2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races

intra vires

intra vires

Glory to Michigan
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
4,159
Reputation
1,558
Daps
14,876
Reppin
The Catholepistemiad
If Biden wins the nomination, then he should select Gov. Whitmer as his running mate. She would solidify him in MI and possibly the greater Midwest (PA, WI). Mark Kelly will undoubtedly outperform whoever the nominee is so he could give them a boost in AZ.

A.R.$ said:
That goes without saying not to take Pols at face value. You have a lot more confidence in her than I do.

But to answer your question there isn’t one obvious choice. I know some progressives were pushing Barbara Lee and i’m Good with that. Her only downside is that she is also in her 70s. We will need to elect more progressive to get the type leadership I would want to see.
Click to expand...

I'm just going off her history, Shahid Buttar was in my sig when they announced PayGo.:hubie:

To me, Mark Pocan is the obvious choice if you could get a progressive Speaker; however, to really answer my own question, I wouldn't worry about the Speakership. The Freedom Caucus/Tea Party never obtained it, but they still had plenty to say when Boehner and Ryan were in that position. That's because they had the votes to obstruct and a base to primary (plus win the general election) with. It's an easier position to achieve and maintain, so I think that's the better play.

Being Speaker isn't worth the trouble, it's a thankless job where you have the entire Democratic Caucus to answer to and there's a lot of variance in the membership.
 
FAH1223

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Hall of Fame
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
78,818
Reputation
9,734
Daps
234,494
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
storyteller said:
If he's advocating for a Public Option then he should be honest about that. That's my problem with him. He talks out both sides of his mouth. He's not advocating for M4A if he's pushing a strong Public Option. He's just using the label and fronting about it. I have this same problem with his UBI proposal. It's the Friedman model that aims to blow out the rest of the social safety net and it includes a regressive tax unless you get the details absolutely perfect on implementation (which I don't buy that he'll accomplish or cares much about accomplishing). Dude is dishonest to me.
Click to expand...

its good politics though :mjgrin:
 
GnauzBookOfRhymes

GnauzBookOfRhymes

Superstar
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
12,891
Reputation
2,884
Daps
48,448
Reppin
NULL
Berniewood Hogan said:
She's never faced a difficult election. She isn't going to be able to handle the deluge of negativity. She will look weak.
Click to expand...

I think it's difficult if not impossible to predict how she'd manage. Or how anyone will manage for that matter once it's one on one. And I don't know how much of the piling up on her now is due to just a general fear she may win the nomination vs some deep seated antagonism that will remain even afterwards if she is the nominee.

I think she should come out as soon as possible and say something to the effect of "I know that a lot of ppl have concerns with M4A and I can understand the hesitancy around a plan that while I still believe is our best course of action, represents a dramatic shift in such a large part of our economy. I have listened to your concerns and I believe a President must be willing to listen to the voices of all Americans, not just the ones who support or vote for you"

Then she needs to clearly point out whatever distortions her opponents etc are making about the plan, then signal a willingness to negotiate etc. It's going to lose her some supporters from her existing base, but it's unlikely they are going to be gone forever. And if they are, I think it's still necessary b/c my sense is that it will be more than offset by the number of voters who will then open up to supporting her. After that she MUST pivot back to the issue of the divergence between the rich/well off and everyone else. She needs to beat the airwaves over the head with images/videos of all those billionaires who are actively opposing her. Tie it in with the current economic situation where even though the numbers look great the reality is that the tax cuts didn't do shyt, the stock market means little to avg Americans and all the gains from productivity etc are going straight to businesses/shareholders...whatever wage growth we've seen is eaten up by inflation, increased prices due to tariffs etc. This is a very dangerous moment for her campaign.
 
King Kreole

King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
16,655
Reputation
4,588
Daps
45,123
GnauzBookOfRhymes said:
I think she should come out as soon as possible and say something to the effect of "I know that a lot of ppl have concerns with M4A and I can understand the hesitancy around a plan that while I still believe is our best course of action, represents a dramatic shift in such a large part of our economy. I have listened to your concerns and I believe a President must be willing to listen to the voices of all Americans, not just the ones who support or vote for you"

Then she needs to clearly point out whatever distortions her opponents etc are making about the plan, then signal a willingness to negotiate etc. It's going to lose her some supporters from her existing base, but it's unlikely they are going to be gone forever. And if they are, I think it's still necessary b/c my sense is that it will be more than offset by the number of voters who will then open up to supporting her.
Click to expand...

This would be a massive mistake in my opinion. She was getting dinged for ambivalence on M4A and the issue of middle-class tax cuts, for her to now start signaling a willingness to water it down would erase all the work she just did to make it as airtight as possible. There is no benefit to weakening your opening position before negotiations have even started. If anything, she should go harder in the paint for M4A now that she has her own (funding) plan for it. Her message is strong and simple: every man, woman and child in America has full health care coverage free at the point of service, and not a penny in tax increases for the middle class because it's the wealthy and large corporations that will pay more. She has the credibility to pull this messaging off because of her wonk brand. She's staked out the position of maximal benefit for the vast majority of people, any movement backwards on her plan would be either increasing costs or decreasing benefits for the middle class, which would be political suicide. Instead of walking it back, she needs to be moving it forward, get her teacher on, and educate the masses on this plan. She has a winning message. I can't see any effective counter-arguments to her plan. This Head tax vs Payroll tax debate is far too in the weeds for the public to give a shyt about.
 
GnauzBookOfRhymes

GnauzBookOfRhymes

Superstar
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
12,891
Reputation
2,884
Daps
48,448
Reppin
NULL
King Kreole said:
This would be a massive mistake in my opinion. She was getting dinged for ambivalence on M4A and the issue of middle-class tax cuts, for her to now start signaling a willingness to water it down would erase all the work she just did to make it as airtight as possible. There is no benefit to weakening your opening position before negotiations have even started. If anything, she should go harder in the paint for M4A now that she has her own (funding) plan for it. Her message is strong and simple: every man, woman and child in America has full health care coverage free at the point of service, and not a penny in tax increases for the middle class because it's the wealthy and large corporations that will pay more. She has the credibility to pull this messaging off because of her wonk brand. She's staked out the position of maximal benefit for the vast majority of people, any movement backwards on her plan would be either increasing costs or decreasing benefits for the middle class, which would be political suicide. Instead of walking it back, she needs to be moving it forward, get her teacher on, and educate the masses on this plan. She has a winning message. I can't see any effective counter-arguments to her plan. This Head tax vs Payroll tax debate is far too in the weeds for the public to give a shyt about.
Click to expand...

I definitely understand your points and honestly I can't say there's anything wrong with the argument. It really is a difficult issue right now. My main concern right now is that everyone is focusing their fire on her. The Dems see her as the main threat b/c they see her as clearly neck/neck with Biden. You see how no one even bothers going after Sanders :mjlol:.

The other thing is that you know the american public are stupid as fukk. So even though they may end up paying way less b/c whatever taxes are used to pay will be more than offset by no longer paying premiums, many are dumb enough not to make the connection.

I guess another way she could approach it is to use it to build her reputation as someone who is willing to support/announce big solutions knowing that a lot of entrenched interests will go after her. In essence paint everyone else as just chicken shyt politicians playing small ball. I could also be overreacting b/c M4All is still popular within the Dem party. Maybe the shift occurs later...

Breh we just need to beat this mfer in 2020:damn:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top