The more of a firebrand a candidate is the more energized the opposition will be to defeat them, and there will be little to no cross partisan support. If this party wants to put forward a risky candidate, I just hope they come out to vote in numbers to back them up.
Putting forward the "safe" candidate has led to multiple humiliating defeats in living memory.
And yet who was the last risky candidate Democrats ever won with?
I may have thought he was a garbage president but Obama was a risky choice based almost entirely in his speaking ability.
The more of a firebrand a candidate is the more energized the opposition will be to defeat them, and there will be little to no cross partisan support. If this party wants to put forward a risky candidate, I just hope they come out to vote in numbers to back them up.
Putting forward the "safe" candidate has led to multiple humiliating defeats in living memory.
And yet who was the last risky candidate Democrats ever won with?
Obama, Clinton, JFK
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
The more of a firebrand a candidate is the more energized the opposition will be to defeat them, and there will be little to no cross partisan support. If this party wants to put forward a risky candidate, I just hope they come out to vote in numbers to back them up.
Putting forward the "safe" candidate has led to multiple humiliating defeats in living memory.
And yet who was the last risky candidate Democrats ever won with?
I may have thought he was a garbage president but Obama was a risky choice based almost entirely in his speaking ability.
Obama was not risky at all. He was only remarkable in the fact that he was not white, but if he had simply been another middle age white guy he would just be another typical Democrat with good speaking ability.
The more of a firebrand a candidate is the more energized the opposition will be to defeat them, and there will be little to no cross partisan support. If this party wants to put forward a risky candidate, I just hope they come out to vote in numbers to back them up.
Putting forward the "safe" candidate has led to multiple humiliating defeats in living memory.
And yet who was the last risky candidate Democrats ever won with?
I may have thought he was a garbage president but Obama was a risky choice based almost entirely in his speaking ability.
Obama was not risky at all. He was only remarkable in the fact that he was not white, but if he had simply been another middle age white guy he would just be another typical Democrat with good speaking ability.
"Aside from being black" is the mother of all caveats
The more of a firebrand a candidate is the more energized the opposition will be to defeat them, and there will be little to no cross partisan support. If this party wants to put forward a risky candidate, I just hope they come out to vote in numbers to back them up.
Putting forward the "safe" candidate has led to multiple humiliating defeats in living memory.
And yet who was the last risky candidate Democrats ever won with?
I may have thought he was a garbage president but Obama was a risky choice based almost entirely in his speaking ability.
Obama was not risky at all. He was only remarkable in the fact that he was not white, but if he had simply been another middle age white guy he would just be another typical Democrat with good speaking ability.
Ah yes. America: the land where blackness is not really that big a deal compared to other things.
I am not surprised nothing major from Warren. I think that is a strength to brush off an attack and turn it into a stump speech.
I only watched a little bit, but Warren seems the least “over-practiced zinger/line giver” of all, while most everyone else came across as bad actors reading lines of sick burns
That seems great, since zingers against Trump are one of the most overdone, low effort things ever. Just ask the mod team.
I would say if anything, Republicans are far better at electing risky candidates than Democrats, due to their more inherent tendencies to march in lock step no matter what. And the last Republican primary was actually notable in how diverse all the candidates were.
I just don’t see Democrats as a party of risky candidates because someone inevitably gets burned and it becomes a circular firing squad.
chokem on
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Biden won't win. I really wish he'd just drop out.
I can't fathom anyone thinking Barrack Hussein Obama wasn't risky back in 2008.
Meanwhile the top three contenders for this primary vary a good amount between each other either through policy or background. With a good amount of diversity with the rest that are still in the game.
I'm voting Yang in the primary, but I've come to the conclusion that I'd like to see Warren as his Secretary of Education, Castro can be Secretary of HUD again too, and Elon Musk as his Secretary of Energy or Secretary of Transportation. Sanders might make a good Secretary of Labor as well. I'm just spitballing here though.
I'm voting Yang in the primary, but I've come to the conclusion that I'd like to see Warren as his Secretary of Education, Castro can be Secretary of HUD again too, and Elon Musk as his Secretary of Energy or Secretary of Transportation. Sanders might make a good Secretary of Labor as well. I'm just spitballing here though.
Because the model of constantly hemorraghing money for flights of fancy instills a lot of faith in him being in charge of essential services?
I'm voting Yang in the primary, but I've come to the conclusion that I'd like to see Warren as his Secretary of Education, Castro can be Secretary of HUD again too, and Elon Musk as his Secretary of Energy or Secretary of Transportation. Sanders might make a good Secretary of Labor as well. I'm just spitballing here though.
I'm voting Yang in the primary, but I've come to the conclusion that I'd like to see Warren as his Secretary of Education, Castro can be Secretary of HUD again too, and Elon Musk as his Secretary of Energy or Secretary of Transportation. Sanders might make a good Secretary of Labor as well. I'm just spitballing here though.
Because the model of constantly hemorraghing money for flights of fancy instills a lot of faith in him being in charge of essential services?
Furthermore, "Department of Energy" is an euphemism, because you don't want it named "Department of Nuclear Weapons". There's a reason why the department is traditionally headed by a physicist.
I'm voting Yang in the primary, but I've come to the conclusion that I'd like to see Warren as his Secretary of Education, Castro can be Secretary of HUD again too, and Elon Musk as his Secretary of Energy or Secretary of Transportation. Sanders might make a good Secretary of Labor as well. I'm just spitballing here though.
Curious why you prefer Yang to others?
He is the only one talking about automation, which is coming faster and will hit the economy harder than any of these career politicians seem to understand. I was on board with Bernie in 2016 but less so this time, as his idea of a federal jobs guarantee seems less realistic than universal basic income without becoming pure wage slavery or creating thousands of pointless jobs for the sake of having enough jobs, so expect even more excessive bureaucracy or 'Wal-Mart Greeters' at every business in the country. The way technology is going, there is simply going to be less jobs available in the future. If it takes 10 engineers to replace 100 factory workers, you aren't going to retrain those factory workers to be engineers, nor would you need 100 more engineers, who would want an engineer salary to go with it. We don't need policies that stifle innovation and automation, we need policies that allow people to survive without those jobs that are no longer needed. If we end up with someone completely out of touch like Biden, I fear we are in for one hell of a recession and skyrocketing unemployment rates. Though I would still vote for him over Trump though, for reasons too numerous to list.
Plus he supports other policies I like such as Medicare for all, universal pre-K, gun safety, net neutrality, congressional term limits, etc
Im skeptical that this time automation will mean long term mass unemployment.
I... am quite worried about automation, to be honest. I think there's a good chance that if we don't destroy the world in another way, automation will have a pretty big negative impact on jobs and the economy.
It's also something that we could, if we really needed to and had the political will, make big sweeping changes on a timeline of months to solve. Climate change just doesn't have that option, so it'll always be a bigger deal for me. There are also enough other problems right now that automation really falls pretty far down my list.
I'm voting Yang in the primary, but I've come to the conclusion that I'd like to see Warren as his Secretary of Education, Castro can be Secretary of HUD again too, and Elon Musk as his Secretary of Energy or Secretary of Transportation. Sanders might make a good Secretary of Labor as well. I'm just spitballing here though.
Because the model of constantly hemorraghing money for flights of fancy instills a lot of faith in him being in charge of essential services?
Furthermore, "Department of Energy" is an euphemism, because you don't want it named "Department of Nuclear Weapons". There's a reason why the department is traditionally headed by a physicist.
That's one way for him to get a step forward on his "Nuke Mars to create an atmosphere" plan, one supposes.
The more of a firebrand a candidate is the more energized the opposition will be to defeat them, and there will be little to no cross partisan support. If this party wants to put forward a risky candidate, I just hope they come out to vote in numbers to back them up.
Putting forward the "safe" candidate has led to multiple humiliating defeats in living memory.
And yet who was the last risky candidate Democrats ever won with?
Any risky candidate who won in the past is going to seem safe today because, well, they won, so obviously they weren't really that risky, right?
