Also a specifically minority justice angle to his plan, yet another thing notably lacking from the 'front runners'.
+7
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
Going over that Economist/YouGov poll again (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hrk03f83zc/econTabReport.pdf), specifically question 22: "Are there any presidential candidates that you would be disappointed if they became the Democratic nominee? (Select all that apply) Asked of those who say they will vote in the Democratic Presidential primary or caucus in 2020". Those numbers are fucking stark for Biden, in my opinion. Two particular points of interest, besides Warren's position as the overall least disappointing candidate:
1) She even out-performs Bernie in his target demo. 15% of 18-29'ers labeled Bernie as disappointing; only 10% of them labeled Warren that way.
2) Biden's supposed dominance among black voters is called into question here. Fully 51% of black voters stated they would not be disappointed by any of the candidates (presumably because they've forgotten about Williamson?). Furthermore, only 4% of them labeled Warren as disappointing, just less than Biden's 6%. It's only one poll, but it tells a pretty compelling story that Biden's numbers among black voters may be based on perceptions of electability, rather than simple preference.
To me, if this poll bears out, it's one of the most important numbers we could be talking about. Enthusiasm gaps kill Democratic candidates. We need a candidate that voters find worthwhile, not just one they think can win.
+2
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
The jist is, legalize marijuana, tax it, pay those taxes to people incarcerated because of marijuana
Huh, that's a pretty neat and comprehensive collection of policy. It's a bummer he's not doing better than Pete.
Is ATF a cabinet position?
no, it's part of the DOJ
also I don't think this policy qualifies him for that job
also also that kind of work is a pretty big step down for people with presidential/senate ambitions, he wouldn't take it and the offer would probably be perceived as an insult
Nah, but if she isn't gonna be president I'd like to keep my senator instead of her getting put in a mostly useless figurehead position. Warren as VP is like the second worst ending for me. We enshrine that incredibly competent and confident women can't win the presidency and can only be the moderately useless second that acts in support of some bullshit "great man" that can win the presidency, and I lose a senator that has in grand regularity followed my voting wishes. It's the worst disappointment next to trump winning again as far as im concerned, but again that's cause I really like having her as my senator acting upon my behalf. I like warren as president or my senator, I do not want her tucked up into a mostly useless role as some consolation prize.
+23
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Beto's marijuana policy is proof that Kamala Harris isn't serious about criminal justice reform
Nah, but if she isn't gonna be president I'd like to keep my senator instead of her getting put in a mostly useless figurehead position. Warren as VP is like the second worst ending for me. We enshrine that incredibly competent and confident women can't win the presidency and can only be the moderately useless second that acts in support of some bullshit "great man" that can win the presidency, and I lose a senator that has in grand regularity followed my voting wishes. It's the worst disappointment next to trump winning again as far as im concerned, but again that's cause I really like having her as my senator acting upon my behalf. I like warren as president or my senator, I do not want her tucked up into a mostly useless role as some consolation prize.
Warren or Bernie as VP is a fucking horrible idea. It's the "we plan to lose in 2028" model.
+10
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
I really don't like the fact that we view the last VP as the anointed successor but as long as that's true then yes, that should be a consideration made by candidates
Nah, but if she isn't gonna be president I'd like to keep my senator instead of her getting put in a mostly useless figurehead position. Warren as VP is like the second worst ending for me. We enshrine that incredibly competent and confident women can't win the presidency and can only be the moderately useless second that acts in support of some bullshit "great man" that can win the presidency, and I lose a senator that has in grand regularity followed my voting wishes. It's the worst disappointment next to trump winning again as far as im concerned, but again that's cause I really like having her as my senator acting upon my behalf. I like warren as president or my senator, I do not want her tucked up into a mostly useless role as some consolation prize.
Warren or Bernie as VP is a fucking horrible idea. It's the "we plan to lose in 2028" model.
In modern elections VPs have a rather terrible rate of victory.
I mean the N is tiny anyways.
Off the top of my head 4 have won after being VP*.
Truman and LBJ got the first time around after the president died in office giving then incumbency.
