FWIS3

I'm sure we can use a thread on this eventually anyway.

One nice detail about spending time in New Hampshire this summer is we start getting a decent amount of presidential candidate hopefuls visiting. Of course, this year one has to be discerning (it's amazing how many times I looked at someone visiting and thought "who?"), and we are in northern NH which most candidates don't come to compared to the south. So there is a good balance between "do I think this person will actually get somewhere" and "I'm not driving two hours at this stage of the game to see someone speak." (Or, if you're Kristin Gillibrand, I won't even drive 30 minutes- she's done dozens of events in the state but I still can't believe she'll get anywhere.)

Anyway, Kamala Harris was in the sweet spot of my Venn diagram of criteria yesterday, speaking a 30ish minute drive away and actually has a reasonable chance, so went to check her out. It was a "house party" which means they convert a lot of space in someone's backyard (a former Congresswoman in this case) and it was a fairly rural spot, but we still had to park a 15min walk down the road as hundreds of people showed up! Here is a pic of everyone if you want to do a Where's Waldo of me.

Harris gave what I imagine is her typical stump speech, which was 40ish minutes long, and she definitely gives it well- I mean, there's a reason she's already a Senator from California. She also definitely looks younger than she is, which never hurts- we guessed 40s, but looked it up after and she's 54. Also clearly very passionate about issues, but very much a domestic emphasis- she basically didn't say much of anything about foreign policy, which is a shame because I think that's one real area where a president can make real strides. Also, Q&A was cut to just two questions (and one was a softball question from a kid about what she thinks about kids in cages) due to a faulty mic- embarrassing!

So with that, having seen her I do think she might have the right criteria to get the nomination- established politician but not one of the "old guard," passionate and speaks well, no serious baggage to speak of. (I know some are against some of her decisions from when she was a California prosecutor, but I'd argue that's nothing that can't be smoothed out if addressed.) I think if she does well in the next few debates that will cinch it for her- obviously the crowd was so huge because this was her first NH appearance since said debates, and people were curious, but you have to keep the momentum going. Of course, feel free to quote this again in a few months when we know how everything really goes down.

Anyway, I think the bf and I will check out some other events too if they're nearby etc, but they probably need to be more popular than Harris for us to go (aka Biden, Sanders, Warren). Funny thing is I definitely don't want to see the first two get it for sure- no offense to old guys, but I don't think a general election down to two old guys will go well- and while I'd be interested in hearing Warren I don't think she'd do well if she got the nomination (because you can argue about if it's fair, but too many people think "didn't she lie about being Native American to get her job at Harvard?"). But hey, I guess it's interesting to see politicians you've heard about for so long, so if they make it up north of Concord why not.

Rommie wrote:but too many people think "didn't she lie about being Native American to get her job at Harvard?").

I didn't realize we still cared about if a politician lied or not anymore. You know, since the current administration flat out lies about 8 times a day.

Thumper wrote:

Rommie wrote:but too many people think "didn't she lie about being Native American to get her job at Harvard?").

I didn't realize we still cared about if a politician lied or not anymore. You know, since the current administration flat out lies about 8 times a day.

It's weird as shit. "All politicians lie!" is something I've heard a lot.

(My dad once got himself into a moral pretzel by saying he does mind if Trump lies, but because all politicians do, he claims Trump doesn't lie about important things but Obama did. Or something. I didn't really respond.)

Probably not worth it.

The difference IMO between the current administration and previous ones is the purpose that their lies serve. Not to mention the types, severity, and sheer falseness of the lies. Even Obama got some things wrong. Or maybe he hedged a bit. The most that I have ever seen a site such as Snopes or PolitiFact rate him as false on the issues was about 25%. In Trump's case, he has literally hundreds of instances where he was virtually 100% false.

We have had a few visits here in California. Weirdly enough even though we live in the state capitol almost all the stumping happens way down south in the L.A. area which is about 6-12 hours from us depending on traffic. So we haven't really had a chance to drop in and listen live to any of them.

I like Warren because she has some really good plans and policy ideas. I don't think she is going to get the nomination. I think that most Democrats are going to want to play it safe and nominate a male candidate because of how badly "everyone" hated Hillary. They will conveniently forget how much of the popular vote she had.

Right now it's looking like Biden, Bernie, Harris, Warren, and Buttigieg are going to be the last five standing.

My current choices look roughly like
1. Warren
2. Sanders
3. Harris
...
1000. Maybe other people?
...
1000000. Joe Biden.

I'll vote for Biden in the General anyway seeing as the other guy is literally a kleptocratic despot etc., but my gods I hate him. He is dedicatedly not radical, he bloviates, he is handsy, and he literally hits on ten year old girls. He is a swine. I hate him.

Yes, I am really against Biden getting the nod as well. I think he was a great politician for his time, but ye gods, I think we have established he hasn't adapted well to the current times.

On the bright side, I think that was amply clear in the first debate where he kinda just phoned it in and dug himself a nice hole. And I don't know a single person into politics who seems excited about Biden or is volunteering to work for him, and I think that stuff matters when there's so many options. There's no reason for the moneyed establishment guy to win- after all, if that's how it went, Jeb Bush would have been the Republican nominee last time.

We have had a few visits here in California. Weirdly enough even though we live in the state capitol almost all the stumping happens way down south in the L.A. area which is about 6-12 hours from us depending on traffic. So we haven't really had a chance to drop in and listen live to any of them.

$$$

I know some of the candidates are doing grassroots only money, but many aren't, so no offense to Sacramento but I suspect the big donors live further south!

Also, Pod Save America which has 1.5 million listeners, and is based in LA, and is doing a special episode with each person running who they deem interesting. IMO if you're keen on reaching people within the party who can help you go forward, it'd be damn stupid to pass that up, so why not do a campaign stop too?

Oregon's Democratic primary is ten months away so I'm not getting too worked up about deciding who to vote for yet. I have time for the field to thin out.

But in terms of who I'd like to see in the White House (ignoring the obstacle of defeating Trump in the general): Warren, Biden, Harris. In that order.

And Kirsten Gillibrand can go fuck herself. I will *never* forgive her for her role in ousting Al Franken from the Senate.

Hah, I forgot about that! But not surprised you didn't.

Can I ask why you ranked Biden so highly? And Warren but not Bernie? The latter two seem to have more in common politically than the order you listed is why I ask.

I haven't formed any hard and fast opinions yet. I like Elizabeth Warren because she's extremely smart and is practical in terms of policies that are designed to protect people from other people. Her championing of the Consumer Protection Agency is a good example. Being extremely smart has been a hallmark of Democratic presidents for a long time (Obama, Clinton, Carter, Kennedy. LBJ was more a great politician than super smart). Warren can grasp complicated subjects, such as the economy.

Sanders is also a champion of the people but I think he's a bit too pie-in-sky in terms of practical policies. Don't ask me for specifics. I also kind of don't like how he ran as a Democrat in 2016 even though he's called himself an independent for so long. And he went back to calling himself an independent as he resumed his Senate career. I don't blame the DNC for favoring Clinton because of that. I realize that we have a two-party system and Sanders is not stupid - you can't win as an independent (yet).

I like Biden because he's been there for us for so long. He was an extremely effective Senator who was able to work with reasonable Republicans and has the experience of eight years as VP. Working with those few Congressional Republicans left who aren't complete douchebags is an important skill.

geonuc wrote:And Kirsten Gillibrand can go fuck herself. I will *never* forgive her for her role in ousting Al Franken from the Senate.

Ditto!

geonuc wrote:Working with those few Congressional Republicans left who aren't complete douchebags is an important skill.

I like this quote.

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-c ... 019-5?op=1

I reiterate: Biden is a damn creep, and I would be very happy to see his political career burn, along with his personal fortune.

(And I'm not fond of Gillibrand's politics last I checked, but yeah, I am wholeheartedly behind kicking handsy bastards out of positions of authority. Even when we like to think they're "our" handsy bastards.)

Uncle Joe had a dip in the polls for a few weeks. But, he is coming back up. It's still early yet. IMO the DNC has two options. They can go with a more progressive candidate and try to appeal to people on a "for the social good" plank. Or they can choose Uncle Joe because they know he has a lot of appeal to the same demographics that Trump does and that he will resonate with the moderate and independent centrist voters.

A lot of people chose Trump last time because they wanted to burn the house down. It's still not certain if they are happy yet or if they want the house to keep burning. Or if they want to start a remodel of the house with more social good programs. Or if they want to pretend that no one burned the house down and a few new boards and some fresh paint will satisfy them. The DNC seems to be leaning a lot towards pretending that no one wants to burn the house down and that no one tried to burn it down in 2016.

I can promise you that 30-40% of the people will want to keep throwing gasoline on the house while it burns if they think their "way of life" has lost to those "other people". Tribalism is what works for them. They may not have a few teeth missing or be married to their sister but they would rather see millions of people die than see their tribe lose power or status. They will vote for Trump. The DNC might as well not waste any time trying to appeal to them. They need to go after 50% of the eligible voters who sat it out in 2016. Those are the ones that need to be convinced to show up and vote.

lady_*nix wrote:..I am wholeheartedly behind kicking handsy bastards out of positions of authority. Even when we like to think they're "our" handsy bastards.

I'm not. I have a different point of view when it comes to our national leaders. In short, I have one criterion: I want them to enact policies for the public good. I want them to lead the country in the direction I want it to go. If they do that, I will ignore a whole host of moral and ethical transgressions. Not everything, of course.

