Politics, but not weather or journalism or weather journalism

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 76079
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 8876
x 11985

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Sat May 12, 2018 10:39 pm

CubmanPi wrote:I am glad there hasn't been too much branding or attention on the Democrats' next POTUS candidate. The conservative media machine runs almost exclusively on fear of liberal boogeymen, and the less time we have any "obvious next choices" for democratic candidate, the less opportunity the Republican Congress has to come up with the next Benghazi.


They can't worry about that; the Democrats' biggest challenge is motivating Democratic voters, and right now they're seemingly cruising along thinking, "anyone but Trump" is going to be a slam dunk. GOP attacks on a Democratic candidate is with the goal of riling up THEIR base.
0 x

User avatar
SouthSideRyan
is ELL
Posts: 49404
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 6:08 am
Location: Chicago Loop
x 476
x 1308

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby SouthSideRyan » Sat May 12, 2018 11:42 pm

What should a 2020 Dem nominee be doing right now?
0 x
Exile on Waveland wrote: IU smells like poop.

User avatar
Hairyducked Idiot
Kyle in disguise
Posts: 33428
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man
x 1493
x 1402

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Hairyducked Idiot » Sat May 12, 2018 11:43 pm

SouthSideRyan wrote:What should a 2020 Dem nominee be doing right now?


Flying under the radar, mostly.
1 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 76079
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 8876
x 11985

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Sun May 13, 2018 1:19 am

I'd settle for anything more than, "eh; it'll be some dudes; probably, maybe....I dunno."

At this point in 2006 you had both the obvious pick of Clinton as the frontrunner and Obama making some real noise about possibly running (and people clamoring for him to do so), and clear discussion/speculation of people like Biden and Richardson and Edwards who ended up running. Right now the Democrats have nothing along any of those lines outside of vague musings that seemingly include every Democrat who isn't Schumer or Pelosi. Nobody's saying they need to have this figured out right now, but they're seemingly nowhere near even having any names seriously being bandied about.

Unless we're counting Biden and Sanders, in which case...

Image
0 x

User avatar
SouthSideRyan
is ELL
Posts: 49404
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 6:08 am
Location: Chicago Loop
x 476
x 1308

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby SouthSideRyan » Sun May 13, 2018 1:35 am

0 x
Exile on Waveland wrote: IU smells like poop.

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 76079
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 8876
x 11985

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Sun May 13, 2018 1:51 am

Yes, that the best you come up with are those "I guess it might be some of these dudes, I dunno" articles from January and February is making my point for me.
0 x

User avatar
SouthSideRyan
is ELL
Posts: 49404
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 6:08 am
Location: Chicago Loop
x 476
x 1308

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby SouthSideRyan » Sun May 13, 2018 1:57 am

Sammy Sofa wrote:Yes, that the best you come up with are those "I guess it might be some of these dudes, I dunno" articles from January and February is making my point for me.


Yep, they're just visiting Iowa because it's lovely any time of year.

Why can't they be more like Mike Gravel in '08 and whoever that guy is from Maryland who already ran a campaign commercial in Iowa?
0 x
Exile on Waveland wrote: IU smells like poop.

User avatar
SouthSideRyan
is ELL
Posts: 49404
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 6:08 am
Location: Chicago Loop
x 476
x 1308

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby SouthSideRyan » Sun May 13, 2018 1:59 am

I'm sure Lyndon LaRouche has already committed to a 2020 run.
0 x
Exile on Waveland wrote: IU smells like poop.

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 76079
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 8876
x 11985

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Sun May 13, 2018 2:37 am

SouthSideRyan wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:Yes, that the best you come up with are those "I guess it might be some of these dudes, I dunno" articles from January and February is making my point for me.


Yep, they're just visiting Iowa because it's lovely any time of year.


