• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT6| Delete your accounts

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Teggy

Member
Pocahontas was a pretty amazing woman. Warren should just own that name. This is probably the reason people were referring to her as Fauxcahontas in the past. Trump is just a dummy.
 
F

fauxtrot

Banned
nature boy said:
Yeah I don't think putting Kaine or Perez is all of a sudden going to win over white male voters.
Click to expand...

It won't but I still think these are two of the most likely choices. The reaction Warren has gotten for endorsing Clinton shows that selecting a True Progressive (TM) as VP isn't going to immediately sway the folks that are bitter about the primary, so you might as well round out the ticket in other ways. Most Sanders supporters will come around by November, and the ones that don't wouldn't have been convinced no matter who you chose. Bernie himself as VP wouldn't change a lot of those people's minds.

(Disclaimer: I voted for Bernie in my state's primary)
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Bowdz said:
Oh I know, but they have some very damning emails talking about Cheryl Mills pushing for the appointment at the request of the Clintons. No smoking gun, but enough smoke to make it an issue.
Click to expand...

Are they even real though? I wouldn't even put it past CU to just make up stuff about Clinton or edit emails to make her look worse.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
There is a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Either Hillary will fill it (and her husband appointed half of the liberals on there) or Trump will and ban abortion, gay marriage and healthcare reform.
Click to expand...

If I had any photoshop skills, I'd fashion a fake ballot with the justices as running mates.

The court is on the ballot. There's no blunter way to put it. We've never had a modern election where we can say this and have it be almost-literal.

She wins? The court tilts progressive, probably for at least 2 decades.
Trump wins? The court's right-leaning majority is renewed, and we might have to wait a few decades for another shot.

It doesn't get starker than this.
 
3

3phemeral

Member
nature boy said:
Bravo:

www.pocahontas.com
Click to expand...
:Dead:

2u03xQ
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Crocodile said:
I don't disagree that a "true believer" can be more dangerous than an aggressive panderer. Hence why a lot of people thought Cruz would be more dangerous than Trump if they ever got into the White House. That doesn't change the fact that appealing to the worst aspects of humanity to get elected still makes you a terrible human being. Trump's candidacy has had real repercussions already. Hell I've been hearing stories of minority kids getting bullied at school by young kids who find Trumps bluster appealing. It's messed up and I don't think the story about Obama and gay marriage is completely applicable. I get what you mean by "having to play ball" to get stuff done but there's a difference between being too shy about support for an oppressed group but giving signals you are still with them and just stoking hate and fear like Trump is doing.
Click to expand...

I think I posted it in a later reply to someone else - but the difference between too shy to support and stoking hate is the line for me - that's why I thought the anecdote was fitting. The thread has gone sort of crazy since Hillary clinched the nomination so I can't find my post, lol. But more or less, I agree with you on their being lines about how far you go to win (arguably under the being "pragmatic" umbrella) and being so principled that you remove all possibility of getting anything actually done (arguably under the "principled" umbrella).

Crocodile said:
I mean if past and present members of the armed forces want to give their opinions I don't see why they shouldn't - under-expressed viewpoints are appreciated - but at the same time I'm not sure what that has to do with the argument/discussion of privilege explicitly along a racial axis and why Sanders campaign might not have been appealing to a lot of minorities. Maybe I'm misreading you and I apologize if I am but you consistently seem to have an issue when people discuss racial politics? Even if you want to say that some individuals involved a conversation (as with any other conversation) are idiots that doesn't make it a subject not worth extensive conversation.
Click to expand...

I guess I was maybe seeing it veer off into a generic "Bernie Bros have privilege and we don't, assholes" thread, which is why it sort of hit a nerve with me (as someone whose two best friends growing up enlisted in the wake of 9/11, and one is MIA from Iraq and the other is permanently injured from his third tour of Iraq). If the thread was staying explicitly on race, that'd be one thing, but it (at least to me) felt like it was turning into a circle jerk with folks just wanting to poorly gloat, and that all Bernie supporters are too privileged to understand how important Clinton is. (Also, for a explicitly racial privilege discussion, they were really keen on forgetting that Bernie won all groups between ages 18-35...but I digress)

EDIT: As of this edit, MHWilliams has taken the thread to church in a glorious post, so there's that good coming out of it.