Nixon failed his first time, won a decade later basically.
Bush 1 won a single term after Reagan.
VP choice should not be made on the possibility of an election in 8 years. As it seems more likely that isn't going to be the determining factor.
I feel like "this VP is the person we need to run in 2028" and "the vp should be from a different wing of the party than the president" are goals functionally at odds.
I really don't like the fact that we view the last VP as the anointed successor but as long as that's true then yes, that should be a consideration made by candidates
I haven't actually watched a presidential race where a prior VP won. Pretty sure there was one when I was a kid but that was over 20 years ago and the world was real fuckin different. I don't think having been VP is viewed the same as it once was.
I really don't want a ticket based on the idea that we're too misogynistic to elect a ticket with a woman leading.
Me either, but after the crushing disappointment of The Election That Shall Not Be Named, I have very little confidence in the electorate, which 2018 has only done a tiny fraction to restore.
+2
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
I really don't like the fact that we view the last VP as the anointed successor but as long as that's true then yes, that should be a consideration made by candidates
I haven't actually watched a presidential race where a prior VP won. Pretty sure there was one when I was a kid but that was over 20 years ago and the world was real fuckin different. I don't think having been VP is viewed the same as it once was.
agreed
the ideal VP is someone who everyone generally likes and respects but isn't someone with presidential ambitions
it would be great if it were tradition, after completing a turn as VP, to diminish and go into the west, as it were
+11
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
I really don't want to strategize for 2028, or even 2024 right now. I want to win, and I want our country to do good for the first time in a long time.
I really don't want a ticket based on the idea that we're too misogynistic to elect a ticket with a woman leading.
Me either, but after the crushing disappointment of The Election That Shall Not Be Named, I have very little confidence in the electorate, which 2018 has only done a tiny fraction to restore.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy
Too many people worried about what their fellow voters will accept is how the whole party talks itself out of supporting the candidate they actually do like
I really don't like the fact that we view the last VP as the anointed successor but as long as that's true then yes, that should be a consideration made by candidates
I haven't actually watched a presidential race where a prior VP won. Pretty sure there was one when I was a kid but that was over 20 years ago and the world was real fuckin different. I don't think having been VP is viewed the same as it once was.
I'd make a joke about 2000, but the mods would probably make that a 4 letter word, too
I really don't want to strategize for 2028, or even 2024 right now. I want to win, and I want our country to do good for the first time in a long time.
I really don't want to strategize for 2028, or even 2024 right now. I want to win, and I want our country to do good for the first time in a long time.
Then what you want is Joe Biden.
The problem is I don't agree that he's a guaranteed win. He's extremely old, somewhat confused, and starting to show a lack of energy from his age. While Trump is not much younger he seems to be surprisingly energetic when presented with an opportunity to travel the country and boast about himself. We had a problem last time with Hillary not doing as many campaign events as she needed to do to win. I think Biden would repeat that.
I really don't want to strategize for 2028, or even 2024 right now. I want to win, and I want our country to do good for the first time in a long time.
Then what you want is Joe Biden.
I've already expressed my support for Warren, because I feel she has a much better chance of winning than people want to give her credit for.
I'm also still waiting for your reply to my questions last thread. They were probably a bit too pointed/leading, but I'm still quite curious.
Beto's marijuana policy is proof that Kamala Harris isn't serious about criminal justice reform
I think this was always fairly evident based on her bringing up her experience as a prosecutor as a positive. It screamed 'I'm tough on crime, and here's the proof.' And even if she's talking about reform now, it's purely in a 'well things were great when *I* was in law enforcement, but *now* things need to change, which ignores the systemic issues at play even during her tenure.
In office, the main problem with Biden would be that he trusts Republicans and would try to work with them. We need to have a new generation of Democrats who understand the sly game that the modern Republicans are playing, and play accordingly.
+8
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Biden would have been an acceptable, if boring and too far to the right choice back in the 80s-90s. If I had a time machine I wouldn’t go back and vote for him, but there was plausible deniability for the type of candidate he is back then.