OK, I know you know the difference between, "is anybody putting feelers out for a run" (which was never what I was saying/asking) and "why isn't anyone trying to sell themselves/why isn't the party trying to sell anyone at this point?" We should should be well past the exploratory phase with somebody at this point (no, not all of the prospective candidates); the Democrats are in a position they haven't been in in for a long, long time where there's no clear candidate that's going to set the stage for the primaries (not that that candidate has always ended up being the nominee). They're playing it conservatively, seemingly waiting for the elections this fall to play out, and then waiting to see what happens with Trump, and both, IMO, are looking more and more like mistakes. They can't just take 2020 for granted.
0 x

User avatar
SouthSideRyan
is ELL
Posts: 49404
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 6:08 am
Location: Chicago Loop
x 476
x 1308

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby SouthSideRyan » Sun May 13, 2018 3:04 am

Nothing needs to be done out in the open, all that matters right now is putting together the roots of what would be your organization. Democrats have to play it passive until November because literally nothing of note can be accomplished by them as the minority party, and laying out what you want to do as a majority party(while positioning yourself as a national leader) sounds like a great way to get red state dems defeated by rallied up stupids who need to stop the liberal agenda. I know you have no use for those dems, but they're necessary if you want good things to happen for the dems before 2020.

What is it that you think is accomplished by having a prospective nominee laying out a platform before November '18? The base is energized. The turn out numbers have been fantastic in all those elections that you've let us all know the loser Dems could never win. But if Cory Booker would just come out and say I wanna do these things 30 months from now, then they'd have flipped even more seats?
0 x
Exile on Waveland wrote: IU smells like poop.

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 76079
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 8876
x 11985

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Sun May 13, 2018 12:35 pm

There's just no point in drawing it out as prolonged like this, and serves just to make them seem as chicken and disorganized as they kind of are. Waiting for this fall accomplishes nothing unless they were inexplicably waiting to have someone in risk of losing or someone brand spanking new running making their push for the WH afterwards, both of which are terrible ideas.

And I'm not asking for people to start laying out their plans as president; I'm asking for the absolute bare minimum for any Democrats who aren't Biden or Sanders to even act like they WANT to run for president in less than 2 years. Not for someone to declare right now; how about for some potential candidates to act like Obama did in 2006, where you're even just basically getting people used to the idea of you running and at least looking into who the horsefeathers you are. Right now the table is being set by Biden and Sanders, and Martin O'Malley trying to get people to notice him by doing lousy cartwheels in the background, and then (relative to national awareness and enthusiasm) nobody. I do not understand why you and others are so in love with the idea of them playing coy and safe for 2018 and then 2020; you talk about the base being energized like the work has been done and all they need to do is hang tight until elections this fall. Why? Why not try and ride that energy to get voters as worked up as possible now, AND build momentum for 2020? How is that a bad thing? Why is "laying low" a good thing? This whole idea that they need to be excited, but not TOO excited because it might get Republican voters too jazzed is so jaw-droppingly backwards; the only chance the Democrats really have is to get THEIR base worked up as much as possible, and they're not going to do that by worrying about how much they freak out Republican voters. That's even worse than how they've been playing too much to the Middle like it's some kind of viable, gigantic voting bloc.

I'm gonna be self-aware for once and just punch out of this one, because we're never gonna see eye to eye on this.
0 x

User avatar
WrigleyField 22
Superstar
Posts: 11666
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:48 pm
Location: hnderstabxcwhsg
x 1479
x 527

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby WrigleyField 22 » Sun May 13, 2018 1:38 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:There's just no point in drawing it out as prolonged like this, and serves just to make them seem as chicken and disorganized as they kind of are. Waiting for this fall accomplishes nothing unless they were inexplicably waiting to have someone in risk of losing or someone brand spanking new running making their push for the WH afterwards, both of which are terrible ideas.

And I'm not asking for people to start laying out their plans as president; I'm asking for the absolute bare minimum for any Democrats who aren't Biden or Sanders to even act like they WANT to run for president in less than 2 years. Not for someone to declare right now; how about for some potential candidates to act like Obama did in 2006, where you're even just basically getting people used to the idea of you running and at least looking into who the horsefeathers you are. Right now the table is being set by Biden and Sanders, and Martin O'Malley trying to get people to notice him by doing lousy cartwheels in the background, and then (relative to national awareness and enthusiasm) nobody. I do not understand why you and others are so in love with the idea of them playing coy and safe for 2018 and then 2020; you talk about the base being energized like the work has been done and all they need to do is hang tight until elections this fall. Why? Why not try and ride that energy to get voters as worked up as possible now, AND build momentum for 2020? How is that a bad thing? Why is "laying low" a good thing? This whole idea that they need to be excited, but not TOO excited because it might get Republican voters too jazzed is so jaw-droppingly backwards; the only chance the Democrats really have is to get THEIR base worked up as much as possible, and they're not going to do that by worrying about how much they freak out Republican voters. That's even worse than how they've been playing too much to the Middle like it's some kind of viable, gigantic voting bloc.

I'm gonna be self-aware for once and just punch out of this one, because we're never gonna see eye to eye on this.

If the goal is the get the Dem base energized, I dont know if a two year build up is the best route. It's not like potential candidates are not doing anything, either.
1 x
Image

User avatar
Derwood
Stall Monitor
Posts: 67649
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:44 pm
Location: 375 Miles East of Wrigley
x 912
x 1805

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Derwood » Sun May 13, 2018 1:50 pm

0 x

User avatar
CyHawk_Cub
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 6346
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm
x 90
x 1628

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby CyHawk_Cub » Sun May 13, 2018 3:02 pm

FWIW, I agree with the post upthread, Re: Jason Kander probably not a viable candidate since losing the '16 MO Senate race. However, dude sure acts like someone who's considering a run. He is all over the place, attending & keynote speaking at Dem gatherings. Maybe he's sitting back, waiting to see who actually declares before deciding? Maybe he's simply doing what he can to evangelize on behalf of Dems in general?
1 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 76079
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 8876
x 11985

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Sun May 13, 2018 3:21 pm

WrigleyField 22 wrote:If the goal is the get the Dem base energized, I dont know if a two year build up is the best route.


I guess I just don't understand this approach; there's no "anointed" Democratic figure like you had in Clinton going in to 2016 and 2008. If it was up to me, I'd want the DNC pushing for more potential candidates to be making more of a prospective sale job at this point to try and gauge the public response since we're clearly at a point, IMO, where the Democrats can't just take it for granted that enough Left-leaning voters will show up. So much of this just seems hinged on a combination of, "anyone but Trump can win this pretty easily," and, "the Republican voters will apparently be too shamed by Trump to show up as much as they usually do, I guess." Both seem incredibly flimsy at this point, especially the latter; using something like, say, Roy Moore as being indicative of the public being will to reject Trump I think is hugely faulty since Republicans overwhelmingly are supporting Trump even as he is more and more embroiled by scandal. The Democratic approach to the WH has to be almost completely focused on getting Left-leaning voters to vote; banking on Republicans staying home or switching sides because of Trump is, IMO, a fool's errand. People like Booker and Harris and Warren seem to only exist within the realm of potential candidates in other people talking about them as possibilities as opposed to anything they're doing or saying themselves, which largely leaves them off of the radar for a LOT of people. For better or for worse, potential candidates need to get the media at large interested in them as potential candidates to get the word out there. Again, I'm looking back to Obama in 2006 and 2007 as what I would like to be seeing more of. Heck, maybe it is just a matter of everyone playing coy until one person declares and sets the stage.

I mean, I WANT them to win; people reply to me on things like this like I'm trashing the Democrats because I want them to lose, or some misguided notion of longing for an unrealistic political or ideological purity. That's not it all; I'm genuinely terrified of the idea of the Democrats not swinging anything significantly in November, and very, very worried about the race for the WH in 2020 because of that. I think too much of the assumption is that they're going to make huge gains simply by showing up, and this is going to end up being much more of a fight.
0 x

User avatar
CyHawk_Cub
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 6346
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm
x 90
x 1628

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby CyHawk_Cub » Sun May 13, 2018 3:28 pm

I feel you mojo. A party that has lost, what?, over 1,300 state & federal elected seats over the past ~8 years has no right to feel smug/sure about anything. Whether Dem nominees starting the vetting process now helps or not, I too am uneasy that there is no standard-bearer acting as the point-person for messaging. I admit to the probability I'm overly skittish at this point, but Dems are so good at sucking at this stuff.
1 x

