Democrats

[Mike]

This is the first I've heard of this. I know nothing. Are you saying that her claims are nonsensical or that her reasons for making those claims are disingenuous? I'm trying to understand your vehemence here (or alternately, where the joke is if this is one of your LMAO moments).

I mean, she did narrowly lose the last election. And the Russians did interfere in that election in favor of her opponents. All intelligence says they will do it again, and the administration refuses to take any steps to prevent it. Trump is secretly and openly iapplying political pressure to spur foreign interference in his favor in the next election. Clinton is a public figure who still has political influence and is particularly sensitive to this issue. So I guess I don't see why that would annoy you so much.

[mimekiller]

I'm still HIGHLY dubious the Russians hurt her that much. Red scare nonsense and I don't think Tulsi is some kind of secret ruski agent, unless the Russians hacked HC brain and prevented her from campaigning in key states its just nonsense to me. And to bring it up again bah I say, bah and bah

[Mike]

There's debate over the efficacy of the Russian meddling, sure. But it did happen. It was intended to help Trump. And Trump did win by some narrow margins in crucial states. Personally, I'm on Stacy Abrams' side here and think voter suppression attempts in those states had way more effect than the Russians, but I don't think foreign interference had zero effect.

As for Gabbard. She's not a Russian stooge. Of course. But just like Trump and Bernie were Russia's favored vectors for chaos in 2016, Gabbard is a good choice for that in 2020. They want to be divisive. This is a good strategy for them.

If you want to argue that her case doesn't amount to much in the end, then do that. If you you are trying to argue (as you imply above) that she has no standing to make the case, then you're wrong.

[mimekiller]

That's fair, I guess my OG point is Yes. You could say “Russia is ready” or “Russia is hoping” but to imply Tulsi is complicit or worse is too far and unfair. I can understand why Tulsi was pissed.

[Phoebe]

Ugh, Tulsi is horrid, like watching a piece of cardboard talk. Are we sure she's not a cardboard cutout of some other woman? Sorry to be harsh but if the Russians are pushing her they picked a bad horse.

[Phoebe]

At least there is humor in watching right wing media demand that HRC "put up or shut up", which appears to be the party talking point today, to distract from the fact that they're all-in on support of the proto-dictator, who for years now has been screaming "lock her up" about someone who was once again exonerated of any wrongdoing with her emails. Apparently it's now a bad idea to insult someone without having receipts, unless of course you are the top Republican fabricating crazy stuff hourly on Twitter.

The way people are debasing themselves in defense of this nonsense, completely hypocritical, is something to see. The same people who are all upset about the situation in Syria are also amnesiac over the fact that Tulsi met with Assad and struggles SO hard to acknowledge that Russia's fast friend committed horrific war crimes. It's so easy for her to say that America shouldn't get involved in any part of the world where Russia doesn't want us to, and so easy for her to say that US troops shouldn't be risked, but just so hard to say anything bad about Assad. Who knows why!

[Phoebe]

I wish we had better D candidates, I don't know. Still prefer Harris, maybe with Buttigieg as her partner.

[Mike]

Buttagieg could be a fine VP, I suppose. He is an excellent politician, so if "electability" is your thing, then he's got the goods. But I worry that he's too slick by half. He positioned himself as a liberal progressive generational candidate when he first hit the scene, but he's made a solid pivot away from that now that being the moderate-you-can-rely-on-when-Biden-topples is the title him and Harris are both fighting for. He offered himself as progressive without any actual policy specifics, but now has swiveled around to moderate while criticizing Warren for things he aligned himself with a couple months ago. I find it disingenuous.

I know they are all politicians, and they are all playing the game. The top 5 candidates are all here by virtue of being good at that game, but I'd prefer someone who can play that game while being relatively true to who they are. Sanders, Warren, and even Harris all fill that bill for me.

[mimekiller]

SO BETO is out, I guess Kamala is next.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/01/kamala-ha ... ield-team/

[Mike]

Probly.

[Phoebe]

Sanders, Biden, and Warren have an insurmountable advantage in New Hampshire, which is mainly significant because of its early date. Harris does better in Iowa and South Carolina, so if she matches or beats them in those places, she can keep going. Don't know if that's realistic given current polling but it makes sense as a way to apply the $. She'd be the best VP for most of the others but I don't know if they would pick her.