As someone who (thankfully?) only knows a handful of Bernie Bros, and the majority of them are Iraq vets...that's kinda fucked up empathy wise to heavily insinuate "too privileged to understand what voting for Clinton means".

W/R/T race (and gender and where in the country you live and sexuality) stuff - I really hate politics of division, and I think a lot of the modern discourse around identity politics are fundamentally based around being politics of division and politics of rejecting the concept of empathy. One of the key assumptions around that discourse seems to be that unless you ARE X/Y/Z category, you can't possibly understand what it is like, and with that, if you are X/Y/Z, you're all the same, and if you aren't, you're disparaged by said group (or ignored). Add in this lazy and selfish conflation of ignorance and malice when it comes to judging people on the spot...ugh. It seems just more self-serving and virtue signaling to me when I see it on GAF. It seems like all of those types of politics of division are really just excuses to proclaim yourself and those who agree with you as better than the others. That Trump thread where folks were basically saying it was OK for them and a good idea overall to commit political terrorism (and actual violence) against Trump supporters because they were minorities really hit me in the wrong spot, as well.

It bugs me like hell that we choose to isolate with our differences rather than share our commonalities. Maybe it's because I'm a south asian who grew up in rural IL; but I don't fit most of the stereotypes of asians - and it frustrates me that it is always assumed to be so.

I'll probably come back and edit this as I think about it more - gotta run an errand for a bit.
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
fauxtrot said:
It won't but I still think these are two of the most likely choices. The reaction Warren has gotten for endorsing Clinton shows that selecting a True Progressive (TM) as VP isn't going to immediately sway the folks that are bitter about the primary, so you might as well round out the ticket in other ways. Most Sanders supporters will come around by November, and the ones that don't wouldn't have been convinced no matter who you chose. Bernie himself as VP wouldn't change a lot of those people's minds.

(Disclaimer: I voted for Bernie in my state's primary)
Click to expand...
I agree with this. I think the smarter move is to go after moderates rather than the progressive left, especially when the other side is running someone like Trump. They're a much more reliable voting bloc and I think people on the left are more likely to come to their senses on their own as the general election goes into full swing.
 
Vigilant Walrus

Vigilant Walrus

Member
fauxtrot said:
It won't but I still think these are two of the most likely choices. The reaction Warren has gotten for endorsing Clinton shows that selecting a True Progressive (TM) as VP isn't going to immediately sway the folks that are bitter about the primary, so you might as well round out the ticket in other ways. Most Sanders supporters will come around by November, and the ones that don't wouldn't have been convinced no matter who you chose. Bernie himself as VP wouldn't change a lot of those people's minds.

(Disclaimer: I voted for Bernie in my state's primary)
Click to expand...

What do you base this one beyond nutty redditors?



I'd think a lot of people who are not commenting publically on forums but who are still lukewarm, so-so or just in doubt / on the fence, would feel better with Warren, due to what she is and what she stands for.

I don't imagine anyone who has a problem with a female president would find that sexist pill easier to swallow if the VP was a man. If you have someone who don't want a female president, they probably have very backwards viewpoints and wouldn't take kindly to any woman above a mans place. A male VP would be a pointless exercise.

Warren is not to be picked because she is a woman. It's because she has been giving speeches about wall street, citizen united and the banks before anybody knew who Sanders was. She was way more popular and there has always been this buzz around her.
I think the issues matter, not her gender, and that is why she deserves the spot, because she puts herself publically out there, and that speaks volumes to Clintons dedication to progressive ideas.
 
S

Souldriver

Member
DrForester said:
Would it be a mistake for Hillary to pick a woman as VP?

It sucks, but reality is, sexism still exists in this country. Will a woman in the #1 and #2 spot discourage some people?
Click to expand...

Yeah, i'm constantly going back on forth over this.

Do you play the demographics game, and go for a "typical" VP that checks all the necessary boxes? Or do you go for someone that just makes a great team with Clinton?

I'm almost inclined to go for the second option, since Hillary's chances at winning are pretty good anyway. Who cares if she loses insecure men as part of her voter base. If these two women together form a campaigning powerhouse, I say go for it. Sometimes the total package is better than the sum of its parts.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
Souldriver said:
Yeah, i'm constantly going back on forth over this.

Do you play the demographics game, and go for a "typical" VP that checks all the necessary boxes? Or do you go for someone that just makes a great team with Clinton?

I'm almost inclined to go for the second option, since Hillary's chances at winning are pretty good anyway. Who cares if she loses insecure men as part of her voter base. If these two women together form a campaigning powerhouse, I say go for it. Sometimes the total package is better than the sum of its parts.
Click to expand...

Easy answer: go with whatever gives you the broadest margin of victory. We will hopefully take back the Senate this year and have the LOOOOONG shot of taking the house if Trump implodes. Teamwork be damned, they want to buffer the margin in the Senate as much as possible and possibly steal the house.
 
Z

Zornack

Member
I just don't see what the ticket gets from her. She has little experience as an elected official, she adds nothing demographically to the ticket, she's not from a contested region and I don't think she increases turnout any more than her and Sanders do as surrogates.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Souldriver said:
Yeah, i'm constantly going back on forth over this.

Do you play the demographics game, and go for a "typical" VP that checks all the necessary boxes? Or do you go for someone that just makes a great team with Clinton?

I'm almost inclined to go for the second option, since Hillary's chances at winning are pretty good anyway. Who cares if she loses insecure men as part of her voter base. If these two women together form a campaigning powerhouse, I say go for it. Sometimes the total package is better than the sum of its parts.
Click to expand...

The thing is...we don't know how this is going to play out. We have no points of reference. This is a new frontier for us. Personally, I think a person turned off by a female veep is not going to vote for Hillary anyway. If you're not comfortable with an all woman ticket, I think putting a man on there is going to make him feel like Queen is a ballbuster who is dominating the man in the equation.

White men are out of reach, IMO. They just are. So, I say run up margins where we can.
 
F

fauxtrot

Banned
Vigilant Walrus said:
What do you base this one beyond nutty redditors?

I'd think a lot of people who are not commenting publically on forums but who are still lukewarm, so-so or just in doubt / on the fence, would feel better with Warren, due to what she is and what she stands for.

I don't imagine anyone who has a problem with a female president would find that sexist pill easier to swallow if the VP was a man. If you have someone who don't want a female president, they probably have very backwards viewpoints and wouldn't take kindly to any woman above a mans place. A male VP would be a pointless exercise.

Warren is not to be picked because she is a woman. It's because she has been giving speeches about wall street, citizen united and the banks before anybody knew who Sanders was. She was way more popular and there has always been this buzz around her.
I think the issues matter, not her gender, and that is why she deserves the spot, because she puts herself publically out there, and that speaks volumes to Clintons dedication to progressive ideas.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying lets pick them because they're men, although due to what others were talking about earlier I can see why my post would have sounded that way. I just think she can show that she is pushing a progressive platform through adopting some of Bernie's message (see: say much of what she's been saying but in a bit of a different way / push a few of her stances a littler farther left) and using Sanders and Warren's help to show that the progressive members of Congress people recognize will help her craft and enact the party's positions, as well as pick a more traditional VP that can help her win an important swing state or "fill holes" in her image like Biden did for Obama. The VP position has always been one that holds more weight in its symbolism and I'd rather she use that tool to get more traditional votes while trying to convince Bernie supporters that her presidency will have something to offer them of substance.

This could be total shit strategy, but it makes sense in my head.
 
I

itschris

Member
So, I've been doing some research on Xavier Becerra. Some interesting snippets I've found:

He thought that the Democratic leadership gave up on the public option too quickly:

In the run-up to this month’s House vote on health care reform, Becerra suggested to the Congressional Progressive Caucus that party leaders gave up too easily on the favored “robust” public option.

That didn’t sit well with the speaker, and witnesses said she made her displeasure known to Becerra and other top Democrats at a subsequent leadership meeting.

“I understand I have tire tracks on my back because Xavier threw me under the bus,” witnesses quoted Pelosi as saying. The speaker went on to accuse Becerra of trying to improve his “street cred” with progressives by undercutting her.
Click to expand...

Pelosi was annoyed, but she still had good things to say about him:

“The speaker has great respect for Vice Chairman Becerra,” said Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly. “One of the first appointments she made after Democrats won control of the House in 2006 was to appoint him assistant to the speaker. She values his leadership, his keen intellect and his substantive policy expertise. His ability to broker an agreement among members who were concerned about regional disparities was instrumental in passing the health insurance reform bill. She looks forward to continuing to working with him on behalf of all of America’s working families.”
Click to expand...

