Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

2020 Presidential Election

PseudoSABR

By PseudoSABR
in The Sports Bar

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 955
  • Created
  • Last Reply
AlwaysinModeration Ft Myers Mighty Mussels

AlwaysinModeration

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

I only watched the second debate. I was extremely impressed by Harris throughout the debate, not just on the exchange with Biden, and the moment where she silenced the bickering children with her line about “America doesn’t want a food fight”, but consistently throughout. (She also quieted the bickering candidates and moderators when she said “as the only black person on stage, allow me to address that.”) She struck me a smart, poised, experienced, personable and charismatic. She connected in a way no one else on stage did, from my vantage point, as I watched. I was pleased to see that view was pretty universally shared in the post-debate coverage. Her polling numbers have doubled in some early post-debate polls.

 

To me she looks like an extremely strong candidate. (Biden and Bernie look like they are past their expiration date.). My question is this: why is “her prosecutorial record” viewed as baggage that is going to hurt her? Obviously I need to (and will be forced to) learn more about some of the potentially distasteful and/or objectionable hard stances she took as AG. However, as a candidate from a liberal state with very progressive policy stances, it seems to me like having a tough as nails background should be a positive. “Prosecuting the case against Trump” and being extremely tough can only help her.

 

Coupled with the fact that she immediately had social media fake account bots taking birtherism “she’s not really black” shots at her (during the debate, retweeted by Don Jr!), makes me think she is a formidable candidate - who is going to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brock Beauchamp GOAT

Brock Beauchamp

Administrator
Posted
Posted

 

Abortion is probably the single issue that I struggle with the most.
In the end, I consider myself pro-life and pro-choice.
Some will say that makes no sense or I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too, but I'll try to explain.

I don't like abortion. It makes me sad. I'd prefer there were many less abortions. There are simply way too many performed every year for me to believe that none of them were preventable.
So, in that regard, I guess I'm pro life.

On the other hand, it takes two to make a pregnancy, and I don't want the government forcing only one of those two people to carry an unwanted fetus to term. So I'm definitely pro choice as well.

Women 100% have the right to make that choice, IMO, as long as it's done before the fetus is viable outside the womb, I agree with badsmerf that it becomes a person at that point.

What I'd really like, is to find a way to make that a rare choice. What can we do? Better sex education? Better access to birth control? I don't know how we get there, or if it's even possible.

This is pretty much my take on it, too. I hate the concept of abortion but feel any legislation of it is unfair to one gender while ignoring the part played by the other and it's realistically unfeasible. As a foster parent, I reel at the thought of what would happen if mothers were forced to bring babies to term. We already have enough neglected kids that are destined for prison cells without serious intervention, let's not add more to the mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
howeda7 GCL Twins

howeda7

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

This x1000. He could have won, he could have made Texas competitive again. Him not running for Senate is going to be the big What If of 2020, I think.

I wouldn't assume that none of the current candidates run for Senate. Beto/Castro should run in Texas. Bullock in MT and Hickenlooper in CO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
howeda7 GCL Twins

howeda7

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

I don't think Biden is ready for this new trend of presidential debates... He was visibly thrown off by Harris' attack last night. When you have to address and account for all of your stances and beliefs over 30+ years that makes it tough.

These days it's an advantage not to have a extensive voting track record for opponents to dig into.

The response should have been easy. "I have always fought for equality and will continue to do so. Over the course of many decades, my opinion on some issues has changed. I don't think the American people are interested in re-litigating the minutia of a policy from 40 years ago." Instead he got down in the weeds and lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
howeda7 GCL Twins

howeda7

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

I *really* like Mayor Pete but hope he's honest enough to realize he's doing all of this for a cabinet position, or maybe even a VP nomination if he hits the right notes.

 

He's not ready for prime-time, as evidenced by his woeful lack of actual policy.

 

Warren/Buttigieg? Sign me the **** up, twice on Sunday.

Harris/Buttigeig maybe. I don't think we will see a ticket with two men or two white people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ewen21 First Round Pick

ewen21

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

Harris/Buttigeig maybe. I don't think we will see a ticket with two men or two white people.

That wouldn't be acceptable to the democrats target group. I'm not being facetious either. Straight white male candidates honestly can't share a ticket this time around

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ashbury Cooperstown

ashbury

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

That wouldn't be acceptable to the democrats target group. I'm not being facetious either. Straight white male candidates honestly can't share a ticket this time around

Straight white (non-Hispanic or Latino) males make up, what, 30% of the US population these days? Just by probability (assuming qualified candidates are uniformly distributed, yes?), it would be only 50-50 (70% times 70%) that neither half of a ticket would be that, and under 10% (30% times 30%) that both would be. The days of Romney-Ryan or Trump-Pence tickets as a default way of operating are gone. Oh wait, they're not, apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
howeda7 GCL Twins

howeda7

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

That wouldn't be acceptable to the democrats target group. I'm not being facetious either. Straight white male candidates honestly can't share a ticket this time around

 

Wanting a ticket that reflects the base of the party isn't a bad thing. The R's will have two old white men on the ticket again, adequately representing their base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
howeda7 GCL Twins

howeda7

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

Straight white (non-Hispanic or Latino) males make up, what, 30% of the US population these days? Just by probability (assuming qualified candidates are uniformly distributed, yes?), it would be only 50-50 (70% times 70%) that neither half of a ticket would be that, and under 10% (30% times 30%) that both would be. The days of Romney-Ryan or Trump-Pence tickets as a default way of operating are gone. Oh wait, they're not, apparently.

Yep. And if it's 30% of the total population, it's an even lower % of the party obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Squirrel GOAT

Squirrel

Community Leader
Posted
Posted

 

Yep. And if it's 30% of the total population, it's an even lower % of the party obviously.

Both parties, really, when you look at all the numbers, are very imbalanced in how they are represented in Washington. And probably very imbalanced in how they are represented state to state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ashbury Cooperstown

ashbury

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

I'll add that it's a long tradition for the presidential nominee to pick a VP who in one or more ways balances the ticket, in the name of electability. Choosing someone seen as more moderate, or more experienced, or from a different geographic region, are common. There's nothing sinister at all about balancing a ticket in some other way than those as well, for the same purpose. That further reduces the odds of a ticket being two of the same race/gender/etc, as we go forward, with "white straight male" no longer seen as the default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Squirrel GOAT

Squirrel

Community Leader
Posted
Posted

 

The leading contenders for VP are Buttigeig and Castro. I'm not sure any of the sitting Senators would even want to give up their seat to be on the ticket, though Kaine did.

Kaine did because Virginia had a Democratic governor who would appoint his replacement. I think that was partly why he was chosen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
howeda7 GCL Twins

howeda7

Verified Member
Posted
Posted

 

Kaine did because Virginia had a Democratic governor who would appoint his replacement. I think that was partly why he was chosen.

That's part of it. But even with that, if you're a high ranking Senator who can stay in office for years like Klobuchar or Warren, do you want to give that up to be VP, which as one former VP said "is like a warm bucket of spit."  I guess if you think you're the successor, maybe. But that hasn't actually happened since Bush 43.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PseudoSABR Cedar Rapids Kernels

PseudoSABR

Verified Member
Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

I would like to see Joe Kennedy, but it’s pretty clear he’s not interested (yet).

I don't know much about him beyond anecdotal news reports; name recognition is nice, but legacy candidates always give me pause. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vanimal46 MVP

Vanimal46

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Posted

Is that link correct? I got a ‘page not found’ page when I clicked on it.

Nice catch. I deleted the numbers at the end of the link but I guess they're necessary to see the article. Fixed now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Squirrel GOAT

Squirrel

Community Leader
Posted
Posted

Nice catch. I deleted the numbers at the end of the link but I guess they're necessary to see the article. Fixed now!

I found it on my own anyway.

 

It was a so so article. Didn’t really report anything new. And the title didn’t really match the body of the article. It’s basically a retread of reporting the debate where Harris called out Biden on his record regarding school integration and busing and speculating on if it will have a negative effect on the election. It didn’t bring any real research of opinions other than quotes from a few people. It didn’t really report ... is this an ongoing thing? It doesn’t seem like it, just a continuation of the media rehyping that small portion of the debate that happened a couple weeks ago now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Twins community on the internet.

Become a Caretaker
×
×
  • Create New...