User avatar
CyHawk_Cub
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 6346
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm
x 90
x 1628

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby CyHawk_Cub » Sun May 13, 2018 3:32 pm


0 x

User avatar
CyHawk_Cub
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 6346
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm
x 90
x 1628

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby CyHawk_Cub » Sun May 13, 2018 3:57 pm



0 x

User avatar
CyHawk_Cub
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 6346
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm
x 90
x 1628

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby CyHawk_Cub » Sun May 13, 2018 7:47 pm

1 x

User avatar
WrigleyField 22
Superstar
Posts: 11666
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:48 pm
Location: hnderstabxcwhsg
x 1479
x 527

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby WrigleyField 22 » Sun May 13, 2018 9:24 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:
WrigleyField 22 wrote:If the goal is the get the Dem base energized, I dont know if a two year build up is the best route.


I guess I just don't understand this approach; there's no "anointed" Democratic figure like you had in Clinton going in to 2016 and 2008. If it was up to me, I'd want the DNC pushing for more potential candidates to be making more of a prospective sale job at this point to try and gauge the public response since we're clearly at a point, IMO, where the Democrats can't just take it for granted that enough Left-leaning voters will show up. So much of this just seems hinged on a combination of, "anyone but Trump can win this pretty easily," and, "the Republican voters will apparently be too shamed by Trump to show up as much as they usually do, I guess." Both seem incredibly flimsy at this point, especially the latter; using something like, say, Roy Moore as being indicative of the public being will to reject Trump I think is hugely faulty since Republicans overwhelmingly are supporting Trump even as he is more and more embroiled by scandal. The Democratic approach to the WH has to be almost completely focused on getting Left-leaning voters to vote; banking on Republicans staying home or switching sides because of Trump is, IMO, a fool's errand. People like Booker and Harris and Warren seem to only exist within the realm of potential candidates in other people talking about them as possibilities as opposed to anything they're doing or saying themselves, which largely leaves them off of the radar for a LOT of people. For better or for worse, potential candidates need to get the media at large interested in them as potential candidates to get the word out there. Again, I'm looking back to Obama in 2006 and 2007 as what I would like to be seeing more of. Heck, maybe it is just a matter of everyone playing coy until one person declares and sets the stage.

I mean, I WANT them to win; people reply to me on things like this like I'm trashing the Democrats because I want them to lose, or some misguided notion of longing for an unrealistic political or ideological purity. That's not it all; I'm genuinely terrified of the idea of the Democrats not swinging anything significantly in November, and very, very worried about the race for the WH in 2020 because of that. I think too much of the assumption is that they're going to make huge gains simply by showing up, and this is going to end up being much more of a fight.

I just think Dems have a have better chance keeping excitement around their candidate over a shorter surge of excitement. I dont really recall what it was that Obama was doing in 2006 that you're looking for from the current slate, but he was still largely a underdog candidacy and had a relatively short, strong burst rather than a prolonged anointment.
0 x
Image

User avatar
SouthSideRyan
is ELL
Posts: 49404
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 6:08 am
Location: Chicago Loop
x 476
x 1308

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby SouthSideRyan » Sun May 13, 2018 9:26 pm

It’s not just Roy Moore, Dems have made across the board gains in elections, the base is energized. You instead want to Cling to The idea that nobody besides old man straw man has made clear they’re looking towards 2020
0 x
Exile on Waveland wrote: IU smells like poop.

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 76079
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 8876
x 11985

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Sun May 13, 2018 9:34 pm

WrigleyField 22 wrote:I just think Dems have a have better chance keeping excitement around their candidate over a shorter surge of excitement. I dont really recall what it was that Obama was doing in 2006 that you're looking for from the current slate, but he was still largely a underdog candidacy and had a relatively short, strong burst rather than a prolonged anointment.


I'm not sure where you think I've said anything along the bold; the only time I've brought up the idea of a pre-determined candidate is Clinton in 2008 and 2016. And I don't want them to just pick one person now along those lines.