He was a leading contender to be US trade representative under Obama, but he decided to stay in the House instead.

The only major skeleton in his closet that I've found is this:

The California congressman in discussions with President-elect Barack Obama to become U.S. trade representative played a role in President Bill Clinton's commuting the prison sentence of a cocaine dealer. The cocaine dealer's family had made $15,000 in political donations to the congressman and hired Clinton's brother-in-law for $200,000 to help free Carlos Vignali.

...

Becerra has maintained that he did nothing wrong. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times in early 2001, the congressman said he never pushed for a presidential commutation, but rather was seeking a review of the facts of Carlos Vignali's conviction.
Click to expand...

A look into his reputation in the House:

"He's a nice, smart guy," said a former House Democratic leadership aide, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly. "I think you have to take him seriously. Whether or not he would be a dominant, tough candidate in a leadership race—I don't think people view him that way. I don't think anyone is really scared of him."

Those who know Becerra describe him as a man who seeks out others' views and is more concerned with building consensus than manipulating outcomes. "He is very good at listening, and he is also good at making sure that people have their voices heard, whether or not he agrees with those points of view," said Rep. Ted Lieu, a freshman from a neighboring Los Angeles district. The two have known each other since the 1990s, and Lieu supported Becerra's ill-fated 2001 run for mayor of Los Angeles. "I've yet to see him yell at anyone," Lieu added. "He's unflappable."

Another longtime friend of Becerra went even further. "He's a poster child that the Boy Scouts could use," said Mickey Ibarra, a veteran of the Clinton White House and founder of the Latino Leaders Network, who has known Becerra since his early days in Congress.
Click to expand...

Excerpts from a biography on him:

Becerra had the luxury of doing it for himself in his early years on Capitol Hill, back when he was a freshman in 1993. That year, he successfully persuaded the legendarily irascible Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill., to secure a better deal for disabled immigrants in a short-term unemployment insurance extension.

Emboldened, Becerra went on to stand up at a caucus meeting to thank the elder statesman for being amenable to the change — then launched into a lecture on Congress’s general neglect of the immigrant community.

Rostenkowski, flustered and embarrassed, reneged on the agreement, and had he not been ousted from the House amid corruption charges a year later, Becerra may never have made it onto the Ways and Means Committee, at the time his highest stated aspiration.

...

Pelosi appointed him assistant to the speaker in 2006, and Democrats elected him to his first of two consecutive terms as caucus vice chairman in 2008. In the waning days of the House Democratic majority in 2010, the chamber passed the DREAM Act, which fell a handful of votes shy of passage in the Democratic Senate. These days, it's a rare Democratic press conference on immigration where Becerra isn’t also present, pleading, “Speaker Boehner, just give us a vote.”
Click to expand...

Of course, not everyone had nice things to say about Becerra:

Not everyone has been so charitable in chalking up Becerra’s political missteps to a pure desire to do good by every faction of his base. Ultimately, critics said, Becerra is like any politician: He’s looking out for himself and his own interests, and the caucus chairman is as self-serving as they come.

Those critics, speaking on condition of anonymity to CQ Roll Call, accused Becerra of playing a role in the demise of the House’s bipartisan working group to produce a comprehensive immigration overhaul bill. They said Becerra would insist that leadership weigh in on any provision he didn’t personally support, and was willing to slow down the process in order to get his way.

A congressional aide said that whenever Becerra “can’t find support in a big room, he goes and finds a smaller room.”
Click to expand...
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
It hit me as I was walking home from work that this is really happening. Queen, Obama, Biden, Warren, et al are going to spend months pounding this fuck and the best he can do is muster bad TelePrompTer speeches about Vince foster and Bill Clinton. This is happening. I am confident.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
I almost fell into this trap myself, but I saw someone making the claim that Bernie won most of the primaries where independents could vote, and I jumped in to point out that she was ahead of those, and it was only when you included all the contests including caucuses where independents could vote that Bernie had won more.

But after posting that claim, I realized I hadn't checked it in a while.

So guess what guys.

There were 33 contests by my count where independents could vote (not counting the beauty contest primaries in Washington and Nebraska...)

And Clinton won 18 of them.

So if you ever see anyone still making that claim... it's flat out factually wrong now.
 
J

johnsmith

remember me
Y2Kev said:
It hit me as I was walking home from work that this is really happening. Queen, Obama, Biden, Warren, et al are going to spend months pounding this fuck and the best he can do is muster bad TelePrompTer speeches about Vince foster and Bill Clinton. This is happening. I am confident.
Click to expand...


Great, kid! Don't get cocky.
 
F

fauxtrot

Banned
Y2Kev said:
It hit me as I was walking home from work that this is really happening. Queen, Obama, Biden, Warren, et al are going to spend months pounding this fuck and the best he can do is muster bad TelePrompTer speeches about Vince foster and Bill Clinton. This is happening. I am confident.
Click to expand...

If he continues going back and forth between tweeting Sad! responses to every little dig that comes his way and looking like he's being handled by the GOP when he delivers more teleprompter-assisted speeches, he's not going to look mayorship-worthy, let alone presidential, within a few weeks/months.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Got polled earlier in the evening. They said I had completed a poll with them in the past and wanted to know if I'd do another one. They asked me if I'd votde in the primary like I had intended. Then they asked me if "The election were held today, would you vote for Hillary, Trump or Johnson." Asked me for favorable/unfavorable on Hillary, Trump, Obama, Warren, Hickenlooper, Becerra, Biden, Kaine and someone else that I hadn't heard of. Final question was how I was going to vote in Ohio's Senate race, and favorables on Stirckland and Portman.

Edit: They said they weren't affiliated with any campaign, so probably a PAC or something.
 
Vigilant Walrus

Vigilant Walrus

Member
fauxtrot said:
I wasn't saying lets pick them because they're men, although due to what others were talking about earlier I can see why my post would have sounded that way. I just think she can show that she is pushing a progressive platform through adopting some of Bernie's message (see: say much of what she's been saying but in a bit of a different way / push a few of her stances a littler farther left) and using Sanders and Warren's help to show that the progressive members of Congress people recognize will help her craft and enact the party's positions, as well as pick a more traditional VP that can help her win an important swing state or "fill holes" in her image like Biden did for Obama. The VP position has always been one that holds more weight in its symbolism and I'd rather she use that tool to get more traditional votes while trying to convince Bernie supporters that her presidency will have something to offer them of substance.

This could be total shit strategy, but it makes sense in my head.
Click to expand...

But Warren is already a symbolic figurehead. She is one of the most internationally recognized Senators. That to me is why her fame, perceived public stature is the perfect contour to use. Remember when someone attacked her for being ignorant about the crisis because she talked about Glass-Steagall? She did that, even though she knew that Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented the crash. But she spoke about it like a soundbyte because she knew it was something the public knew (in contrast to a lot of other banking acts that haven't gotten that traction).
She has been branded for this.



I think Clinton has this in the bag, regardless of who is a VP. Most women are going to vote for her. And most minorities are going to vote her, just because she isn't Trump. So from that angle alone she has this in the bag.
The opportunity with Warren is to make a statement about Hillary saying that she is progressive. "I mean it when I say it that I will fight the banks, citizen United and for the working class" - That is why Warren is my VP. The posterchild and largest voice of that in America.

I think there are many white people from middle class homes that have now been ruined. Particularly the younger ones who live at home, with a fucked up debt, housing market. For them, what Warren has talked about for years is real, and for them, the democratic party under Obama hasn't helped. And you cannot fault any voter for not looking at this through their own lens and being dissatisfied with how their party has represented them. Warren represents that this talk about going left is not just smoke and mirrors when it comes to going after the big corporate institutions.

If Hillary had run against a stronger candidate I'd see your strategy and agree, but Trump is so deranged, self destructive and insane, that I really think the democrats should use the opportunity to push forward this progress while they can. Rubio would have been a different story, but Trump is a gift. He is a circus clown who is tearing the republican party apart.
 
U

User 463088

Banned
JP_ said:
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11902144/poll-america-bernie-sanders-race

New poll (taken after California etc) from Vox shows most democrats are cool with Sanders going to the convention. White/black are basically the same. Hispanics/other want him to stay in more than others.
Click to expand...

What in the world was the purpose of them funding that poll? Serious question. Not being shady. I pray that it's part of a larger survey, and they just did this as a question to go along with it. I guarantee those numbers have shifted dramatically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
3K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom