Now mind anyone reading this I will STILL VOTE BLUE in the general. I think most in this current field all could make great presidents. But I've been listening to Kamala Harris on both economic and social issues and liking what I am hearing so far. 

Some have argued that being from California is going to an easy target for the GOP. If the GOP wants to go that route she can point out that Reagan was Governor of California.

I have to admit though, since it is this early on, I may change my mind. The primaries are far off in any case.

In general I like most of our field, Bernie and Warren and Booker and Harris, and Biden if he jumps in.

(February 24, 2019 at 11:54 am)Brian37 Wrote: Now mind anyone reading this I will STILL VOTE BLUE in the general. I think most in this current field all could make great presidents. But I've been listening to Kamala Harris on both economic and social issues and liking what I am hearing so far. 

Some have argued that being from California is going to an easy target for the GOP. If the GOP wants to go that route she can point out that Reagan was Governor of California.

I have to admit though, since it is this early on, I may change my mind. The primaries are far off in any case.

In general I like most of our field, Bernie and Warren and Booker and Harris, and Biden if he jumps in.

One of the problems with her being from California is that she won't be bringing any electoral college votes with her. California is a Deep Blue state, so there is no built in advantage to choosing a candidate from there. California is going to vote for the Dem nominee no matter where they are from. Their electoral votes are already ours.

This is why a lot of people are arguing for Biden and Brown. To win in 2020, we need to win back the rustbelt. Chances of victory are slim without it. Biden has huge name recognition. Brown has never lost a race, and he won despite Ohio leaning toward Republicans.

Bernie has proven that he is competitive the rustbelt.  So he is also a good choice if one is thinking in terms of taking the rust belt back (which is pretty much necessary to win in 2020).

Some say that Amy Klobuchar could be competitive in the rust belt, but they are saying that based on her being a centrist, and not on her having proven her competitiveness there.

It is hazardous to run a nominee whose competitiveness in the rust belt is unknown.  I will be watching Warren and Harris closely when they campaign through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

(February 24, 2019 at 12:27 pm)Yonadav Wrote:

(February 24, 2019 at 11:54 am)Brian37 Wrote: Now mind anyone reading this I will STILL VOTE BLUE in the general. I think most in this current field all could make great presidents. But I've been listening to Kamala Harris on both economic and social issues and liking what I am hearing so far. 

Some have argued that being from California is going to an easy target for the GOP. If the GOP wants to go that route she can point out that Reagan was Governor of California.

I have to admit though, since it is this early on, I may change my mind. The primaries are far off in any case.

In general I like most of our field, Bernie and Warren and Booker and Harris, and Biden if he jumps in.

One of the problems with her being from California is that she won't be bringing any electoral college votes with her. California is a Deep Blue state, so there is no built in advantage to choosing a candidate from there. California is going to vote for the Dem nominee no matter where they are from. Their electoral votes are already ours.

This is why a lot of people are arguing for Biden and Brown. To win in 2020, we need to win back the rustbelt. Chances of victory are slim without it. Biden has huge name recognition. Brown has never lost a race, and he won despite Ohio leaning toward Republicans.

Bernie has proven that he is competitive the rustbelt.  So he is also a good choice if one is thinking in terms of taking the rust belt back (which is pretty much necessary to win in 2020).

Some say that Amy Klobuchar could be competitive in the rust belt, but they are saying that based on her being a centrist, and not on her having proven her competitiveness there.

It is hazardous to run a nominee whose competitiveness in the rust belt is unknown.  I will be watching Warren and Harris closely when they campaign through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Again, why was that not a problem for Reagan?

I agree the middle of the country is suffering rural anxiety and they are not too fond of coastal states. I get that. But how you counter that and appeal to the middle of the country, is to point out that coastal cities and suburb families are ALSO having a hard time. California may rake in the dough business wise say compared to Mississippi or West Virginia, but they also have a huge homeless problem. And I don't mean drug addicts or winos, but working class people who don't make enough to pay even rent.

Dems are not going to win if we ignore the rust belt for sure. But it also does us no good to simply stick to big cities/suburbs and the middle of the country too.

My point is we cannot get distracted by allowing the GOP to divide by state/ zip codes, no matter whom we nominate.

The poor urban black worker has the same problem the white poor rural worker has. Lack of economic stability. 

I simply like what I am hearing from Harris so far. And again, be it her or Bernie, no matter whom we put in the White House, that person isn't going to be a super hero with a cape. They'll still have to deal with a House and Senate and neither are going to get 100% of what they want all the time.

---

Will you do me a favor, give me some credit. This really is not about Bernie the individual, this is strictly strategy on my part. I promise I will support him in the general if he gets the nomination. I PROMISE.

But even if I voted for him in the primaries, and even if he gets the nomination, his problem will still be the bitter pill of Hillary supporters, whom also stupidly and wrongfully AS SUPPORTERS vilified him.

So you also have to think about whom he would put on his ticket, that will bring the party together as VP. I do honestly think that Hillary made a huge mistake not putting Bernie on her ticket. So again, even if he gets nominated, how does he unify the party and draw in swing voters without risking a repeat of 2016?

Our primary goal as a nation is to get the orange turd out of office. That is the most important goal right now.

Supercop, eh? Interesting.

I have no favorite in this current pool of potential Dem nominees as of yet. I strongly suspect that there's not a winner among them though, tbh.
It seems to me that Biden is the only potential nominee with any real chance at winning, and he's yet to announce any intent to run.

So at this point, I see no reason to hitch my wagon to any of these train wrecks.

(February 24, 2019 at 12:40 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(February 24, 2019 at 12:27 pm)Yonadav Wrote: One of the problems with her being from California is that she won't be bringing any electoral college votes with her. California is a Deep Blue state, so there is no built in advantage to choosing a candidate from there. California is going to vote for the Dem nominee no matter where they are from. Their electoral votes are already ours.

This is why a lot of people are arguing for Biden and Brown. To win in 2020, we need to win back the rustbelt. Chances of victory are slim without it. Biden has huge name recognition. Brown has never lost a race, and he won despite Ohio leaning toward Republicans.

Bernie has proven that he is competitive the rustbelt.  So he is also a good choice if one is thinking in terms of taking the rust belt back (which is pretty much necessary to win in 2020).

Some say that Amy Klobuchar could be competitive in the rust belt, but they are saying that based on her being a centrist, and not on her having proven her competitiveness there.

It is hazardous to run a nominee whose competitiveness in the rust belt is unknown.  I will be watching Warren and Harris closely when they campaign through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Again, why was that not a problem for Reagan?

 

You realize that you aren't being logical, right? Reagan pulled it off, and that's completely irrelevant to the point of Harris bringing electoral votes to the table that Dems will win regardless.

(February 24, 2019 at 1:40 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Supercop, eh? Interesting.

I have no favorite in this current pool of potential Dem nominees as of yet. I strongly suspect that there's not a winner among them though, tbh.
It seems to me that Biden is the only potential nominee with any real chance at winning, and he's yet to announce any intent to run.

So at this point, I see no reason to hitch my wagon to any of these train wrecks.

The only "train wreck" are comments like this.

No human being is perfect. I think outside a couple of the field I think all of them have a shot, IF the left unites in the general.

Lots of people on the left liked Obama but also thought he couldn't win.

It can be argued that nobody as of yet comes across as a JFK, Reagan or Obama. But we are not voting for an image, we are voting to put people in power to make policy.

Every time you think like this, remember that every day, multiple times a day, a vile man gets on social media and in front of the camera and bullies all our institutions, including those under him. 4 more years of that jackass bully will also fuck up the Supreme Court beyond repair.

(February 24, 2019 at 12:40 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

---

Will you do me a favor, give me some credit. This really is not about Bernie the individual, this is strictly strategy on my part. I promise I will support him in the general if he gets the nomination. I PROMISE.

But even if I voted for him in the primaries, and even if he gets the nomination, his problem will still be the bitter pill of Hillary supporters, whom also stupidly and wrongfully AS SUPPORTERS vilified him.

So you also have to think about whom he would put on his ticket, that will bring the party together as VP. I do honestly think that Hillary made a huge mistake not putting Bernie on her ticket. So again, even if he gets nominated, how does he unify the party and draw in swing voters without risking a repeat of 2016?

Our primary goal as a nation is to get the orange turd out of office. That is the most important goal right now.

As far as I know, Hillary had two names on her short short-list. Tim Kaine and Sherrod Brown. Word is that she didn't pick Brown because the Republican governor of Ohio would have filled Brown's senate seat with a Republican. That's unfortunate, because Brown probably would have been enough to push her over the top.

You don't have to worry about what Hillary supporters are going to do if Bernie gets the nom. Bernie's supporters from the socio-economic left are people who figure they can survive four more years of Trump if another damn New Dem gets the nod. Hillary supporters don't have that sort of sand.

You keep talking about unifying the party. We aren't unified. We are fighting, and we are going to keep fighting. That's the reality. Stop looking for someone to surrender to.

(February 24, 2019 at 1:55 pm)Yonadav Wrote:

(February 24, 2019 at 12:40 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Again, why was that not a problem for Reagan?

 

You realize that you aren't being logical, right? Reagan pulled it off, and that's completely irrelevant to the point of Harris bringing electoral votes to the table that Dems will win regardless.

So give up? Yea that's a strategy.

Any nominee will have to choose a VP. That can act as a bridge gap to appeal not only to the base, but swing voters in swing states. Stop assuming who can and cannot win.

Even outside a presidential election, when you look at how close Wendy Davis, Beto and Abrams came in red states, it isn't impossible with the right strategy. 20 years ago none of them would have come as close as they did. Just like there was a time when nobody thought a black man, even liberals, thought a black man would be president.

Yes Reagan pulled it off in a liberal state. Obama also won Iowa and North Carolina in one election.

Keep being pessimistic and remember that every time the bully kisses up to tyrants, vilifies journalists and shits on minorities.

(February 24, 2019 at 2:15 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(February 24, 2019 at 1:55 pm)Yonadav Wrote: You realize that you aren't being logical, right? Reagan pulled it off, and that's completely irrelevant to the point of Harris bringing electoral votes to the table that Dems will win regardless.

So give up? Yea that's a strategy.

Any nominee will have to choose a VP. That can act as a bridge gap to appeal not only to the base, but swing voters in swing states. Stop assuming who can and cannot win.

Even outside a presidential election, when you look at how close Wendy Davis, Beto and Abrams came in red states, it isn't impossible with the right strategy. 20 years ago none of them would have come as close as they did. Just like there was a time when nobody thought a black man, even liberals, thought a black man would be president.

Yes Reagan pulled it off in a liberal state. Obama also won Iowa and North Carolina in one election.

Keep being pessimistic and remember that every time the bully kisses up to tyrants, vilifies journalists and shits on minorities.

How on earth you construed my point about selecting a candidate with rustbelt appeal as 'giving up' is beyond me. 

When you compared Harris to Reagan, I made the logical assumption that you were talking about them both bringing no electoral votes to the table from their home state. In 1980, California had been voting for Republican presidents in every election for quite a long time. So Reagan was bringing electoral votes to the table that were already probably going to go to the Republican nominee. Similarly, Harris is bringing electoral votes that the Dem nominee is going to win regardless of who that nominee is.

I was making a point about how badly we need the rustbelt. We have almost no path forward without them. So rustbelt appeal is vital. We have some people with rustbelt appeal. Harris probably isn't one of them. Heck, rustbelters don't even like Californians.

(February 24, 2019 at 2:06 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(February 24, 2019 at 1:40 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Supercop, eh? Interesting.

I have no favorite in this current pool of potential Dem nominees as of yet. I strongly suspect that there's not a winner among them though, tbh.
It seems to me that Biden is the only potential nominee with any real chance at winning, and he's yet to announce any intent to run.

So at this point, I see no reason to hitch my wagon to any of these train wrecks.

The only "train wreck" are comments like this.

No human being is perfect. I think outside a couple of the field I think all of them have a shot, IF the left unites in the general.

Lots of people on the left liked Obama but also thought he couldn't win.

It can be argued that nobody as of yet comes across as a JFK, Reagan or Obama. But we are not voting for an image, we are voting to put people in power to make policy.

Every time you think like this, remember that every day, multiple times a day, a vile man gets on social media and in front of the camera and bullies all our institutions, including those under him. 4 more years of that jackass bully will also fuck up the Supreme Court beyond repair.

None of them are likely to win save for Biden, possibly. That's reality.

My speaking this reality, is not what "makes" it happen.

Grow up.