Nominating him today would signal that we as a party are unwilling to learn from the past several decades of bad faith, obstructionism, voodoo economics, triangulation, and halfway-Republican policies that are responsible for the mess we currently find ourselves in.
He’s the candidate that Boomers seem to want us to nominate, which doesn’t say volumes as much as it screams libraries.
I wonder how Beto would be doing if he had announced his candidacy with his current plan and attitude.
Probably the biggest knock against him was that he couldn't answer why he was running in the first place.
I think you are right that his entry into the debate hurt him. I still think of him as the guy who sat on the fence almost as long as Biden, going on tours to find himself after his loss in Texas.
I wonder how Beto would be doing if he had announced his candidacy with his current plan and attitude.
Probably the biggest knock against him was that he couldn't answer why he was running in the first place.
I think you are right that his entry into the debate hurt him. I still think of him as the guy who sat on the fence almost as long as Biden, going on tours to find himself after his loss in Texas.
In office, the main problem with Biden would be that he trusts Republicans and would try to work with them. We need to have a new generation of Democrats who understand the sly game that the modern Republicans are playing, and play accordingly.
I think we need a generation of Democrats who refuse to play the game and are willing to bloody the nose of any Republican that tries
In office, the main problem with Biden would be that he trusts Republicans and would try to work with them. We need to have a new generation of Democrats who understand the sly game that the modern Republicans are playing, and play accordingly.
I think we need a generation of Democrats who refuse to play the game and are willing to bloody the nose of any Republican that tries
That's more or less the latest batch of freshmen. None of them have the fond memories that Biden does of those incredibly civil segregationists.
It's why I don't see Biden getting far. For most Dem voters under 40 he wants to create a compromise with a party that has only sought to malign and eradicate us.
There have been 24 VPs since 1900, 6 of whom won an election for president and the former VPs who have run in this timeframe won less than half the time
The highest and best use of the office is
1. Don’t take away a valuable current seat
2. Can take over if the president dies
In office, the main problem with Biden would be that he trusts Republicans and would try to work with them. We need to have a new generation of Democrats who understand the sly game that the modern Republicans are playing, and play accordingly.
I think we need a generation of Democrats who refuse to play the game and are willing to bloody the nose of any Republican that tries
That's more or less the latest batch of freshmen. None of them have the fond memories that Biden does of those incredibly civil segregationists.
It's why I don't see Biden getting far. For most Dem voters under 40 he wants to create a compromise with a party that has only sought to malign and eradicate us.
The problem is those people don't vote as much as other people. And also that Biden's got a lot of support from other demographics too.
In office, the main problem with Biden would be that he trusts Republicans and would try to work with them. We need to have a new generation of Democrats who understand the sly game that the modern Republicans are playing, and play accordingly.
I think we need a generation of Democrats who refuse to play the game and are willing to bloody the nose of any Republican that tries
They need to play the same game.
When (if) Democrats get power and want to create a law or policy, they should not think "How can we work with Republicans to get this law passed in a bipartisan fashion, acceptable to both sides?" They should think "How can we force this through before Republicans can stop it?"
Also a specifically minority justice angle to his plan, yet another thing notably lacking from the 'front runners'.
This is not true. Pick a Warren plan at random on her Medium page. I will guarantee there's an element specifically targeted to narrow the wealth gap or justice gap or voting gap or whatever.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Harris’s plan, one that she’s rolling out alongside House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler (D-NY), would decriminalize the possession of marijuana at the federal level, an effort backed by many of her fellow 2020 Democrats. Harris’s proposal goes one step further, however, imposing a 5 percent federal tax on the sale of marijuana that would be used, in part, to fund grant programs that help individuals who have been disproportionately penalized for marijuana possession in the past.
...
Her proposal would impose a 5-percent federal tax on the sale of marijuana in the states that have legalized it, a levy that’s similar to the federal tax that currently applies to the sale of cigarettes. Half the revenue from that tax would be funneled into a group of grant programs dedicated to ensuring that communities that have faced discrimination over marijuana possession reap the benefits of its legalization.
