General politics

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that gender is a confounding factor in nearly every single aspect the HuffPo article raised.

 

Judging only by the ranked list of turnover rates in one of the linked articles, maybe Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren learned quicker how to navigate those particular waters, but other explanations are possible, for example a Minnesota senator might have a smaller pool of outstanding applicants to choose from (than CA and MA) and the winnowing process through the years might be more painful.

 

Any senator who hasn't had a staffer pick up dry cleaning probably is the one to start the impeachment^* process.

 

 

^{* _{Hat tip to a fellow TD poster whose discussion has led me to think about sharpening up my Straw Man game.}}

 

If a right-wing outlet had run that story the left would have their hair on fire about the role of gender in that piece.  I'm not sure if I'd vote for Klobuchar for the nomination yet, but this does not factor in one bit.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Personal interaction with her would lead me to never, ever cast a vote for her.

 

Elaborate please?

[ashbury]

Personal interaction with her would lead me to never, ever cast a vote for her.

 

Elaborate please?

Or (from the article): Do you have more information on what it’s like to work for Sen. Klobuchar? Get in touch: scoops@huffpost.com

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

The Democrats did not lose because they ran to the center.  They lost because they lost their center.  

 

Run lefties where they can win, but a lefty isn't going to reverse Hillary's outcome.  Turning out liberals doesn't fix the loss in the electoral college.  And, ultimately, that's what you have to win.

 

Kamala Harris isn't likely to flip Wisconsin or Ohio or Pennsylvania back to blue.  Running a coastal, left-wing candidate against Trump is handing him four more years.

It's not about turning out liberals per se.  It's about being authentic and having a message that resonates.  Again, the Democrats have been playing to middle for decades, and I want nothing more of Clinton/Gore/Kerry type candidates.

 

Harris may not be able to flip the rust belt, but I think someone like Sherrod Brown, Beto O'Rourke, or even Bernie could.  I think the distinction here is between those Democrats who appear "elite" like Warren, Booker and Harris, and those that appear more working class. 

 

Democrats should go hard on healthcare, taxes on the wealthy, the environment, infrastructure, and education.   If they moderate on these issues, they will lose.  (And I think the legislative process will "moderate" what ever policy goals the Democrats would set, no need to concede that ground ahead of time).

[PseudoSABR]

In other news, Mike Mark Kelly announced his campaign for McSally's Senate seat in 2020.  I think he's a very good candidate for Arizona.

[stringer bell]

It's not about turning out liberals per se. It's about being authentic and having a message that resonates. Again, the Democrats have been playing to middle for decades, and I want nothing more of Clinton/Gore/Kerry type candidates.

 

Harris may not be able to flip the rust belt, but I think someone like Sherrod Brown, Beto O'Rourke, or even Bernie could. I think the distinction here is between those Democrats who appear "elite" like Warren, Booker and Harris, and those that appear more working class.

 

Democrats should go hard on healthcare, taxes on the wealthy, the environment, infrastructure, and education. If they moderate on these issues, they will lose. (And I think the legislative process will "moderate" what ever policy goals the Democrats would set, no need to concede that ground ahead of time).

[ashbury]

In other news, Mike Kelly announced his campaign for McSally's Senate seat in 2020.  I think he's a very good candidate for Arizona.

 

Or, maybe you meant "Mark".

[stringer bell]

I agree with much of the arguments about Democratic candidates. However, there’s reality to deal with here. Donald’s Trump was beaten by 2.5% by a tarnished candidate. Trump was aided greatly by the timing of events just before the election and he won three “Big Ten” states by a grand total of 70,000 votes. Since his election,Trump has done precious little to expand his base and has shown the world his character. He would be a huge underdog to any candidate from the Democrats who can keep the party united and survive the primaries.

 

The Democratic nominee doesn’t have to run a perfect campaign. I will grant that any nominee could lose given the way campaigns are run now and the fact that the Republican Party will put a huge amount of resources into destroying whomever the nominee might be. Trump can’t win on issues and most realize he is both dangerous and a terrible human being.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

Or, maybe you meant "Mark".

Oh, that must be his Twin, then.

[Squirrel]

 

He would be a huge underdog to any candidate from the Democrats who can keep the party united and survive the primaries.

 

This is going to be the trick. It's always the trick with liberal voters. There was unity and enthusiasm behind Obama, even though he was slightly right of Hillary when you compare voting records. (Although not by much of any consequence; by their stance on the issues, and their records on the issues, they were very similar candidates in that regard.) The 'freshness' of Obama, and his appeal of hope, his over all character, and having just enough experience (enough that he knew how to appeal to and was supported by 'insiders') without being a longtime 'insider' himself, really carried him with very broad appeal. I hope we can find someone similar, who can appeal to the inside and outside of the party. And I hope that those who consider themselves liberal, but not part of the party core, will realize that bashing the core, because it's not exactly what they want, will result in another loss; and the same for those at the core - bashing the fringe because they might be 'too something' for them, will lose them the unity they need. But I won't hold my breath. I see it already from those who post on FB and what I read elsewhere ... 'leftists' complaining that the core is too far right, and the core complaining that the left is 'too left.' I don't think our ideologies are that dissimilar in what we ultimately want.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's not about turning out liberals per se.  It's about being authentic and having a message that resonates.  Again, the Democrats have been playing to middle for decades, and I want nothing more of Clinton/Gore/Kerry type candidates.

 

Harris may not be able to flip the rust belt, but I think someone like Sherrod Brown, Beto O'Rourke, or even Bernie could.  I think the distinction here is between those Democrats who appear "elite" like Warren, Booker and Harris, and those that appear more working class. 

 

Democrats should go hard on healthcare, taxes on the wealthy, the environment, infrastructure, and education.   If they moderate on these issues, they will lose.  (And I think the legislative process will "moderate" what ever policy goals the Democrats would set, no need to concede that ground ahead of time).

 

The last two Democrats who won were moderates.  That pretty well defuses your argument.  The problem that lead you to that flawed conclusion is you are too interested in your politics and losing sight of the reality on the ground.  Moving center wasn't Hillary or Kerry's problem.  Their problem was they were unrelatable stiffs.  Especially in key areas of the country.

 

Americans don't care about policy when they vote.  That's missing the forest for the trees.  The more liberals split themselves with these asinine "not left enough" arguments the more they lose.  

 

Dems should talk about issues people care about in a way that expands the voter base.  In general, that means holding your base while reaching center.

 

What you argue here is destined to lose.  I don't want that.  I want to kick Republicans out of office in droves.  Too often the left does their best to sabotage that.

[biggentleben]

 

Soooo much straw, and potentially not enough cows to feed straw to! If the Green New Deal comes true...

 

If you're feeding cattle straw, you've got another issue.

[biggentleben]

 

Elaborate please?

 

She railroaded a friend into a case that was not factually correct, but he didn't have the resources to fight it fully, but it was in the midst of her first election campaign, and it made for very good publicity to put in a BS label on him that cost him his job and his career.

 

I understand that's still vague, but there's only so much I feel comfortable speaking on without that person chiming in on their own behalf.

 

Needless to say, the multiple calls and court interactions I had with her throughout the process would cause me to never, ever cast a vote for her.

[biggentleben]

 

Oh, that must be his Twin, then.

 

Brave choice there, Padre.

[ashbury]

Oh, that must be his Twin, then.

 

Brave choice there, Padre.

I award A's to both of you.

[biggentleben]

 

I award A's to both of you.

 

I'm a bit Red in the face that I messed up which Brave move this truly was...that's a true Crime.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

The last two Democrats who won were moderates.  That pretty well defuses your argument.  The problem that lead you to that flawed conclusion is you are too interested in your politics and losing sight of the reality on the ground.  Moving center wasn't Hillary or Kerry's problem.  Their problem was they were unrelatable stiffs.  Especially in key areas of the country.

 

Americans don't care about policy when they vote.  That's missing the forest for the trees.  The more liberals split themselves with these asinine "not left enough" arguments the more they lose.  

 

Dems should talk about issues people care about in a way that expands the voter base.  In general, that means holding your base while reaching center.

 

What you argue here is destined to lose.  I don't want that.  I want to kick Republicans out of office in droves.  Too often the left does their best to sabotage that.

I don't see how. Bill's election was a million years ago, and Obama's election was unique in it's own way -- as most of these things are, every four years.  

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't see how. Bill's election was a million years ago, and Obama's election was unique in it's own way -- as most of these things are, every four years.  

 

Doesn't that speak more to who you nominate and less about policy?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Doesn't that speak more to who you nominate and less about policy?

Not sure. Clinton was the first boomer president and certainly had appeal back in the day, and benefitted from Perot being in the race. Obama was Obama. Kerry and HRC were solid but very moderate candidates too. Neither of them shook things up too much or concerned themselves with the issues pushing this country hard to the right.

[Squirrel]

Not sure. Clinton was the first boomer president and certainly had appeal back in the day, and benefitted from Perot being in the race. Obama was Obama. Kerry and HRC were solid but very moderate candidates too. Neither of them shook things up too much or concerned themselves with the issues pushing this country hard to the right.

Obama wasn’t a progressive. Look at his voting record and who his ‘friends’ were in the Senate. (Kerry, Kennedy [before he died] and Reid. And it was Kerry and Reid who really supported and encouraged his candidacy. That was as insider as it gets.) In terms of the politics and issues, he was as moderate as any of them, and even more so than Clinton, although not by much. What set him apart was his personal appeal and his message of hope, not any super progressive stance on the issues, just a sense of we could get things done. And then a mediocre healthcare policy, because it’s all that could pass, then 2010.

 

Edit to add ... and don’t get me wrong, I was out in Grant Park on election night in 2008, elated and filled with hope. And if you knew me, you’d know that being in any crowd like that, is something that I hate and the least likely place you’d fine me, but yet, wanted to be there, and was, because I was that compelled.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Green New Deal... Your thoughts?

I can't get over the name. It bugs the **** out of me.

 

Call it the Green Deal.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that gender is a confounding factor in nearly every single aspect the HuffPo article raised.

Beat me to it. Lots of guys in the Senate are giant, colossal asshats. Yet I don't see the HuffPost going out of their way to beat them down and the HuffPost is generally LIBERAL.

 

Come on, liberals, get your **** together. Criticism is fine and welcome but this is pretty clearly digging into gender territory. A man is tough when he screams at his interns. A woman is just so... mean... when she does it. Stop it, women! Don't be so MEAN!

[Squirrel]

Beat me to it. Lots of guys in the Senate are giant, colossal asshats. Yet I don't see the HuffPost going out of their way to beat them down and the HuffPost is generally LIBERAL.

 

Come on, liberals, get your **** together. Criticism is fine and welcome but this is pretty clearly digging into gender territory. A man is tough when he screams at his interns. A woman is just so... mean... when she does it. Stop it, women! Don't be so MEAN!

It’s that. But I also think it’s an example of the liberal divide. The more liberal attacking the more moderate. While the Republicans sit back and let us. We’re doing their job for them. And as I indicated several posts above, the moderates attack the more liberal, too. And then we wonder why we lose. Because we spend so much time tearing each other down we forget about finding the common ground and finding a unified voice and message.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It’s that. But I also think it’s an example of the liberal divide. The more liberal attacking the more moderate. While the Republicans sit back and let us. We’re doing their job for them. And as I indicated several posts above, the moderates attack the more liberal, too. And then we wonder why we lose. Because we spend so much time tearing each other down we forget about finding the common ground and finding a unified voice and message.

Oh, I get that, but any journalist who considers themselves "liberal" (and likely left of Klobuchar) and writes that kind of article they NEVER write about a man deserves to be slapped until they acknowledge the wrong-headed and hypocritical nature of their mistake.

[PseudoSABR]

 

The last two Democrats who won were moderates.  That pretty well defuses your argument.  The problem that lead you to that flawed conclusion is you are too interested in your politics and losing sight of the reality on the ground.  Moving center wasn't Hillary or Kerry's problem.  Their problem was they were unrelatable stiffs.  Especially in key areas of the country.

 

Americans don't care about policy when they vote.  That's missing the forest for the trees.  The more liberals split themselves with these asinine "not left enough" arguments the more they lose.  

 

Dems should talk about issues people care about in a way that expands the voter base.  In general, that means holding your base while reaching center.

 

What you argue here is destined to lose.  I don't want that.  I want to kick Republicans out of office in droves.  Too often the left does their best to sabotage that.

Yes, the policy matters to me (as a liberal), just like it matters to you (as a moderate); any asserted bias works both ways.

 

I'll say it again, that authenticity and a message that resonates is what will win the election.  Not the calculated ploy to the middle that looks like you don't stand for anything.  I'd argue that Obama and Clinton won largely due to personality, not policy.  It's not simply about persuading the middle, it's about turning out people who feel they have no voice.  I value moderation, but I'm not sure that's a winning message in-and-of itself.   

 

Moreover, I think there's a lot more appetite for liberal ideas than many had assumed.  We don't really know how a liberal candidate will play out because there hasn't been one in the general election in my life time.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

It’s that. But I also think it’s an example of the liberal divide. The more liberal attacking the more moderate. While the Republicans sit back and let us. We’re doing their job for them. And as I indicated several posts above, the moderates attack the more liberal, too. And then we wonder why we lose. Because we spend so much time tearing each other down we forget about finding the common ground and finding a unified voice and message.

The Republicans have their own divide.  Never-trumpers and RINOs, etc.

 

I think the divisions within the Democratic party are largely over stated and make for a clickable media narrative.  

[Mike Sixel]

I would never work for her, given what I've read and heard. Men behaving badly does not excuse her behavior.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yes, the policy matters to me (as a liberal), just like it matters to you (as a moderate); any asserted bias works both ways.

 

I'll say it again, that authenticity and a message that resonates is what will win the election.  Not the calculated ploy to the middle that looks like you don't stand for anything.  I'd argue that Obama and Clinton won largely due to personality, not policy.  It's not simply about persuading the middle, it's about turning out people who feel they have no voice.  I value moderation, but I'm not sure that's a winning message in-and-of itself.   

 

Moreover, I think there's a lot more appetite for liberal ideas than many had assumed.  We don't really know how a liberal candidate will play out because there hasn't been one in the general election in my life time.  

 

I have several seriously left wing things I support.  So what matters to me is winning so they have a chance of coming true.  I am putting my policy biases (among other views, because I fit in no classification, moderate included) to the side in favor of election wins.  Or more specifically, Republican losses.

 

You are not.  You want your cake and to eat it too.  That mentality on the left has mostly resulted in nation wide butt kickings.  Vote and support to win, let the nitty gritty happen later.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I would never work for her, given what I've read and heard. Men behaving badly does not excuse her behavior.

Not the point. You don't even HEAR about men behaving badly unless their peckers are flapping around. That's the actual point here.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I have several seriously left wing things I support.  So what matters to me is winning so they have a chance of coming true.  I am putting my policy biases (among other views, because I fit in no classification, moderate included) to the side in favor of election wins.  Or more specifically, Republican losses.

 

You are not.  You want your cake and to eat it too.  That mentality on the left has mostly resulted in nation wide butt kickings.  Vote and support to win, let the nitty gritty happen later.

Just because we disagree on strategies doesn't mean that "I want my cake and to eat it too."  You don't know my motives, and I'd stop guessing at them honestly.  

 

I think the best way to beat Trump is to rally around an progressive agenda with an authentic candidate.  I'm not really sure what you're advocating beyond "don't go left, go center."    (Every moderate has their own grab bag of ideas that probably doesn't mirror any other moderate's; this is where messaging becomes difficult when running to the center, and can look overly data-driven and calculated to maximize appeal).  

 

I think the kind of cynicism that entails beating Trump at the expense of values is exactly how you get Hillary Clinton.