On the flipside, the "safe" candidates who lost are going to seem riskier than they might have been at the time, because with 20/20 hindsight we can see all the flaws that made their election not as certain as it appeared. Yet the biggest Democratic losers of the 20th century were almost all consensus candidates, or chosen by the party bigwigs, or darlings of the pundits and policy wonks, i.e. "safe" candidates as most of us view them today.
I can't fathom anyone thinking Barrack Hussein Obama wasn't risky back in 2008.
Meanwhile the top three contenders for this primary vary a good amount between each other either through policy or background. With a good amount of diversity with the rest that are still in the game.
At the time it may have seemed risky, but in retrospect it really wasn’t.
Accepting Barack Obama only required a person to clear one hurdle: Does it matter that Obama is black? It’s trivial to realize no, it doesn’t matter, and move on. Everything else about him was pretty standard issue. In fact the country probably would have been ready for a black president much earlier, but it’s just that Obama was the first decent option to come up.
The current crop of candidates is not standard issue, some of them hold controversial opinions that are repulsive even to some Democrats. For people to digest and accept those values requires a lot more effort than simply accepting a person may not be the color you expected, and that’s where the risk is.
People here seem to think it’s ok to take a risk this election because there’s a shitty president in office.
But don’t forget, for some people opting out of voting and enduring Trump for another 4 years is a perfectly valid option if it means they can vote for a better Democrat in 4 years, as opposed to helping someone they don’t like much get elected into office and then having to wait 8 years for them to get out before a new Democrat is available. Personally I feel that is the route I would take if the candidate ended up being someone I couldn’t stand, like Yang for instance.
I can't fathom anyone thinking Barrack Hussein Obama wasn't risky back in 2008.
Meanwhile the top three contenders for this primary vary a good amount between each other either through policy or background. With a good amount of diversity with the rest that are still in the game.
At the time it may have seemed risky, but in retrospect it really wasn’t.
Accepting Barack Obama only required a person to clear one hurdle: Does it matter that Obama is black? It’s trivial to realize no, it doesn’t matter, and move on. Everything else about him was pretty standard issue. In fact the country probably would have been ready for a black president much earlier, but it’s just that Obama was the first decent option to come up.
The current crop of candidates is not standard issue, some of them hold controversial opinions that are repulsive even to some Democrats. For people to digest and accept those values requires a lot more effort than simply accepting a person may not be the color you expected, and that’s where the risk is.
Considering what 2008 was actually like, considering what 2019 is like, I'm pretty sure it's anything but trivial.
Personal anecdote
Growing up, I believed I would see the first black President—when my own children were in college. If you had told me in 2005 that it would happen before I turned 20, I would've thought you were insane.
When he started pulling ahead of Hillary, I remember my father's utter certainty that white people "would turn out in droves" to keep a black person from the White House.
If I live to be 200 years old, I will never forget what it felt like to watch that electoral count hit 270.
The idea that he wasn't risky is hindsight of the highest order. His mere presence spawned an entire genre of conspiracy theories. Most Presidents have to get to shot to manage that.
People here seem to think it’s ok to take a risk this election because there’s a shitty president in office.
But don’t forget, for some people opting out of voting and enduring Trump for another 4 years is a perfectly valid option if it means they can vote for a better Democrat in 4 years, as opposed to helping someone they don’t like much get elected into office and then having to wait 8 years for them to get out before a new Democrat is available. Personally I feel that is the route I would take if the candidate ended up being someone I couldn’t stand, like Yang for instance.
I disagree, I think most want a "risky" candidate who excites them because they believe (correctly IMO) that this election will be decided by the GOTV effort. Everyone already has an opinion on whether they love or hate Trump, with very few who are ambivalent, and you aren't going to get the people who are already thinking of voting for him again by presenting a nonthreatening alternative (in fact, one could make an argument that is the last sort of candidate who would make such a voter switch parties)
So it's about exciting the base to come out and vote. And a Biden run isn't going to excite people who want to see the progressive party in America commit to actually doing something, well, progressive, and not what sounds like as just return to what it was like before Trump.
The more of a firebrand a candidate is the more energized the opposition will be to defeat them, and there will be little to no cross partisan support. If this party wants to put forward a risky candidate, I just hope they come out to vote in numbers to back them up.
Putting forward the "safe" candidate has led to multiple humiliating defeats in living memory.
And yet who was the last risky candidate Democrats ever won with?
I may have thought he was a garbage president but Obama was a risky choice based almost entirely in his speaking ability.
Obama was not risky at all. He was only remarkable in the fact that he was not white, but if he had simply been another middle age white guy he would just be another typical Democrat with good speaking ability.
"Aside from being black" is the mother of all caveats
Well, I'd argue that's "aside from being a woman", but that one's just older is all.
Elections are won on turnout, not conversion (if you look for conversion, it's parties that convert, not the voters - see the whole civil rights era realignment and the GOP welcoming the Klan with open arms)
People here seem to think it’s ok to take a risk this election because there’s a shitty president in office.
But don’t forget, for some people opting out of voting and enduring Trump for another 4 years is a perfectly valid option if it means they can vote for a better Democrat in 4 years, as opposed to helping someone they don’t like much get elected into office and then having to wait 8 years for them to get out before a new Democrat is available. Personally I feel that is the route I would take if the candidate ended up being someone I couldn’t stand, like Yang for instance.
This again applies just as much in the other direction. It's not really a good argument for Biden.
+2
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
Hillary Clinton was the safest candidate we had in 2016 -- an establishment darling, an experienced politician, even someone with prior experience as an actual presidential candidate.
Fuck safe. If there's one thing the past 4 years have taught me, it's that we don't actually know what safe means.
+29
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Im skeptical that this time automation will mean long term mass unemployment.
I... am quite worried about automation, to be honest. I think there's a good chance that if we don't destroy the world in another way, automation will have a pretty big negative impact on jobs and the economy.
Automation isn't a force of nature. You're not going to automate if it's not actually a benefit. Automation won't destroy the economy.
I don't think we need to worry about automation as a cause for mass unemployment, because there is no reason society's response up till now won't work in the future. Instead of mass unemployment (or 20 hour work weeks!@2), we just create more bullshit jobs that are mostly pushing paper around. It is a terrible solution, of course.
People here seem to think it’s ok to take a risk this election because there’s a shitty president in office.
But don’t forget, for some people opting out of voting and enduring Trump for another 4 years is a perfectly valid option if it means they can vote for a better Democrat in 4 years, as opposed to helping someone they don’t like much get elected into office and then having to wait 8 years for them to get out before a new Democrat is available. Personally I feel that is the route I would take if the candidate ended up being someone I couldn’t stand, like Yang for instance.
I disagree, I think most want a "risky" candidate who excites them because they believe (correctly IMO) that this election will be decided by the GOTV effort. Everyone already has an opinion on whether they love or hate Trump, with very few who are ambivalent, and you aren't going to get the people who are already thinking of voting for him again by presenting a nonthreatening alternative (in fact, one could make an argument that is the last sort of candidate who would make such a voter switch parties)
So it's about exciting the base to come out and vote. And a Biden run isn't going to excite people who want to see the progressive party in America commit to actually doing something, well, progressive, and not what sounds like as just return to what it was like before Trump.
More than that, I'd argue do you want to get Americans exited? You want to get them out there? You want to make them stand up and vote?
Don't play it safe. Sell em on the big dream, the big goal, the big adventure.
"We promise to go the Moon in this decade" is famous for a reason.
As an American, I want to do something big, something monumental. Don't bore me with petty ass plans for an incremental improvement to highway repair funds. Tell me we are going to repair all the highways, bridges and infrastructure in America by 2025. Tell me we are building a solar station in Death Valley big enough to power five states during the day.
Tell we are getting a fricking moon base.
Don't bore me with normality. Tell me where you want to go, and if I hear the words "back to" I am so outta here.
my basic take on biden is he represents the demographic of old white guys who fucking hate millennials
i think there's a lot of people in the party who are constantly incredibly angry that they're now expected to sit there and be lectured by these fucking multiracial woke teens, instead of just doing boy's-club politics like they normally would
and also a lot of people who just want somebody that vaguely feels presidential, which he still manages to do if you don't listen to the words he's actually saying or notice that his eyes are exploding and his teeth falling out
You're not going to automate if it's not actually a benefit. Automation won't destroy the economy.
I'd love to agree with you, but with the lack of foresight/care that has been shown by Silicon Valley types in the past, I think it's definitely a very real concern.
Posts
I may have thought he was a garbage president but Obama was a risky choice based almost entirely in his speaking ability.
Obama, Clinton, JFK
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Obama was not risky at all. He was only remarkable in the fact that he was not white, but if he had simply been another middle age white guy he would just be another typical Democrat with good speaking ability.
"Aside from being black" is the mother of all caveats
Ah yes. America: the land where blackness is not really that big a deal compared to other things.
Its only after 8 years of governing like any other boring mildly shitty democrat that he seems safe.
That seems great, since zingers against Trump are one of the most overdone, low effort things ever. Just ask the mod team.
I just don’t see Democrats as a party of risky candidates because someone inevitably gets burned and it becomes a circular firing squad.
Meanwhile the top three contenders for this primary vary a good amount between each other either through policy or background. With a good amount of diversity with the rest that are still in the game.
He would probably win actually. He’d just be a bad President, so he should drop out.
Because the model of constantly hemorraghing money for flights of fancy instills a lot of faith in him being in charge of essential services?
Curious why you prefer Yang to others?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Furthermore, "Department of Energy" is an euphemism, because you don't want it named "Department of Nuclear Weapons". There's a reason why the department is traditionally headed by a physicist.
Apparently this debate has pulled in some fresh blood and I’m here for it
He is the only one talking about automation, which is coming faster and will hit the economy harder than any of these career politicians seem to understand. I was on board with Bernie in 2016 but less so this time, as his idea of a federal jobs guarantee seems less realistic than universal basic income without becoming pure wage slavery or creating thousands of pointless jobs for the sake of having enough jobs, so expect even more excessive bureaucracy or 'Wal-Mart Greeters' at every business in the country. The way technology is going, there is simply going to be less jobs available in the future. If it takes 10 engineers to replace 100 factory workers, you aren't going to retrain those factory workers to be engineers, nor would you need 100 more engineers, who would want an engineer salary to go with it. We don't need policies that stifle innovation and automation, we need policies that allow people to survive without those jobs that are no longer needed. If we end up with someone completely out of touch like Biden, I fear we are in for one hell of a recession and skyrocketing unemployment rates. Though I would still vote for him over Trump though, for reasons too numerous to list.
Plus he supports other policies I like such as Medicare for all, universal pre-K, gun safety, net neutrality, congressional term limits, etc
Leaving a senate seat for a 2nd rate cabinet job is insane
She'd probably take Treasury if somebody offered it to her.
I... am quite worried about automation, to be honest. I think there's a good chance that if we don't destroy the world in another way, automation will have a pretty big negative impact on jobs and the economy.
It's also something that we could, if we really needed to and had the political will, make big sweeping changes on a timeline of months to solve. Climate change just doesn't have that option, so it'll always be a bigger deal for me. There are also enough other problems right now that automation really falls pretty far down my list.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Yeah, it's only considered unemployment when people are still looking for a job.
That's one way for him to get a step forward on his "Nuke Mars to create an atmosphere" plan, one supposes.
Any risky candidate who won in the past is going to seem safe today because, well, they won, so obviously they weren't really that risky, right?
On the flipside, the "safe" candidates who lost are going to seem riskier than they might have been at the time, because with 20/20 hindsight we can see all the flaws that made their election not as certain as it appeared. Yet the biggest Democratic losers of the 20th century were almost all consensus candidates, or chosen by the party bigwigs, or darlings of the pundits and policy wonks, i.e. "safe" candidates as most of us view them today.
At the time it may have seemed risky, but in retrospect it really wasn’t.
Accepting Barack Obama only required a person to clear one hurdle: Does it matter that Obama is black? It’s trivial to realize no, it doesn’t matter, and move on. Everything else about him was pretty standard issue. In fact the country probably would have been ready for a black president much earlier, but it’s just that Obama was the first decent option to come up.
The current crop of candidates is not standard issue, some of them hold controversial opinions that are repulsive even to some Democrats. For people to digest and accept those values requires a lot more effort than simply accepting a person may not be the color you expected, and that’s where the risk is.
People here seem to think it’s ok to take a risk this election because there’s a shitty president in office.
But don’t forget, for some people opting out of voting and enduring Trump for another 4 years is a perfectly valid option if it means they can vote for a better Democrat in 4 years, as opposed to helping someone they don’t like much get elected into office and then having to wait 8 years for them to get out before a new Democrat is available. Personally I feel that is the route I would take if the candidate ended up being someone I couldn’t stand, like Yang for instance.
Considering what 2008 was actually like, considering what 2019 is like, I'm pretty sure it's anything but trivial.
Personal anecdote
When he started pulling ahead of Hillary, I remember my father's utter certainty that white people "would turn out in droves" to keep a black person from the White House.
If I live to be 200 years old, I will never forget what it felt like to watch that electoral count hit 270.
The idea that he wasn't risky is hindsight of the highest order. His mere presence spawned an entire genre of conspiracy theories. Most Presidents have to get to shot to manage that.
I disagree, I think most want a "risky" candidate who excites them because they believe (correctly IMO) that this election will be decided by the GOTV effort. Everyone already has an opinion on whether they love or hate Trump, with very few who are ambivalent, and you aren't going to get the people who are already thinking of voting for him again by presenting a nonthreatening alternative (in fact, one could make an argument that is the last sort of candidate who would make such a voter switch parties)
So it's about exciting the base to come out and vote. And a Biden run isn't going to excite people who want to see the progressive party in America commit to actually doing something, well, progressive, and not what sounds like as just return to what it was like before Trump.
Well, I'd argue that's "aside from being a woman", but that one's just older is all.
Elections are won on turnout, not conversion (if you look for conversion, it's parties that convert, not the voters - see the whole civil rights era realignment and the GOP welcoming the Klan with open arms)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
This again applies just as much in the other direction. It's not really a good argument for Biden.
Fuck safe. If there's one thing the past 4 years have taught me, it's that we don't actually know what safe means.
Automation isn't a force of nature. You're not going to automate if it's not actually a benefit. Automation won't destroy the economy.
I don't think we need to worry about automation as a cause for mass unemployment, because there is no reason society's response up till now won't work in the future. Instead of mass unemployment (or 20 hour work weeks!@2), we just create more bullshit jobs that are mostly pushing paper around. It is a terrible solution, of course.
More than that, I'd argue do you want to get Americans exited? You want to get them out there? You want to make them stand up and vote?
Don't play it safe. Sell em on the big dream, the big goal, the big adventure.
"We promise to go the Moon in this decade" is famous for a reason.
As an American, I want to do something big, something monumental. Don't bore me with petty ass plans for an incremental improvement to highway repair funds. Tell me we are going to repair all the highways, bridges and infrastructure in America by 2025. Tell me we are building a solar station in Death Valley big enough to power five states during the day.
Tell we are getting a fricking moon base.
Don't bore me with normality. Tell me where you want to go, and if I hear the words "back to" I am so outta here.
i think there's a lot of people in the party who are constantly incredibly angry that they're now expected to sit there and be lectured by these fucking multiracial woke teens, instead of just doing boy's-club politics like they normally would
and also a lot of people who just want somebody that vaguely feels presidential, which he still manages to do if you don't listen to the words he's actually saying or notice that his eyes are exploding and his teeth falling out
I'd love to agree with you, but with the lack of foresight/care that has been shown by Silicon Valley types in the past, I think it's definitely a very real concern.