1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hey DLP authors, there's a bit less than a month left to wow us with your story about Daphne or Azkaban.

    The Author applies the words to the paper or it gets the hose. Write or die! The more the merrier.

    Click here for more information!
    Dismiss Notice

The Trumperium 2: Caesar by the Pussy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jon, Jun 15, 2017.

  1. Arthellion

    Arthellion The Chosen One

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,140
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    That is a logical fallacy. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for Harris is a vote for Harris. A vote for Third Party is a vote for Third Party. Because let's say Harris wins. Trump people will say that I voted for Harris by not voting for Trump. And vice versa.

    You can see my arguments for why I prefer -neither- earlier in the thread.
     
  2. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,180
    High Score:
    1,802
    Yeah, I know the odds of Trump getting primaried are in the below 1% category. I'm more curious to see if anyone will even try, or if Trump's takeover of the GOP is complete.
     
  3. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,305
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    And yet, an electoral reality...
     
  4. Arthellion

    Arthellion The Chosen One

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,140
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    Just gonna say...it makes me feel so valued that y'all think Harris cannot win against Trump without my vote.

    /s.
     
  5. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,305
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    It's the mentality that not every vote counts, everywhere, that results in undesirable electoral outcomes. Especially in swing states.

    Voter apathy/discouragement is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
     
  6. The Iron Rose

    The Iron Rose Headmaster

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,099
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    United States
    Guys there's a reason I ducked Arthellion's question about that to me. We've relitigated this fight like, a dozen times in the past two years. Can we all just go "snark snark bitch bitch weird moral code electoral reality" and hug it out and avoid the whole tedious thing?
     
  7. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,305
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    Fine.

    If that's the slate, as @Invictus outlined, what will the defining issues of the campaign be?

    Because right now, all I've got it is 'Who the fuck is John Delaney?'
     
  8. Silirt

    Silirt High Inquisitor DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2018
    Messages:
    546
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    District of Columbia
    The idea that third party candidates can never win is also a self-fulfilling prophecy.
     
  9. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,620
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    On a Presidential level, it's more or less a reality. There are tl;drs scattered throughout this subforum explaining the whys and wherefores. Boils down to a few big things: Money, ballot access, brand, and organizational structure/capacity.
     
  10. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,180
    High Score:
    1,802
    That's going to be one of trickier issues to deal with. 1996, 2004 and 2012 already showed that there are a lot of traps it's easy to fall into when running against an incumbent president, and against a guy like Trump it'll be even harder to get a solid message other than "Vote for me, I'm not Trump."
     
  11. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    This 531 Graphic will be helpful regarding that:
    [​IMG]

    This is setting itself to be a deeply inward looking election, even more so than 2016. I expect that National Security and international relations and events will play a fairly minor role.

    Healthcare - drug addiction will probably be included here, Violence/Illegal Immigration tie up, Government Ethics - Which goes from the Trump Administration corruption to Washington Ivory Tower accusations to the swamp and Sanders/Progressive accusations against the Democratic Party and campaign financing - these are my best bets for the dominant theme.

    Religion, I suspect, will play a less blatant role than the last elections, while being used mostly in a package narrative against coastal elites. But in the other hand, I also think that LGBTQ+ rights will be a flag raised significantly less, and specially one compared to racial issues.

    More interestingly, I want to point what, I think, is the large number of very different subjects that Democrats feel strongly about. With the exception of illegal immigration, Dems feels that almost all issues raised are important or very important, and this is not talking about local/culture specific gripes that candidates need to talk about to connect with voters from X or Y region. A platform that comprehends all or most of these issues in a satisfactory way to the different groups inside Dems is going to be very tricky, specially since with a. Few exceptions, Dem position seem to be in favor of major (and a lot of times, very expensive and/or time consuming) reforms of the status quo.

    No bullet point plan will elections with such things here. It will all about messaging in a easy and universal way, that is remembered. Trump is really good at the messaging and being understood part. He is also really good at branding even the vaguest of things. And since he's an incumbent president, people know pretty much what to expect or him. That can help and harm him. If the Dem candidate can't make himself appealing enough to be work the risk to change the status quo, people will pick the status quo.
     
  12. Quiddity

    Quiddity Unspeakable

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2014
    Messages:
    776
    Location:
    New Zealand
    I find it...interesting, that all of those you'd 100% vote for are white men, and the only white man who'd cause you to vote third party is Sanders.

    I'm not quite prepared to say there's causation there. But I don't see what Beto has that Harris, Gillibrand, or Castro have, or vice versa.
     
  13. Arthellion

    Arthellion The Chosen One

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,140
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    Huh...for what its worth...I didn't even notice that.

    Regarding Castro, I'm still doing research on him. I know a lot more about Beto than I do about Castro. He's likely to move to my 100% vote for based on what I see so far.

    As for Gillbrand and Harris, the actions and speeches I've heard from them are very....concerning. They appear to lack any desire for compromise or understand where right leaning voters are coming from.
     
  14. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    You're reading Gillibrand obviously wrong then. Gillibrand problem isn't that she's a purist ideologue on a war path, quite otherwise, is that she's a shameless hypocritical opportunist.

    While every politician is something of an opportunist, and they have to be since they do have to listen to what is being demanded of them, Gillibrand takes it to a point that is just plain disgusting. She switches from extreme positions as soon as she sees an opportunity, she went from being one of the most conservative East Coast Democrats to "champion" of the progressive left all while still pocketing very nice donations from NY industries. She backstabbed Al Franken, Hillary Clinton and others as soon as she saw a profit to be made. And she lies, she lies so much and with such a clean face and then proclaims moral superiority.

    Caitlin Flannagan's take down of her, and specifically her "Intersectional" comment is a must read in my opinion.

    Of all the progressive candidates, Warren is by far the least worst one in my opinion. She's definitely the smartest and most prepared, she isn't nearly the unapologetic angry and spiteful populist Sanders is, who has no problem lying through his teeth. Her more populist strikes against megacorps can be useful and are even necessary, if she turns it to the biggest monopolies right now (Media and Tech companies) - TDR proved that there can be good populism.

    Harris and Booker seem like wannabee More Progressive© Obama's but without his charisma or skills. Sanders problem were discussed extensively in the 2016 thread. Castro is fine, but I can't see him winning and frankly, he should've run for governorship and acquired some executive experience. Gabbard is ugh - what she did with Assad was disgusting and the undermining of US foreign policy is not something the US needs with two presidents in a row, even if done in opposite ideological directions.

    Meanwhile O'Rourke is a joke. The man doesn't have nearly the experience necessary or any idea of what being president is like besides "I will be able to do more stuff!". He couldn't even campaign right despite multiple advice and obvious "don't do this".

    Of the non- progressive camp, Hickenlooper is by far my favorite one. But frankly, everyone here is very competent, very smart and with plenty of executive experience. They all have the potential to be good presidents.

    That's something that people seem to forget a lot nowadays. It's important for a person to have Executive power experience. It's much worse they learn the difference between Legislative and Executive on the job. Unfortunately, due to the very small amount of minority governors, it means this seems quite restricted to white men.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2019
  15. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,620
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    One person to keep an eye on who I haven't seen on anyone's list here is Governor Steve Bullock of Montana. He's floating his name around, and he'll have a strong pitch to make to enough donors to fund his way through Iowa/New Hampshire. He won in an R+20 state in 2012 and in 2016, managed to get Medicaid expansion through a (very) Republican legislature over fierce opposition from R leadership, and doesn't have any truly horrible skeletons to my knowledge.

    Accurate.

    Harris' problem is that, unlike Obama, people actually watched her committee hearings on CSPAN.

    Booker's progressivism is largely very careful public positioning. The guy gets invited to private AEI functions bankrolled by the Adelsons where he's one of three Democrats in the entire gala. He understands how conservatives think; he just represents New Jersey (one of the most Democratic states in the US) and wants to run for President. He's never dying on that hill in public.

    The last sentence here is just flat out wrong. O'Rourke overperformed median Democratic statewide performance in post-realignment Texas by a ridiculous amount, largely because of his unconventional campaign (which enabled him to raise functionally infinite money.) I'm all for criticizing Betomania, but not over that.

    The subsequent attacks on Beto by progressives for being insufficiently progressive are a great example of why many in the Democratic party go out of their way to build a base with literally any other faction.
     
  16. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Ah yes. Booker was one of the Senators, Democrats at least, that most heavily relied on Wall Street and big companies for finances. Among other problems with him. But he's also black, young, has the sams charisma and wat of speaking that reminds of black preachers and is from NJ. Wouldn't that help overshadow the ''''it really progressive' thing for a long time?

    What's with Harris and CSpan? Mostly powerless comments, cut with specially chosen moments of virtue signalling and then deal making? Because that's the very little I can remember watching from her.

    Anyway, about O'Rourke, the problem, I think, is that I picked a wrong word. Instead of how he campaigned, the problem, I think, is on what he ended up campaigning. Aka, way more progressive things than he should. I remember his strong defense of Kaepernick, and not responding to Cruz accusing him of being pro-abortion and for "open borders". Maybe I'm completely wrong, and he did that on purpose because he started having immediate national designs and didn't want to lose that chance. Maybe it was careful planning. Just felt like a very stupid hills to die on in a Texas election.

    I remember reading a pretty good article that defended that O'Rourke is far from an amazing candidate. That he still lost to probably the most disliked Senator of all, in a wave year and outraising him 2-1, and after Cruz got battered bloody from the last presidential election and abandoned his duties and visits to Texas for almost a year in favor of that same election; the result was much more about the circumstances than the candidate merits. He finished off by pointing out that in the 2012 election Cruz' adversary got 40% of the vote (versus 48 by Beto) despite having only spent 140,000 (Cruz spent 10 million) and was a complete unknown with barely any experience, all in a Republican wave year and while Tea Party was at its strongest .
     
  17. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,305
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    O'Rourke might not have the qualifications to run for President, but I disagree with your read on the election in Texas. Cruz, if he was to run at simple baseline, should have won Texas by a margin of 6-10 points. Just look at the performance of the Texas gubernatorial and attorney general races. The fact that he only lost by a horse-race finish would seem to be an endorsement of his methods, not an indictment of the effort. The fact that he ran as a clear, liberal alternative, and that he actually visited all the counties in the state were what made him appealing. Seems to me voters responded to that genuine alternative, rather than be turned off by just another Texas Dem offering to be GOP-Lite.

    Also, his coattails dragged some Congressional races across the line and flipped a couple of Texas GOP districts, so good on him.
     
  18. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Fair enough. He did do well, that's undeniable. I just don't think he did well enough to justify half the hype, nevermind wanting him for president and explicit comparisons to Abraham Lincoln (regarding how Lincoln lost a similar race and then went on to be president soon after). The same article I referenced also compared him with Kyrsten Sinema and how Sinema's victory was as impressive a O'Rourke's performance but a much better model for Democrats to get inspiration from, what if her sticking strongly to the center and her campaign's coare messages (healthcare) while avoiding cultural war pitfalls whenever McSally and the GOP tried to push her for.
     
  19. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,620
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    If you think that Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies are the keys the Cory Booker's power then you fundamentally misunderstand New Jersey politics. Booker is strong because he has an incredibly well disciplined and organized political operation within NJ (if you run for just about anything there, and they have hotly contested elections all the way down the ballot, you will get some form of meaningful help from Sen. Booker.) The difference between someone like Booker and the progressive faction of the party is that Booker tolerates a wide range of viewpoints within his personal social circle, and then takes the time to calculate whatever he thinks best for his political future. Sometimes that means quietly taking a Wall Street or pharma friendly vote, sometimes that means quietly taking a very left position on an issue.

    But yeah, if anyone thinks that Booker doesn't know what conservatives think, they're pretty mistaken.

    Harris is capable of giving very charismatic speeches. I've seen her speak in front of large and small audiences, and watched her interact 1:1 with people. She just doesn't translate well on Senate hearings broadcast on CSPAN, everything I've seen in person melts away and we're left with a mediocre former prosecutor.

    Or you just fundamentally misunderstood his campaign. O'Rourke's path to victory was getting enough irregular voters to turn out to push him over 50%. As a result the coalition he needed to show up was a coalition of younger white Evangelical Protestants, hispanics, and blacks. So he ran a populist campaign around turning out those groups. The Kaepernick video, in that equation, was one of the best things he could have done because it also raised a ton of money for him.

    [
    36-40 is more or less what you can expect as a Democrat running statewide in Texas. Well-funded statewide Democratic candidates like Wendy Davis have typically ended up in that range.

    Yeah there's currently a raging debate within the Democratic Party over which approach is better. Depending on the race, both have merits. Sinema benefited from favorable demographic trends, an organized state party structure, a much smaller state, and was able to run a very different campaign than O'Rourke as a result. I think they each chose the correct path in their state. That's the thing about campaigns, you can choose the correct strategy, run a perfect one, and still lose; conversely, you can choose a shit strategy, run a shit one, and still get bailed out by factors you were unable to fuck up (that's why Sen. Roberts, R-Kansas, is still a Senator.)
     
  20. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Always assumed NJ power had more to do with Unions, Port Authorities and mid level blue collar and white collar jobs than Wall Street. Wall Street was just an easy example to point out that, regarding progressive stances, he isn't really sold on doing as much as he speaks, and he seems fine with that.

    Interesting to know. Let's see how she campaigns and debate then.

    Random commentary, but it feels that, with Obama/Trump eras, the State Attorney position was successfully turned into one of the most political and powerful positions in US State and National politics, and one really feels more like a political one than a Judiciary one. Seems highly unhealthy... But again, maybe this was more or less always he case to one degree or another and these two last presidencies just gave more attention and more expectations to that


    Feels like every big, competitive race that relied on that strategy ended up falling short? Gillum, Abrams, O'Rourker. Can't talk about the House campaigns though. But that's just anedoctal observation.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. fire
    Replies:
    2,071
    Views:
    254,719