Bernie vs Beto

[Marvin the Martian]

Harry Enten was discussing how Bernie backers have started a campaign against Beto, claiming he is not liberal enough. Harry was suggesting that the strategy is based on the idea that 2016 was the year that showed the Democratic Party had moved left as Bernie did so well.

Harry then said that the polling does not back that up. He said polling showed among progressives Clinton and Sanders tied. There was no sudden surge of progressives for Sanders. Rather Sanders easily won people who accept Democratic ideas but do not like to be considered Democrats. He said that many younger voters are that way, they do not want to feel constrained by a two-party system so they do not identify with a party. Sanders beat Clinton in the youth vote and in the self-described independent vote.

Anecdotally that sounds correct, I never identify as a Democrat and supported Sanders. Looking at the board, Toasted seems to fit that idea as well.

My thought is that if Enten is right, Sanders' strategy may help Beto. Independents who vote Democrat may see "Beto is out of touch with the Democratic Party" as a badge of honor. It could be their strategy is going to cost them the primary (mind you, I don't think Bernie has a serious chance anyway).

 

[toastedbread]

Harry Enten was discussing how Bernie backers have started a campaign against Beto, claiming he is not liberal enough. Harry was suggesting that the strategy is based on the idea that 2016 was the year that showed the Democratic Party had moved left as Bernie did so well.

Harry then said that the polling does not back that up. He said polling showed among progressives Clinton and Sanders tied. There was no sudden surge of progressives for Sanders. Rather Sanders easily won people who accept Democratic ideas but do not like to be considered Democrats. He said that many younger voters are that way, they do not want to feel constrained by a two-party system so they do not identify with a party. Sanders beat Clinton in the youth vote and in the self-described independent vote.

Anecdotally that sounds correct, I never identify as a Democrat and supported Sanders. Looking at the board, Toasted seems to fit that idea as well.

My thought is that if Enten is right, Sanders' strategy may help Beto. Independents who vote Democrat may see "Beto is out of touch with the Democratic Party" as a badge of honor. It could be their strategy is going to cost them the primary (mind you, I don't think Bernie has a serious chance anyway).

Not really a big fan of Enten since his 538 days. I basically agree with his analysis on this. I think Sanders won the change voters. I didn't vote in the primary because I was NPA. I changed after the election to D, mostly because of Trump. However, I do want to vote in the upcoming primaries. Although, I'm recently feeling discouraged by the party, so I may revert to NPA and forego the primaries.

I actually didn't agree with many of Sanders positions, however I like the fact that he sticks to his ideals and is basically a straight shooter.

I had been on board with Klobuchar for 2020, but after taking a closer look at her record, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

This is what I'm looking for in a candidate:

Balanced budget
Tackle the long-term Medicare and SS deficits

Pro-abortion

More liberal drug laws

Modernize our armed forces, while spending less.
Modernize border security. Strong border security. (Not man power)

Generally more restrictive immigration policies, while provisioning more visas for the highest skilled workers (the immigration system needs to be completely reworked. It's an absolute disaster. Even the alleged high school worker visas H1B are rife with fraud)

Tackle the bloated and inefficient administrative state. Less government, not more.

More balanced foreign policy.

A form of universal healthcare (I dont trust government bureaucrats running it) with a private option.

Restrictive gun rights.
Perhaps only legal inside of shooting clubs and hunting ranges.

Wealth tax (3% yearly?)

Automated economy with guaranteed minimum income. Eliminate the minimum wage.

These are general positions that I'm interested in, without getting too specific. I'm an issue by issue voter. Obviously, that doesn't fit with our political system.

 

[MrBing]

Harry Enten was discussing how Bernie backers have started a campaign against Beto, claiming he is not liberal enough. Harry was suggesting that the strategy is based on the idea that 2016 was the year that showed the Democratic Party had moved left as Bernie did so well.

Harry then said that the polling does not back that up. He said polling showed among progressives Clinton and Sanders tied. There was no sudden surge of progressives for Sanders. Rather Sanders easily won people who accept Democratic ideas but do not like to be considered Democrats. He said that many younger voters are that way, they do not want to feel constrained by a two-party system so they do not identify with a party. Sanders beat Clinton in the youth vote and in the self-described independent vote.

Anecdotally that sounds correct, I never identify as a Democrat and supported Sanders. Looking at the board, Toasted seems to fit that idea as well.

My thought is that if Enten is right, Sanders' strategy may help Beto. Independents who vote Democrat may see "Beto is out of touch with the Democratic Party" as a badge of honor. It could be their strategy is going to cost them the primary (mind you, I don't think Bernie has a serious chance anyway).

Beto is for Medicare-for-all and I think that's the future. Bernie was my choice over Hillary but he's old. If we can get a younger version that supports some of the same things than I'm going to be looking very hard at her/him. Beto could be that person..

 

[toastedbread]

Beto is for Medicare-for-all and I think that's the future. Bernie was my choice over Hillary but he's old. If we can get a younger version that supports some of the same things than I'm going to be looking very hard at her/him. Beto could be that person..