[Tahlvin]

Warren’s MC4A Plan has some interesting things to it. I’d love to get rid of employer sponsored insurance, though not necessarily eliminate private insurers in favor of single payer. But I’m with Rick Wilson on this. If that’s your platform for 2020, you’re handing Trump another four years in office. They should be making the election about Trump only. Beat him, and then you can work in these policy things. There are going to be too many on the fence voters in swing states who will not be worried about Democrats taking away their insurance that they’ll be fine holding their nose and voting for four more years of the dipshit.

[poorpete]

I understand that, and any candidate who promises a massive change to healthcare needs 60 votes in the Senate and Warren will not have that. Warren would need an FDR style 1932 sea-change to make a lot of her plans happen.

Conversely, electing Joe Biden, who only promises a return to sane governance (and if he's the candidate, I will totally vote for that) with no real attack on underlying issues inequality and greed will just lead to a 2024 election mirroring 2016 where any populist shyster who promises change can win. Instead why not elect a competent change candidate now?

[Tahlvin]

Because you will end up with 4 more years of Trump. That's why. That's all that should matter for 2020 is unseating him. You'll have 4 years then to deal with what to do in 2024.

I read an interesting quote about this this morning, which I'm paraphrasing: voting for your values is great, but when you lose the election, someone else's values will be forced upon you.

Unless something can come of impeachment before the 2020 election. But at the pace it has been moving, I'm not hopeful.

[poorpete]

If we got to hold the election today, I'd pick Biden, because he has the best chance. I get it too. I supported Kerry over Dean for similar reasons. But a few things.

I like Warren better

Also public opinion changes. Unsure if Biden can keep himself over 50% for the next year, especially as he's proven himself a shaky campaigner, in 2019 and all campaigns previous. I think a national Warren campaign with focus on the swing states she has yet to focus on could up her chances. Likability is fleeting (see all polls of Hillary while in office vs. campaigning) but Warren's high (highest) favorability among democrats could be a sign that when people get-to-know-her she'll increase her supporters.

But... don't get me wrong I have my fears. Lordy, the fears.

Warren is the perfect candidate to unify the democratic party, but will she then be able to unify the center, and ideally the country too?

[Phoebe]

Oh yes, the fears are great. My biggest fear is that no matter who the Democrats pick, we just don't have free and fair elections anymore. We know they were tampered with; we know it will happen again.

I'm just screaming internally that we're a year away from the elections and, despite the 674 candidates and 586 debates, I don't feel like the Democrats have any obvious winning horses. I think a good 40% of the nation will vote for anyone with the D behind the name, and who the hell knows whats ticking in the heads of people in the middle who do not know what they might do with this one. How can you be a sentient being and not have a clear idea about this? But here we are.

I'm just in a state of daily perplexity trying to understand the people I live among. I really don't have the deep level of pessimism about people needed to make sense of this. I can't even listen to Nelly anymore because in too many songs he mentions Trump as a favorable example of aspirational wealth.

[Phoebe]

Had a good conversation with a friend about this today, we were talking about what happened at the baseball game. It feels like we're just trapped in this ridiculous situation where leaders (both president and also senate) can do whatever ill they wish with impunity, give the middle finger to fully half the country who is upset about it, and there's no hope that it's going to be fixed or that there will be any accountability. so the baseball game is like an outpouring of frustration and demand for accountability. We're tired of all this b******* on Twitter. We're tired of f****** insane things like calling for your past opponent, who isn't even running for office, to be jailed even though she's never even been indicted for a crime much less convicted of one. Basically just tired of these banana republic dictator tactics on display in the public view everyday.

And so you're going to get large masses of people - and people wealthy enough to possess a ticket to this particular event - finding an outlet to vocalize the frustration. We're not really a people accustomed to having to mobilize in the street. We are people accustomed to group action in sports cheers. But the sentiment is real and I actually appreciate the decorum of putting it out in that context as opposed to in the middle of the street. What worries me is that this isn't pro Democratic candidate sentiment; it's just telling off a bully that you've had enough of. It makes me feel a little happier about Biden's candidacy because I see him as a person who can channel that anger at the bully in a positive way. I feel like Harris is is the better person for that but that's because of my personal warm feelings towards a female prosecutor who has been a badass for many years.

[Tahlvin]

At this point, it's going to be Biden, Warren, or Sanders. If it's Warren or Sanders, I think we're looking at 4 more years of Trump.

[mimekiller]

Hey even tho in person he SKEEVED ME OUT in person, I guess hats off to Twosome Newsome for getting me 100 bucks off my next electric bill. I guess he gets some brownie points from me.

[Mike]

Does it count if you're just saving money from days of outages?