...I admit that I didn't know anything about Beto's voting record. An article from The Guardian paints a rather ugly picture, which could be a real problem for Beto in a Democratic Primary: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/20/beto-orourke-congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main.
We've all heard the criticism that Beto took a lot of money from the fossil fuel industry, which is a rather distorted narrative. It's Texas, and any donations from those with any ties to what is a major industry in Texas will be labeled as "donations from the fossil fuel industry."
That said, he's voted in favor of a lot of lousy legislation. Now, maybe his voting record isn't indicative of how he would run and how he would govern if elected president. But, in spite of his immense charisma and fundraising prowess, he may have a really tough time getting the nomination.
There's a decent chance nobody will have the requisite number of delegates after the first ballot.
Just thought I'd remind folks that the superdelegate rule change may end up giving superdelegates more power than ever before.
...that Bernie Sanders is likely to be our nominee?!?
I keep seeing posts to that effect. Were those folks asleep or living in a cave throughout 2016? Are they really that fooled by name recognition polling? Have they looked at the primary schedule? Are they aware that there will be fewer caucuses in 2020? Do they just not really follow politics?
What makes anyone think Sanders is going to do *much, much* better than last time among POC and non-millennial women? Because if he doesn't, he's basically done after New Hampshire.
It seems highly unlikely that Sanders will do as well in the first 2 contests as he did in 2016. There will be other candidates who appeal to his constituency. He isn't running against a polarizing frontrunner who many had been conditioned to hate. How is he going to pull off 2nd place or better in both IA and NH?
If he doesn't, where does he go from there? Nevada and South Carolina aren't going to save him.
I have a hard time seeing Sanders make it all the way to Super Tuesday. Even with the necessary funds to continue, there will be no justification for continuing.
Do people really not understand that the vast majority of people in the US, including the vast majority of POC, are working class?
Are there really still people who think (white) economic anxiety was/is a driver of Trump support in spite of numerous studies to the contrary?
I guess so, as I keep reading posts to that effect.
If no Democratic presidential candidate has 2383 pledged delegates after the first ballot at the convention (which will likely be the case), there will be a second ballot, meaning superdelegates will determine the outcome.
Would that alone constitute a "brokered convention" in your view? Or would it only constitute a "brokered convention" if nobody is at 2383 following the second ballot?
There are similar findings when it comes to electing persons of color.
And success encourages more women and persons of color to pursue public office in a society that discourages women and persons of color from pursuing public office. Electing women and persons of color represent cracks in the facade. Our electorate is increasingly diverse, and the incoming class of Democratic Congresspersons reflects that reality. Those who will take office, and even those who fell short (like Abrams and Gillum) are an inspiration to those who are historically the most oppressed.
The US is built on a foundation of white supremacy and patriarchy. Absent racism and sexism, the Republican Party of today would cease to be viable as a national institution. Progress is always met by a backlash. Slowly but surely, however, the foundation is weakened. Until, one day, it collapses.
Let's not fall victim to color-blind racism, the rhetoric used to oppose affirmative action and the penchant for denying the reality that electing women matters--or that the US "isn't ready for a woman president."
I do not wish to make this about any one candidate (this thread is about much more than a single individual), but I support Kamala Harris for president for numerous reasons, including those mentioned above. And, from a purely electoral standpoint, she puts North Carolina, Florida and Georgia in play. I hope (and am hopeful) that our electorate will come to realize that Harris is "the best person" in this moment, in this period in our history.
I just feel like reminding everyone that Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum are extremely impressive and should have a future in national politics. Both were victimized by intense voter suppression and blatant racism, including robocalls. Yet both came damn close to overcoming those obstacles in states that are typically quite red in midterm elections.
I hope that both Abrams and Gillum, if they don't run for statewide office again, consider running for the US House or US Senate or get offered cabinet posts in the next Democratic administration. Or maybe even get considered for VP.
I'm glad that there seems to be a move away from caucuses. But I think other changes are called for, such as not having Iowa and New Hampshire kick things off. Those states don't reflect our electorate.
The point has been made that both parties need to follow more or less the same schedule, so that neither party is alienating certain states by having or not having those states be early voting states. I'm not convinced that should be a huge concern. But both parties can follow more or less the same rotating schedule without having IA and NH always leading the way. Some traditions need to die.
Profile InformationMember since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 03:47 AM
Number of posts: 10,721
- 2020 (9)
- 2019 (38)
- 2018 (97)
- 2017 (32)
- 2016 (83)
- 2015 (5)