I basically want whichever candidate is best positioned to beat Donald Trump. That's my main criterion from a practical standpoint. My gut says that Beto isnt that guy. I think the comparison between Sinema and Beto is appropriate. One won and the other lost.

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

Is there any daylight between Beto and Bernie on policy?

Serious question, not trying to be a dick.

 

[wiede]

Is there any daylight between Beto and Bernie on policy?

Serious question, not trying to be a dick.

Not much. Beto is probably more left than he’s shown. Remember, he was running as a dem in deep red state TX. Against an incumbent pub senator. He couldn’t really emphasize his most progressive beliefs if he wanted to have a shot. Like legalizing marijuana- TX makes way too much money off drug interdiction. It’s what supports most towns from the border all the way up to San Antonio.

Beto came really close to pulling it off. I was skeptical at first, but after seeing him in action (videos), he certainly does remind me of Obama. Very poised, smooth & speaks in terms of “we”.

The key is that he’s a uniter- at least that’s how he frames his policies. We’re going to need one of those the next time around.

I’ll say this- if somehow Trump is the nominee in 2020, I believe in Beto v Trump, Beto would take TX. There’s a fair amount of the “old guard” republicans in TX that just won’t vote for Trump.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Not much. Beto is probably more left than he’s shown. Remember, he was running as a dem in deep red state TX. Against an incumbent pub senator. He couldn’t really emphasize his most progressive beliefs if he wanted to have a shot. Like legalizing marijuana- TX makes way too much money off drug interdiction. It’s what supports most towns from the border all the way up to San Antonio.

Beto came really close to pulling it off. I was skeptical at first, but after seeing him in action (videos), he certainly does remind me of Obama. Very poised, smooth & speaks in terms of “we”.

The key is that he’s a uniter- at least that’s how he frames his policies. We’re going to need one of those the next time around.

I’ll say this- if somehow Trump is the nominee in 2020, I believe in Beto v Trump, Beto would take TX. There’s a fair amount of the “old guard” republicans in TX that just won’t vote for Trump.

Right, Beto wants to work with everyone. Bernie is more this is what I want and I won't settle for something less. One comparison I heard about Beto is a more liberal Lloyd Benson.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Harry Enten was discussing how Bernie backers have started a campaign against Beto, claiming he is not liberal enough. Harry was suggesting that the strategy is based on the idea that 2016 was the year that showed the Democratic Party had moved left as Bernie did so well.

Harry then said that the polling does not back that up. He said polling showed among progressives Clinton and Sanders tied. There was no sudden surge of progressives for Sanders. Rather Sanders easily won people who accept Democratic ideas but do not like to be considered Democrats. He said that many younger voters are that way, they do not want to feel constrained by a two-party system so they do not identify with a party. Sanders beat Clinton in the youth vote and in the self-described independent vote.

Anecdotally that sounds correct, I never identify as a Democrat and supported Sanders. Looking at the board, Toasted seems to fit that idea as well.

My thought is that if Enten is right, Sanders' strategy may help Beto. Independents who vote Democrat may see "Beto is out of touch with the Democratic Party" as a badge of honor. It could be their strategy is going to cost them the primary (mind you, I don't think Bernie has a serious chance anyway).

I’ve seen some Bernie backers on social media being very negative about Beto. I don’t really understand it, but there’s a whole group saying they would never vote for him, that he is too conservative.

 

[Fro]

I’ve seen some Bernie backers on social media being very negative about Beto. I don’t really understand it, but there’s a whole group saying they would never vote for him, that he is too conservative.

Health care's a good example:

https://betofortexas.com/issue/healthcare/

Achieving universal healthcare coverage— whether it be through a single payer system, a dual system, or otherwise – so that we can ensure everyone is able to see a provider when it will do the most good and will deliver healthcare in the most affordable, effective way possible.

That gets "WAH! BETO IS A NEOLIBERAL SHILL SINCE HE WON'T ONLY BACK MEDICARE FOR ALL!"

 

[wiede]

Health care's a good example:

https://betofortexas.com/issue/healthcare/



That gets "WAH! BETO IS A NEOLIBERAL SHILL SINCE HE WON'T ONLY BACK MEDICARE FOR ALL!"

Dissatisfied Bernie backers are one of the many reasons we have Trump now.

In MI, for example, more people voted in the democratic primary than voted dem in the general. That’s batchit crazy. On an Alex Jones/Michelle Bachman/Louie Gohmert level.

I understand that Bernie got them fired up- but a choice between Trump and HRC shouldn’t have been a real choice for most of the hardcore Bernie supporters. I’d guess the Russian targeted social media was largely or at least somewhat targeted towards this block of voter (you gotta wonder how they knew to target certain individual voters...).

I don’t have much respect for those folks. Sometimes you’ve got to choose among not great options. You can’t simply take your ball and go home. Or, even worse, vote for the worst candidate, because someone on your team won the primary. Those actions allow the worse option to win. Which is exactly what happened.

That being said, I liked Bernie. And the DNC did absolutely screw him over- as evidenced by the rule changes post election within the party re: primaries and super delegates. But, I’m not sure how much sympathy I should have for him. He didn’t run as a democrat in a democratic primary- he ran as an independent.

I suspect that once Beto has more exposure, he’ll win over many of these folks. They’re still butthurt over the 2016 primary. At a certain point, you gotta let it go.

 

[toastedbread]

Dissatisfied Bernie backers are one of the many reasons we have Trump now.

In MI, for example, more people voted in the democratic primary than voted dem in the general. That’s batchit crazy. On an Alex Jones/Michelle Bachman/Louie Gohmert level.

I understand that Bernie got them fired up- but a choice between Trump and HRC shouldn’t have been a real choice for most of the hardcore Bernie supporters. I’d guess the Russian targeted social media was largely or at least somewhat targeted towards this block of voter (you gotta wonder how they knew to target certain individual voters...).

I don’t have much respect for those folks. Sometimes you’ve got to choose among not great options. You can’t simply take your ball and go home. Or, even worse, vote for the worst candidate, because someone on your team won the primary. Those actions allow the worse option to win. Which is exactly what happened.

That being said, I liked Bernie. And the DNC did absolutely screw him over- as evidenced by the rule changes post election within the party re: primaries and super delegates. But, I’m not sure how much sympathy I should have for him. He didn’t run as a democrat in a democratic primary- he ran as an independent.

I suspect that once Beto has more exposure, he’ll win over many of these folks. They’re still butthurt over the 2016 primary. At a certain point, you gotta let it go.

I think Beto is more of a celebrity candidate than a strategic candidate. People's eyes light up in the same way they do for Britney Spears. (My cousin who lives in Austin is pratically fawning over Beto) He lost to a deeply unpopular incumbent, and arguably ran a very poor campaign. Next door, Kristen Sinema managed to flip a red seat by running a less progressive campaign. And before you argue that Texas is redder than Arizona, do compare the governors results. The Republican governor in Arizona won by 1% more than in Texas. I have no doubts that he can win the primary. I have serious doubts that he is the candidate most likely to defeat Donald Trump.

 

[wiede]

I think Beto is more of a celebrity candidate than a strategic candidate. People's eyes light up in the same way they do for Britney Spears. (My cousin who lives in Austin is pratically fawning over Beto) He lost to a deeply unpopular incumbent, and arguably ran a very poor campaign. Next door, Kristen Sinema managed to flip a red seat by running a less progressive campaign. And before you argue that Texas is redder than Arizona, do compare the governors results. The Republican governor in Arizona won by 1% more than in Texas. I have no doubts that he can win the primary. I have serious doubts that he is the candidate most likely to defeat Donald Trump.

He ran a flawless campaign. I’m not sure where you got that he ran a poor one. I’ve yet to see a single source that says he ran a poor campaign, and that’s from all sides.

AZ is turning purple/blue faster than TX. AZ has one major metropolis area that accounts for a huge chunk of its voters (Phoenix area/Maricopa County). TX is several blue spots in a vast sea of red. Take a place like Dallas. Dallas County is very blue. However, the Dallas-Ft. Worth (especially the Ft Worth side) suburbs are deep red. Not just slightly red, but deep red. That tends to balance out the city vote. And the suburbs surrounding the big cities in TX are huge- San Antonio being the outlier (where I live). But that’s because the city is basically the entire county- there’s a lot of farmland and cattle grazing on the outskirts of San Antonio.

Plus, don’t ever underestimate the Maricopa County/Joe Arpaio factor in AZ. Hispanics were blatantly racially profiled, and he was tied at the hip with Trump. I’d guess that had an effect there as well.

They’re not even remotely similar.

I live here brother. I would love nothing better than to see TX turn at least purple, and eventually blue. It’ll happen- but it’ll happen more slowly. The voter registration process here is more difficult, and the fastest growing segment of the population (Hispanic origin- mostly Mexican) does not vote nearly as much as other groups do. And, a good chunk of that population isn’t even eligible to vote- the # is around 40%, IIRC.

Once those kids are eligible to vote, that’s when the blue transition happens. It could be another decade or more. However, if history holds, fewer will vote dem than other areas in the country & fewer will vote than the national average. It should be enough to push the state blue, at least in the population centers. There are parts of TX that’ll never go blue- the places I don’t ever see myself venturing into in the future. Those places are downright scary. Stuck in a time warp.

One last thing- Beto overperformed the polls by at least 4-6 points. The AZ race had the dem up throughout a good chunk of the race. Every other state dem candidate in TX lost- including a great candidate for AG that lost to the current pub AG that is being investigated for theft (look it up- it’s nuts).

So, yeah, I guess I disagree with your statement. It assumes AZ and TX are similar. They’re not. In many ways.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

In MI, for example, more people voted in the democratic primary than voted dem in the general.

I don't know where you got that, but that's not even close to true. Twice as many people voted Clinton in the general than voted in the Dem primary in total.

 

[toastedbread]

He ran a flawless campaign. I’m not sure where you got that he ran a poor one. I’ve yet to see a single source that says he ran a poor campaign, and that’s from all sides.

There are a not insignificant number of experts who say the opposite. (I read one article recently which highlighted concerns among Congressional members. Can't find it at the moment) Here's one:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...eto-orourke-texas-senate-2018-election-222188

There is no middle ground here.

AZ is turning purple/blue faster than TX. AZ has one major metropolis area that accounts for a huge chunk of its voters (Phoenix area/Maricopa County). TX is several blue spots in a vast sea of red. Take a place like Dallas. Dallas County is very blue. However, the Dallas-Ft. Worth (especially the Ft Worth side) suburbs are deep red. Not just slightly red, but deep red. That tends to balance out the city vote. And the suburbs surrounding the big cities in TX are huge- San Antonio being the outlier (where I live). But that’s because the city is basically the entire county- there’s a lot of farmland and cattle grazing on the outskirts of San Antonio.

Plus, don’t ever underestimate the Maricopa County/Joe Arpaio factor in AZ. Hispanics were blatantly racially profiled, and he was tied at the hip with Trump. I’d guess that had an effect there as well.

They’re not even remotely similar.

I live here brother. I would love nothing better than to see TX turn at least purple, and eventually blue. It’ll happen- but it’ll happen more slowly. The voter registration process here is more difficult, and the fastest growing segment of the population (Hispanic origin- mostly Mexican) does not vote nearly as much as other groups do. And, a good chunk of that population isn’t even eligible to vote- the # is around 40%, IIRC.

Once those kids are eligible to vote, that’s when the blue transition happens. It could be another decade or more. However, if history holds, fewer will vote dem than other areas in the country & fewer will vote than the national average. It should be enough to push the state blue, at least in the population centers. There are parts of TX that’ll never go blue- the places I don’t ever see myself venturing into in the future. Those places are downright scary. Stuck in a time warp.

Again, you are completely ignoring my point. Why is it that the Republican governor in Arizona actually outperformed the Republican governor in Texas, if Texas is redder than Arizona?

Texas was 55.8-42.5 and Arizona 56.0-41.8

Fyi, the evidence is mixed on your claim that Texas is redder than Arizona.

One last thing- Beto overperformed the polls by at least 4-6 points. The AZ race had the dem up throughout a good chunk of the race.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/texas/
The last serious poll was an Emerson that had Cruz +3. Beto lost by 2.6

Cruz had an absolutely putrid negative approval rating throughout the campaign. My argument is that if Beto had run more toward the center, he would have run away with the contest. There simply are not enough blue voters in Texas to win by turning out the blue base. There were folks who hated Cruz, but voted for Cruz because Beto was too progressive for them.

About Arizona, all of the polling had that as a complete tossup:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/arizona/

 

[zeke4ahs]

Dissatisfied Bernie backers are one of the many reasons we have Trump now.

In MI, for example, more people voted in the democratic primary than voted dem in the general. That’s batchit crazy. On an Alex Jones/Michelle Bachman/Louie Gohmert level.

I understand that Bernie got them fired up- but a choice between Trump and HRC shouldn’t have been a real choice for most of the hardcore Bernie supporters. I’d guess the Russian targeted social media was largely or at least somewhat targeted towards this block of voter (you gotta wonder how they knew to target certain individual voters...).

I don’t have much respect for those folks. Sometimes you’ve got to choose among not great options. You can’t simply take your ball and go home. Or, even worse, vote for the worst candidate, because someone on your team won the primary. Those actions allow the worse option to win. Which is exactly what happened.

That being said, I liked Bernie. And the DNC did absolutely screw him over- as evidenced by the rule changes post election within the party re: primaries and super delegates. But, I’m not sure how much sympathy I should have for him. He didn’t run as a democrat in a democratic primary- he ran as an independent.

I suspect that once Beto has more exposure, he’ll win over many of these folks. They’re still butthurt over the 2016 primary. At a certain point, you gotta let it go.

I think Beto is more of a celebrity candidate than a strategic candidate. People's eyes light up in the same way they do for Britney Spears. (My cousin who lives in Austin is pratically fawning over Beto) He lost to a deeply unpopular incumbent, and arguably ran a very poor campaign. Next door, Kristen Sinema managed to flip a red seat by running a less progressive campaign. And before you argue that Texas is redder than Arizona, do compare the governors results. The Republican governor in Arizona won by 1% more than in Texas. I have no doubts that he can win the primary. I have serious doubts that he is the candidate most likely to defeat Donald Trump.

Why do you think he ran a poor campaign? Everything I’ve read complimented him on his campaign, use of social media, sound bites, getting his name out there, etc.

 

[toastedbread]

Why do you think he ran a poor campaign? Everything I’ve read complimented him on his campaign, use of social media, sound bites, getting his name out there, etc.

I don't know if he did or didn't run a poor campaign. I just think that there needs to be a deeper introspection. He significantly out-raised his opponent, he built a major national following, and he had thousands cheering him on at rallies. He also lost to his opponent. Does that remind you of anyone from the 2016 primary?

The reality is that Cruz was historically unpopular, and a case can be made that he was ripe for defeat. As I understand, Cornyn is also ripe for the pickings.

On another topic, the biggest problem for the democratic party in the 2018 midterms was their continued under performance among Hispanics in Texas and Florida. They really need to solve that riddle.

 

[wiede]

I don't know where you got that, but that's not even close to true. Twice as many people voted Clinton in the general than voted in the Dem primary in total.

I saw Michael Moore quote a stat like that recently. It was during a town hall show, in which they spoke with MI voters a few months ago. Given that he’s from MI, I trusted it. Silly me.

And I’m sure I probably screwed the stat up. I’ll try to find it and post it for reference. It sounded a little off, but it seemed legit at the time. Maybe it was the percentages that he quoted? I swear I’m not making up #’s. You know my stance on fake info.

I still stand by disaffected Bernie supporters either bowing out of the general or voting for a third party like Jill Stein. Or, even worse, crossing over and voting for Trump. They weren’t the sole cause of the election results, but they certainly contributed to it.

 

[wiede]

I don't know if he did or didn't run a poor campaign. I just think that there needs to be a deeper introspection. He significantly out-raised his opponent, he built a major national following, and he had thousands cheering him on at rallies. He also lost to his opponent. Does that remind you of anyone from the 2016 primary?

The reality is that Cruz was historically unpopular, and a case can be made that he was ripe for defeat. As I understand, Cornyn is also ripe for the pickings.

On another topic, the biggest problem for the democratic party in the 2018 midterms was their continued under performance among Hispanics in Texas and Florida. They really need to solve that riddle.

You don’t understand TX. I don’t blame you- I didn’t either, until I lived here for a while. I had the same thoughts that you did- why the hell isn’t this state at least purple now?

It’s not as simple as “there’s mkre Hispanics now, therefore Beto should’ve won”. And, Cruz still had an R beside his name. The senate race was much closer in terms of margin/%’s than all the other big ticket races in the mid term. Had he been in a blue state, or even purple state, he would’ve won in a landslide. Also, the pre-election polls showed a different story than the one you’re telling. He outperformed those as well. It was the first time a pub senator had to sweat the final results since the mid 80’s.

And the excitement for Beto was on an Obama level. Clinton never had that much enthusiasm. Beto was like seeing the lead singer of a band in terms of enthusiasm. Hillary was like seeing the keyboardist or road backup guitar player. Not remotely comparable.

I’ll try to find some articles about the race for you- from TX sources. It’s a different world down here. Even the big cities tend to be more red than other big cities- and the smaller towns are overwhelmingly red.

 

[wiede]

There are a not insignificant number of experts who say the opposite. (I read one article recently which highlighted concerns among Congressional members. Can't find it at the moment) Here's one:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...eto-orourke-texas-senate-2018-election-222188

There is no middle ground here.


Again, you are completely ignoring my point. Why is it that the Republican governor in Arizona actually outperformed the Republican governor in Texas, if Texas is redder than Arizona?

Texas was 55.8-42.5 and Arizona 56.0-41.8

Fyi, the evidence is mixed on your claim that Texas is redder than Arizona.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/texas/
The last serious poll was an Emerson that had Cruz +3. Beto lost by 2.6

Cruz had an absolutely putrid negative approval rating throughout the campaign. My argument is that if Beto had run more toward the center, he would have run away with the contest. There simply are not enough blue voters in Texas to win by turning out the blue base. There were folks who hated Cruz, but voted for Cruz because Beto was too progressive for them.

About Arizona, all of the polling had that as a complete tossup:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/arizona/

Something else I failed to mention was that pub governor Greg Abbott had a voter registration drive for pubs that was well organized, and very effective. The dem party in TX is in a constant state of shell shock from getting their @sses handed to them every election. And, TX revised their voting laws after the US SC rescinded the provision in the voting rights act that made states like TX with a history of voting discrimination against minorities get pre-clearance before making changes to their voting laws. For example, a hunting license is OK to show to vote in person. And a student ID is not. I’m sure that had some impact also.

 

[toastedbread]

It’s not as simple as “there’s mkre Hispanics now, therefore Beto should’ve won”. And, Cruz still had an R beside his name. The senate race was much closer in terms of margin/%’s than all the other big ticket races in the mid term. Had he been in a blue state, or even purple state, he would’ve won in a landslide. Also, the pre-election polls showed a different story than the one you’re telling. He outperformed those as well. It was the first time a pub senator had to sweat the final results since the mid 80’s.

I'm fully aware that the Ds are under-performing with Hispanics in Texas. In fact, it's widely known that Hispanics in Texas are the most conservative Hispanic bloc in the entire country.

What were the favorables/unfavorables of the other Texas statewide Republicans? My guess is that Cruz had the worst numbers by far.

Have a read of this as well:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/420342-orourke-is-fireball-but-not-all-dems-are-sold

And, TX revised their voting laws after the US SC rescinded the provision in the voting rights act that made states like TX with a history of voting discrimination against minorities get pre-clearance before making changes to their voting laws. For example, a hunting license is OK to show to vote in person. And a student ID is not. I’m sure that had some impact also.

Ok. The raw number impact of that is probably marginal. Virtually every study I've read about ID laws suggests that, fortunately, the actual impact of them is quite minor. They sound much worse than what results.

 

[wiede]

I don't know where you got that, but that's not even close to true. Twice as many people voted Clinton in the general than voted in the Dem primary in total.

I stand corrected. The town hall indicated that what I cited was true in Flint, MI. Not the entire state. My bad.

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/all-in/2018-09-12

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

He ran a flawless campaign. I’m not sure where you got that he ran a poor one. I’ve yet to see a single source that says he ran a poor campaign, and that’s from all sides.

AZ is turning purple/blue faster than TX. AZ has one major metropolis area that accounts for a huge chunk of its voters (Phoenix area/Maricopa County). TX is several blue spots in a vast sea of red. Take a place like Dallas. Dallas County is very blue. However, the Dallas-Ft. Worth (especially the Ft Worth side) suburbs are deep red. Not just slightly red, but deep red. That tends to balance out the city vote. And the suburbs surrounding the big cities in TX are huge- San Antonio being the outlier (where I live). But that’s because the city is basically the entire county- there’s a lot of farmland and cattle grazing on the outskirts of San Antonio.

Plus, don’t ever underestimate the Maricopa County/Joe Arpaio factor in AZ. Hispanics were blatantly racially profiled, and he was tied at the hip with Trump. I’d guess that had an effect there as well.

They’re not even remotely similar.

I live here brother. I would love nothing better than to see TX turn at least purple, and eventually blue. It’ll happen- but it’ll happen more slowly. The voter registration process here is more difficult, and the fastest growing segment of the population (Hispanic origin- mostly Mexican) does not vote nearly as much as other groups do. And, a good chunk of that population isn’t even eligible to vote- the # is around 40%, IIRC.

Once those kids are eligible to vote, that’s when the blue transition happens. It could be another decade or more. However, if history holds, fewer will vote dem than other areas in the country & fewer will vote than the national average. It should be enough to push the state blue, at least in the population centers. There are parts of TX that’ll never go blue- the places I don’t ever see myself venturing into in the future. Those places are downright scary. Stuck in a time warp.

One last thing- Beto overperformed the polls by at least 4-6 points. The AZ race had the dem up throughout a good chunk of the race. Every other state dem candidate in TX lost- including a great candidate for AG that lost to the current pub AG that is being investigated for theft (look it up- it’s nuts).

So, yeah, I guess I disagree with your statement. It assumes AZ and TX are similar. They’re not. In many ways.

Are people seriously ripping on a D losing a statewide election to an R in TX?

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

He ran a flawless campaign. I’m not sure where you got that he ran a poor one. I’ve yet to see a single source that says he ran a poor campaign, and that’s from all sides.

AZ is turning purple/blue faster than TX. AZ has one major metropolis area that accounts for a huge chunk of its voters (Phoenix area/Maricopa County). TX is several blue spots in a vast sea of red. Take a place like Dallas. Dallas County is very blue. However, the Dallas-Ft. Worth (especially the Ft Worth side) suburbs are deep red. Not just slightly red, but deep red. That tends to balance out the city vote. And the suburbs surrounding the big cities in TX are huge- San Antonio being the outlier (where I live). But that’s because the city is basically the entire county- there’s a lot of farmland and cattle grazing on the outskirts of San Antonio.

Plus, don’t ever underestimate the Maricopa County/Joe Arpaio factor in AZ. Hispanics were blatantly racially profiled, and he was tied at the hip with Trump. I’d guess that had an effect there as well.

They’re not even remotely similar.

I live here brother. I would love nothing better than to see TX turn at least purple, and eventually blue. It’ll happen- but it’ll happen more slowly. The voter registration process here is more difficult, and the fastest growing segment of the population (Hispanic origin- mostly Mexican) does not vote nearly as much as other groups do. And, a good chunk of that population isn’t even eligible to vote- the # is around 40%, IIRC.

Once those kids are eligible to vote, that’s when the blue transition happens. It could be another decade or more. However, if history holds, fewer will vote dem than other areas in the country & fewer will vote than the national average. It should be enough to push the state blue, at least in the population centers. There are parts of TX that’ll never go blue- the places I don’t ever see myself venturing into in the future. Those places are downright scary. Stuck in a time warp.

One last thing- Beto overperformed the polls by at least 4-6 points. The AZ race had the dem up throughout a good chunk of the race. Every other state dem candidate in TX lost- including a great candidate for AG that lost to the current pub AG that is being investigated for theft (look it up- it’s nuts).

So, yeah, I guess I disagree with your statement. It assumes AZ and TX are similar. They’re not. In many ways.

Hell, even I went to a Beto rally at Auditorium Shores.

It was more of a Willie Nelson concert but Beto was still there.

 

[wiede]

Hell, even I went to a Beto rally at Auditorium Shores.

It was more of a Willie Nelson concert but Beto was still there.

Wow. Hope you enjoyed it

Whatever “it” is, he’s got “it”. The difference in many elections is excitement. And a candidate with “it” has a much better chance of winning.

I’m still not sold. I want to hear from all candidates. Contrary to what I’ve seen elsewhere, I think the Dems have a pretty solid cast of candidates. And, I also think that more competition is better. The dem party tried to anoint someone last time, and we all saw how that worked out.

Plus, I need to see who the pubs put up. I’m sure anymore that it’ll be Trump. Or, maybe an unknown emerges that’s a strong independent. There’s too much left to happen to be all in for one candidate right now.

I could also see Beto angling for the VP spot. A la Joe Biden in 2007/2008. I saw Biden, HRC, Edwards (pre sandal), Richardson and Obama at an event in Chicago back in 2008 (I think it was then- it was the primary for the Dems). The format was a brief speech by each, followed by 10-15 minutes of questions from the room (all claimant attorneys).

I thought initially that either HRC, Obama or Edwards would win the room. HRC because she was the presumed front runner. Obama because he’s from Chicago. Edwards, because he was a claimant attorney).

In short, Biden killed it. But, he was being very deferential to the others. Almost too deferential. I had already pegged Obama as the next president, it after that, I added Biden to my prediction (as VP).

Personally, I’d be thrilled with a ticket of Kamala Harris/Beto. In either order. That would be a really hard ticket to beat, especially after the probable implosion of the Trump administration. It would be similar to how Carter was elected post Nixon (and Ford as a placeholder).

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Not much. Beto is probably more left than he’s shown. Remember, he was running as a dem in deep red state TX. Against an incumbent pub senator. He couldn’t really emphasize his most progressive beliefs if he wanted to have a shot.

That’s an awfully cynical way of looking at it isn’t it? Couldn’t another be: he’s from Texas and is a moderate liberal due to his environment? To word it the way you did implies that he’s trying to lead for leading sake and is not showing his true beliefs. I wouldn’t vote for a guy that did that. It’s numero uno reason why I don’t vote for Romney.

I would (and have) voted for moderate Democrats that intersect conservatism and social liberalism.

 

[wiede]

That’s an awfully cynical way of looking at it isn’t it? Couldn’t another be: he’s from Texas and is a moderate liberal due to his environment? To word it the way you did implies that he’s trying to lead for leading sake and is not showing his true beliefs. I wouldn’t vote for a guy that did that. It’s numero uno reason why I don’t vote for Romney.

I would (and have) voted for moderate Democrats that intersect conservatism and social liberalism.

That’s another way to view it. He does seem to be more of a pragmatist- which is a good thing, IMO. Perhaps a better way to say it is that he always had the more left leaning beliefs, but chose to emphasize the ones that were more towards the center.

For example, he’s pro Medicare for all, drug legalization & also viewed the NFL player’s kneeling as a great example of free speech that’s done to help further debate about injustices. I’d say those are all fairly “left” positions. He didn’t shy away from those, but (smartly) he emphasized unity and working together during his senate campaign.

Re: Romney- the guy that ran Massachusetts was someone I would’ve considered voting for. But that wasn’t the Romney we got. We got a Romney that Had to go hard right, and clearly wasn’t comfortable with some of the positions he took.

I wonder if he’ll throw his hat back in the ring in 2020 if Trump isn’t on the ticket? It’ll certainly be interesting to see him in the senate next year.

The Dems have some interesting choices to make re: the next presidential candidate. How do you ensure that all factions are happy? And how do you manage that many candidates running at once?

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

That’s another way to view it. He does seem to be more of a pragmatist- which is a good thing, IMO. Perhaps a better way to say it is that he always had the more left leaning beliefs, but chose to emphasize the ones that were more towards the center.

For example, he’s pro Medicare for all, drug legalization & also viewed the NFL player’s kneeling as a great example of free speech that’s done to help further debate about injustices. I’d say those are all fairly “left” positions. He didn’t shy away from those, but (smartly) he emphasized unity and working together during his senate campaign.

Re: Romney- the guy that ran Massachusetts was someone I would’ve considered voting for. But that wasn’t the Romney we got. We got a Romney that Had to go hard right, and clearly wasn’t comfortable with some of the positions he took.

I wonder if he’ll throw his hat back in the ring in 2020 if Trump isn’t on the ticket? It’ll certainly be interesting to see him in the senate next year.

The Dems have some interesting choices to make re: the next presidential candidate. How do you ensure that all factions are happy? And how do you manage that many candidates running at once?

2020 will be the Dem's version of the R 2016 Primary. Too many candidates, the one that best appeals to the lowest common denominator will win.

 

[wiede]

2020 will be the Dem's version of the R 2016 Primary. Too many candidates, the one that best appeals to the lowest common denominator will win.

Or, someone will emerge that dazzles everyone. A la Obama in 2008.

Right now, I’m thinking it’ll be Beto. But that could change in a hurry.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

That’s an awfully cynical way of looking at it isn’t it? Couldn’t another be: he’s from Texas and is a moderate liberal due to his environment? To word it the way you did implies that he’s trying to lead for leading sake and is not showing his true beliefs. I wouldn’t vote for a guy that did that. It’s numero uno reason why I don’t vote for Romney.

I would (and have) voted for moderate Democrats that intersect conservatism and social liberalism.

I’ve commented on this before. As an example, Republican and Democratic politicians had nearly identical expressed views on same-sex marriage, saying they didn’t support it and talked about supporting traditional marriage. They were all in tune with the country’s position on it. However, liberals gave Democratic politicians a pass on the issue and heavily criticized the Republican politicians. Essentially, they believed most Democratic politicians were lying about their position and Republicans were telling the truth. People on this board basically said President Obama was only being political (lying) about his position until he publicly changed it - and he was essentially pushed on it by Biden. You’re not being cynical, you’re observing reality.

 

[Morrison]

2020 will be the Dem's version of the R 2016 Primary. Too many candidates, the one that best appeals to the lowest common denominator will win.

Since you put it like that, I’m thinking I have a shot.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I’ve commented on this before. As an example, Republican and Democratic politicians had nearly identical expressed views on same-sex marriage, saying they didn’t support it and talked about supporting traditional marriage. They were all in tune with the country’s position on it. However, liberals gave Democratic politicians a pass on the issue and heavily criticized the Republican politicians. Essentially, they believed most Democratic politicians were lying about their position and Republicans were telling the truth. People on this board basically said President Obama was only being political (lying) about his position until he publicly changed it - and he was essentially pushed on it by Biden. You’re not being cynical, you’re observing reality.

No, conservatives on this board basically said President Obama was lying. Liberals on this board - and elsewhere - realized that many people really did evolve on the issue. And not just politicians, most of the rest of us gradually shifted on the issue as well. In 2004, only 40% of Democrats supported same-sex marriage. Last year, that number was 73% (over the same time period, support among Republicans similarly rose, from 17% to 40%).

People do change their minds over the years. This particular issue is a good example of that.

 

[toastedbread]

No, conservatives on this board basically said President Obama was lying. Liberals on this board - and elsewhere - realized that many people really did evolve on the issue. And not just politicians, most of the rest of us gradually shifted on the issue as well. In 2004, only 40% of Democrats supported same-sex marriage. Last year, that number was 73% (over the same time period, support among Republicans similarly rose, from 17% to 40%).

People do change their minds over the years. This particular issue is a good example of that.

I'm in the 60%. I'd guess it's the same for pot.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm in the 60%. I'd guess it's the same for pot.

I don't remember when I changed my position on the issue, but I don't think it was before 2004. For a long time, I was like many Democratic politicians: I supported equal rights in all things except marriage.

 

[UncleMark]

Since you put it like that, I’m thinking I have a shot.

Mo in Two-Oh!

 

[Morrison]

Mo in Two-Oh!

Nah, I’m still one of the few passengers still on the O’Malley train. Did you jump off already?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Nah, I’m still one of the few passengers still on the O’Malley train. Did you jump off already?

Dude has less personality than a scab. He's not going to motivate voters to get to the polls. I doubt he could motivate his own kids to call 911 if he was having a heart attack.

 

[Morrison]

Dude has less personality than a scab. He's not going to motivate voters to get to the polls. I doubt he could motivate his own kids to call 911 if he was having a heart attack.

LMAO! That is funny, and probably true. So, your saying I should wait a bit before contributing this cycle? Actually, I look at Klobuchar that way. I think she would make a great president, but she’s boring as hell.

 

[UncleMark]

LMAO! That is funny, and probably true. So, your saying I should wait a bit before contributing this cycle? Actually, I look at Klobuchar that way. I think she would make a great president, but she’s boring as hell.

Amy would be great, but she needs Rachel as her sidekick to lob up softballs. She can't hit the long ball on her own.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Frankly, after Trump I hope we want to reward competency over who entertains us. But if forced I would bet against competency and in favor of entertainer-in-chief.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Frankly, after Trump I hope we want to reward competency over who entertains us. But if forced I would bet against competency and in favor of entertainer-in-chief.

The way things are going the dems need to nominate Jerry Springer. At least I can be entertained with republicans attacking dems for nominating a tv personality.