Those grants would fund job training, legal aid, and rehabilitation for individuals who’ve experienced marijuana-related convictions in the past. Additionally, they would help those “adversely affected by the War on Drugs” obtain licenses to sell marijuana, and give small businesses involved in marijuana sales and run by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals” a financial boost.
The federal subsidies for marijuana-related businesses stood out to Kamin.
“You see the various candidates positioning themselves on this issue, and this is the most progressive one on that continuum,” he told Vox.
Harris’s bill also includes an important nondiscrimination tenet that ensures that individuals who have used or possessed marijuana in the past will still be eligible for public assistance, and won’t face negative effects under immigration laws. Currently, people convicted of marijuana possession can be barred from benefits, like access to public housing, and could face penalties, including deportation, in immigration cases.
Also a specifically minority justice angle to his plan, yet another thing notably lacking from the 'front runners'.
This is not true. Pick a Warren plan at random on her Medium page. I will guarantee there's an element specifically targeted to narrow the wealth gap or justice gap or voting gap or whatever.
She even has plans specifically targeting women of color in the workplace, the best Native American outreach and tribal development plan that was developed in conjunction with one of the first female Native American congressional members, and all her plans as pointed out have parts that talk about specific steps to work with underserved communities of color.
Biden would have been an acceptable, if boring and too far to the right choice back in the 80s-90s. If I had a time machine I wouldn’t go back and vote for him, but there was plausible deniability for the type of candidate he is back then.
Nominating him today would signal that we as a party are unwilling to learn from the past several decades of bad faith, obstructionism, voodoo economics, triangulation, and halfway-Republican policies that are responsible for the mess we currently find ourselves in.
He’s the candidate that Boomers seem to want us to nominate, which doesn’t say volumes as much as it screams libraries.
Also a specifically minority justice angle to his plan, yet another thing notably lacking from the 'front runners'.
This is not true. Pick a Warren plan at random on her Medium page. I will guarantee there's an element specifically targeted to narrow the wealth gap or justice gap or voting gap or whatever.
A rising progressive tide lifts all boats eh? Not really dude.
Gun Violence - one mention of minorities, in a paragraph related to racial violence. Nothing about addressing gun crime in minority communities, gang violence, none of it.
Maybe we're starting to sniff out why she doesn't resonate with black Americans...
Posts
1) She even out-performs Bernie in his target demo. 15% of 18-29'ers labeled Bernie as disappointing; only 10% of them labeled Warren that way.
2) Biden's supposed dominance among black voters is called into question here. Fully 51% of black voters stated they would not be disappointed by any of the candidates (presumably because they've forgotten about Williamson?). Furthermore, only 4% of them labeled Warren as disappointing, just less than Biden's 6%. It's only one poll, but it tells a pretty compelling story that Biden's numbers among black voters may be based on perceptions of electability, rather than simple preference.
To me, if this poll bears out, it's one of the most important numbers we could be talking about. Enthusiasm gaps kill Democratic candidates. We need a candidate that voters find worthwhile, not just one they think can win.
no, it's part of the DOJ
also I don't think this policy qualifies him for that job
also also that kind of work is a pretty big step down for people with presidential/senate ambitions, he wouldn't take it and the offer would probably be perceived as an insult
Warren or Bernie as VP is a fucking horrible idea. It's the "we plan to lose in 2028" model.
In modern elections VPs have a rather terrible rate of victory.
I mean the N is tiny anyways.
Off the top of my head 4 have won after being VP*.
Truman and LBJ got the first time around after the president died in office giving then incumbency.
Nixon failed his first time, won a decade later basically.
Bush 1 won a single term after Reagan.
VP choice should not be made on the possibility of an election in 8 years. As it seems more likely that isn't going to be the determining factor.
I haven't actually watched a presidential race where a prior VP won. Pretty sure there was one when I was a kid but that was over 20 years ago and the world was real fuckin different. I don't think having been VP is viewed the same as it once was.
Me either, but after the crushing disappointment of The Election That Shall Not Be Named, I have very little confidence in the electorate, which 2018 has only done a tiny fraction to restore.
agreed
the ideal VP is someone who everyone generally likes and respects but isn't someone with presidential ambitions
it would be great if it were tradition, after completing a turn as VP, to diminish and go into the west, as it were
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy
Too many people worried about what their fellow voters will accept is how the whole party talks itself out of supporting the candidate they actually do like
I'd make a joke about 2000, but the mods would probably make that a 4 letter word, too
But yeah, bush the elder was the last one in.
Then what you want is Joe Biden.
The problem is I don't agree that he's a guaranteed win. He's extremely old, somewhat confused, and starting to show a lack of energy from his age. While Trump is not much younger he seems to be surprisingly energetic when presented with an opportunity to travel the country and boast about himself. We had a problem last time with Hillary not doing as many campaign events as she needed to do to win. I think Biden would repeat that.
I've already expressed my support for Warren, because I feel she has a much better chance of winning than people want to give her credit for.
I'm also still waiting for your reply to my questions last thread. They were probably a bit too pointed/leading, but I'm still quite curious.
I think this was always fairly evident based on her bringing up her experience as a prosecutor as a positive. It screamed 'I'm tough on crime, and here's the proof.' And even if she's talking about reform now, it's purely in a 'well things were great when *I* was in law enforcement, but *now* things need to change, which ignores the systemic issues at play even during her tenure.
A pyrrhic victory.
Damnit, Stabbity, I was just about to post "Biden/Pyrrhus 2020".
just kicking every can in sight
Nominating him today would signal that we as a party are unwilling to learn from the past several decades of bad faith, obstructionism, voodoo economics, triangulation, and halfway-Republican policies that are responsible for the mess we currently find ourselves in.
He’s the candidate that Boomers seem to want us to nominate, which doesn’t say volumes as much as it screams libraries.
Probably the biggest knock against him was that he couldn't answer why he was running in the first place.
I think you are right that his entry into the debate hurt him. I still think of him as the guy who sat on the fence almost as long as Biden, going on tours to find himself after his loss in Texas.
Maybe he just found himself.
I think we need a generation of Democrats who refuse to play the game and are willing to bloody the nose of any Republican that tries
That's more or less the latest batch of freshmen. None of them have the fond memories that Biden does of those incredibly civil segregationists.
It's why I don't see Biden getting far. For most Dem voters under 40 he wants to create a compromise with a party that has only sought to malign and eradicate us.
The highest and best use of the office is
1. Don’t take away a valuable current seat
2. Can take over if the president dies
That’s it
The problem is those people don't vote as much as other people. And also that Biden's got a lot of support from other demographics too.
They need to play the same game.
When (if) Democrats get power and want to create a law or policy, they should not think "How can we work with Republicans to get this law passed in a bipartisan fashion, acceptable to both sides?" They should think "How can we force this through before Republicans can stop it?"
This is not true. Pick a Warren plan at random on her Medium page. I will guarantee there's an element specifically targeted to narrow the wealth gap or justice gap or voting gap or whatever.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/23/20703691/kamala-harris-marijuana-decriminalization
She came out with basically the same plan six weeks ago
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
She even has plans specifically targeting women of color in the workplace, the best Native American outreach and tribal development plan that was developed in conjunction with one of the first female Native American congressional members, and all her plans as pointed out have parts that talk about specific steps to work with underserved communities of color.
Biden, too far right in the 80s??
Come on now
A rising progressive tide lifts all boats eh? Not really dude.
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/a-plan-for-economic-patriotism-13b879f4cfc7
Literally spun the mousewheel and clicked - nothing. Defend & Create American Jobs, but no mention of minorities whatsoever.
Spin again, https://medium.com/@teamwarren/protecting-our-communities-from-gun-violence-a2ebf7abd9be
Gun Violence - one mention of minorities, in a paragraph related to racial violence. Nothing about addressing gun crime in minority communities, gang violence, none of it.
Maybe we're starting to sniff out why she doesn't resonate with black Americans...