People started looking at Obama as a potential candidate after his DNC speech in 2004; he was lucky in that the media largely came to him and it was able to build from there, but in no way was he just coming out of nowhere in 2008. He would have never even have gotten close in 2008 if he hadn't been doing the legwork for years ahead of then and getting the media's attention in that time. My concern if there won't be a clear "their candidate" until it's too late and we end up with a similar mess that the Republicans dealt with in 2016 with too many candidates who halfassed it for too long trying to battle it out.
0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 76079
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 8876
x 11985

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Sun May 13, 2018 9:38 pm

SouthSideRyan wrote:It’s not just Roy Moore, Dems have made across the board gains in elections, the base is energized. You instead want to Cling to The idea that nobody besides old man straw man has made clear they’re looking towards 2020


If I'm wrong, great! I'm just worried that this exact sentiment is driving everything between now and November of 2020, and that's the kind of mistake that won't trip up the Republicans. Just assuming that the Democratic voters are fully "energized" nationally for the next 2+ years isn't enough; at some point the Democrats have to stop playing safe defense and actually put themselves out there. They can't just settle for barely tipping only the House and then maybe sneaking out a WH win. There's far too much at stake, and anyone who continually shrugs things off as going just fine for the Democrats is really WAY too nonplussed by the horsefeathers show that's going on.
0 x

User avatar
WrigleyField 22
Superstar
Posts: 11666
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:48 pm
Location: hnderstabxcwhsg
x 1479
x 527

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby WrigleyField 22 » Sun May 13, 2018 10:16 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:
WrigleyField 22 wrote:I just think Dems have a have better chance keeping excitement around their candidate over a shorter surge of excitement. I dont really recall what it was that Obama was doing in 2006 that you're looking for from the current slate, but he was still largely a underdog candidacy and had a relatively short, strong burst rather than a prolonged anointment.


I'm not sure where you think I've said anything along the bold; the only time I've brought up the idea of a pre-determined candidate is Clinton in 2008 and 2016. And I don't want them to just pick one person now along those lines.

People started looking at Obama as a potential candidate after his DNC speech in 2004; he was lucky in that the media largely came to him and it was able to build from there, but in no way was he just coming out of nowhere in 2008. He would have never even have gotten close in 2008 if he hadn't been doing the legwork for years ahead of then and getting the media's attention in that time. My concern if there won't be a clear "their candidate" until it's too late and we end up with a similar mess that the Republicans dealt with in 2016 with too many candidates who halfassed it for too long trying to battle it out.

But possible candidates are doing things that you might expect this far out. What was so different about Obama in 06? Was anyone outside of political junkies (and Chicago residents) really talking about him that much?
0 x
Image

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 76079
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 8876
x 11985

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Sun May 13, 2018 11:12 pm

WrigleyField 22 wrote:But possible candidates are doing things that you might expect this far out. What was so different about Obama in 06? Was anyone outside of political junkies (and Chicago residents) really talking about him that much?


Yup; Obama played the game like a pro. He didn't out and declare himself a candidate until Feb. 2007, but if you take a look at the appearances and speeches and interviews he was giving in 2006 the guy was clearly feeding the media enough to get them interested, which would in turn give him coverage and help gauge what kind of shot he would have. Plus, of course, putting out a freakin' bestselling book in 2006 helped, too. I'm not looking for people to duplicate his success, because he basically ran the model of how to run for president, but it really is like night and day compared to what we're seeing from any of the prospective Democratic candidates who aren't Biden or Sanders so far. Like, the current Dems are generally doing little more than the bare minimum to have their names out there, to the point that indeed this IS a case of few people being aware of them outside of politicos.

I really just want at least one person out there sooner rather than later to head Biden and Sanders off at the past before it becomes too late and it ends up being a battle between the two of them by default (if they choose to run) just because of the built in recency and scale of their name recognition/public personas. I'm also more than a little surprised at how relatively quiet Elizabeth Sanders has been on this front. It's stuff like that that has me worried that more and more Democrats are scared of potentially going up against Sanders.
0 x


Return to “Social”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests