really?  Because it seems more like a frank policy critique than a misinformation campaign.  

Now people are suggesting it’s a Berniebro conspiracy to discredit Beto O’Rourke.  Is everything that makes Democrats look bad a Bernie/Russia conspiracy? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JuniorNB said:

The absolute worst thing that could happen would be for Sanders to run again. It will be a repeat from 2016. Sanders running in 2020 is a guaranteed Trump presidency until 2024

No, Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton.  The field was totally cleared for her.  Hillary Clinton was the one that lost to Trump.  Sanders probably would have won.  

A repeat of 2016 would be Hillary Clinton running again, getting anointed by the DNC again, promoting Trump in the primaries as a pied piper candidate again, and then losing to Trump again.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

If ren thinks Beta is centrist, perhaps I should reexamine him. Centrist is what I want. 

I think you would like him.  It’s not that he isn’t affable or likable.  It’s that people are evaluating him based on hopeychangey feelings rather than substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ren hoek said:

I think you would like him.  It’s not that he isn’t affable or likable.  It’s that people are evaluating him based on hopeychangey feelings rather than substance.

I haven’t really paid too much attention to him. I suppose I will. 

As you know, what I want is pro-business, pro-free trade, pro-establishment candidate who wants to continue our traditional international commitments. Bloomberg would be perfect for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HOT TAKE ALERT:

Most of us are not going to get our preferred candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2020.  That's just the reality of a broad field of outstanding primary candidates. The absolute best thing you can do this far out is to commit now to not being a petulant crybaby and to lining up to defeat Trump no matter who is the nominee. because whatever policy differences you might have with the nominee are de minimis compared to the policy differences most decent Americans have (or at least should have) with Trump.

 

  • Like 8
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

No, Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton.  The field was totally cleared for her.  Hillary Clinton was the one that lost to Trump.  Sanders probably would have won.  

A repeat of 2016 would be Hillary Clinton running again, getting anointed by the DNC again, promoting Trump in the primaries as a pied piper candidate again, and then losing to Trump again.  

 

Wrong. Sanders ads vehemently opposed Hillary and because the battle was tight, she became the enemy to a big portion of democratic voters. After she won, Sanders was very half-hearted in his endorsement of her. She remained an enemy in many democratic voter's minds. Causing low voter turnout. If a repeat happens in 2020, we have 4 more years of the mob boss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see Biden run with Beto as his running mate with the understanding that he’d only do one term and Beto would run in ‘24.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, NREC34 said:

I would like to see Biden run with Beto as his running mate with the understanding that he’d only do one term and Beto would run in ‘24.

This always sounds good on paper, but in reality you can’t ever have a candidate pledge to a one term Presidency. It weakens him or her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, NREC34 said:

I would like to see Biden run with Beto as his running mate with the understanding that he’d only do one term and Beto would run in ‘24.

Biden has a terrible legislative history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I haven’t really paid too much attention to him. I suppose I will. 

As you know, what I want is pro-business, pro-free trade, pro-establishment candidate who wants to continue our traditional international commitments. Bloomberg would be perfect for me. 

He’s pro-Wall Street, pro-TPP, learned to love Israel.  There’s a lot for you to like there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

He’s pro-Wall Street, pro-TPP, learned to love Israel.  There’s a lot for you to like there.  

I'm pretty sure Trump will have voters leery of ever voting in another billionaire. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.