This country is in deep trouble, perhaps more so than in any time since the Civil War. When national leaders blatantly enact policies that further the interests of their corporate backers no matter how unconstitutional and un-American, no matter how much it harms the powerless, no matter how it harms global interests, we have to fight back. Now is not the time to get righteous about perceived character flaws. If you do, Mitch McConnell wins.

At this point, I would support the candidacy of *any* of the post-WWII Democratic presidents: FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama. I would support the candidacy of Hillary Clinton (again). I would support Joe Biden. Any of these people would enact policies that would put this country back on the course I want it to go. All of those people - with the exception of Truman, Carter and Obama - had/have character flaws that in today's political environment would doom their candidacy if we get all righteous.

Which brings me back to Al Franken. The man was railroaded out of the Senate based on a patently transparent Republican smear campaign. As a result, we lost one of the most powerful forces for good we've seen in the Senate since Ted Kennedy (another man with character flaws). But if y'all want to crucify Franken (or Biden) and debate whether his comedy act crossed the line while the country burns to the fucking ground, I guess that's your prerogative.

@geonuc

Now is not the time to get righteous about perceived character flaws. If you do, Mitch McConnell wins.

"percieved" excuse me? There is nothing "percieved" about this. Especially with Biden, who somehow decided it was okay to be creepy and sexist towards an actual child.

Elected officials shouldn't need to be on the level of Roy Moore to rate consequences for being creepy, bigoted assholes. And your offered binary choice between accountability for Democrats and surrender to the Republicans is one hell of a false dichotomy.

My compromise on this, so to speak, is I think the primary is an excellent time to vet out who we want and what we want them to stand for. If Biden ends up being the Democratic nominee, I will vote for him over Trump. But I see no reason to not say "I find him a problematic candidate for XYZ reasons and don't think he deserves my primary vote."

SciFiFisher wrote:I can promise you that 30-40% of the people will want to keep throwing gasoline on the house while it burns if they think their "way of life" has lost to those "other people". Tribalism is what works for them. They may not have a few teeth missing or be married to their sister but they would rather see millions of people die than see their tribe lose power or status. They will vote for Trump. The DNC might as well not waste any time trying to appeal to them. They need to go after 50% of the eligible voters who sat it out in 2016. Those are the ones that need to be convinced to show up and vote.

This is honestly exactly what I'm concerned about if Biden gets the nod. Trump in so many ways didn't win so much as Clinton lost. Had turnout been higher in three states by a few thousand votes- levels at which Obama easily had in the previous two elections- we wouldn't be having this conversation. (Remember, fewer people just plain didn't go vote than switched to Trump.) I am genuinely concerned Biden will have the same issues with turnout Clinton had if there's no sense of the establishment being there.

Like, in 2008 I thought it amazing how the youth vote was so inspired in my bracket that we actually had just as high a turnout as the coveted senior citizens one! I'm not sure if anyone can get that high up, but Biden won't. Biden is in the past in so many ways- his mind is in the past, his reputation is in the past, and his interactions are in the past. That might appeal to the older crowd, but won't inspire many others.

@Rommie, @Fisher: Yes that. And that is why Warren and Sanders are my first choices. The Dems need to start accepting that we're not in the 90s anymore, Pokemon revival notwithstanding. If it comes down to Biden or another such old schooler against Trump, I'm pretty sure Trump will win again.

And compare 2018 - Democrats swept the House in part because of lots of more radical candidates running on a wave of popular anger, not just against Trump and fascism but against a broken economy and broken institutions. Things are fucked up and voters are mad; IMO if the Dems don't try to harness that anger constructively, it will turn into apathy.

Second round of debates with the Democratic contenders. The general consensus is that no one really stood out the first night with the possible exception of Warren. There is some talk that there is a growing divide between the more progressive and the more centrist candidates. Interesting to see what happens the second night.

Fisher wrote:... growing divide between the more progressive and the more centrist candidates.

Gee, ya think?

SciFiFisher wrote:Second round of debates with the Democratic contenders. The general consensus is that no one really stood out the first night with the possible exception of Warren. There is some talk that there is a growing divide between the more progressive and the more centrist candidates. Interesting to see what happens the second night.

I missed both because of working on PhD corrections, and then making my bf watch The Princess Bride because he'd never seen it (really, how do you get to 40 doing that?).

I saw #KamalaHarrisDestroyed was trending on Twitter, and then read it's actually propagated by Russian bots, which I thought was interesting. Did anyone watch the exchange?

Rommie wrote:...and then making my bf watch The Princess Bride because he'd never seen it (really, how do you get to 40 doing that?).

Wow, he'd no longer be my boyfriend. That would be a non starter with me.

Thumper wrote:

Rommie wrote:...and then making my bf watch The Princess Bride because he'd never seen it (really, how do you get to 40 doing that?).

Wow, he'd no longer be my boyfriend. That would be a non starter with me.

It was a pretty easy fix so I didn't need to be so drastic.