TheCid

2020 Election

254 posts in this topic

22 minutes ago, Swithin said:

I think there are misogynists among them. Also the Republicans have been been demonizing Hillary for years, and the white male working class is susceptible to that. (They tried to do it to Nancy Pelosi, but it hasn't worked.)

There are people who are swayed by rhetoric and wild-eyed emotion rather than reason. Bernie appealed to that, and so did Trump. It's hard for a woman to do that, without being criticized; and Hillary is just too rational for theatrics.

Maybe it's the Spock in me, but I honestly don't understand how a person who was for Bernie Sanders could turn around and vote for trump. Emotionalism is one thing, but they do truly represent different sides of any coin.

The only emotion that I can see in this is what Sherlock Holmes used to call revanche.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Swithin said:

I think there are misogynists among them. Also the Republicans have been been demonizing Hillary for years, and the white male working class is susceptible to that. (They tried to do it to Nancy Pelosi, but it hasn't worked.)

There are people who are swayed by rhetoric and wild-eyed emotion rather than reason. Bernie appealed to that, and so did Trump. It's hard for a woman to do that, without being criticized; and Hillary is just too rational for theatrics.

Why is it that when a white-man votes for someone-that-looks-like-him it is considered bigoted \ racist but when anyone else does it,  that is A-OK because they are just voting for someone like-themselves to represent themselves.

From a policy perspective I can't understand why someone that supported Sanders would vote for Trump over Clinton,  but since the Dem party's overall message to voters is that only-those-that-look-like-you can represent you,   once a Sanders supporter found out how the DNC had assisted Clinton by cheating (as well as the super-delegates BS),   I can see such a voter going all emotional and voting for Trump as their way to stick it to the DNC.

PS:  and it could happen again;   Will Sander voters support a women candidate if they believe the DNC again did all they could do to ensure a white-man wasn't the parties' candidate?       

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Why is it that when a white-man votes for someone-that-looks-like-him it is considered bigoted \ racist but when anyone else does it,  that is A-OK because they are just voting for someone like-themselves to represent themselves.

I didn't see anything like that in what Swithin posted. As for why women and minorities hope for broader representation, it may be that white men have dominated positions of power since the nation's founding, and they want in on the action, too. Also, if you are honestly trying to imply that there were no voters that would not vote for Hilary based largely on her gender, then you're being naive or delusional - I don't think you're either one, BTW. Was that a majority of non-Hilary voters? I don't think so, not even close, but there were more of them than I think you're acknowledging. 

From a policy perspective I can't understand why someone that supported Sanders would vote for Trump over Clinton,  but since the Dem party's overall message to voters is that only-those-that-look-like-you can represent you,   once a Sanders supporter found out how the DNC had assisted Clinton by cheating (as well as the super-delegates BS),   I can see such a voter going all emotional and voting for Trump as their way to stick it to the DNC.

In which case they are whiny children and they deserve everything Trump is doing. I can respect a third-party vote, but to switch from Sanders to Trump is just colossally stupid, and really calls into question what that individual actually believes in, as everything Trump stands for is anathema to Sanders' stated philosophy and agenda.

PS:  and it could happen again;   Will Sander voters support a women candidate if they believe the DNC again did all they could do to ensure a white-man wasn't the parties' candidate?       

As the DNC seems to be firmly behind a white male candidate this time (Biden), I don't think a rigged game will be as much of a likelihood. But the Democrats rarely fail to disappoint.

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

 

This was very confusing until I realized that the bold statements are Lawrence's responses to James' statements?????  Notice none of it copied when I tried to quote it.

Incidentally I agree with what Lawrence apparently is saying except the DNC favoring Biden.  They may be, but not because he is a older white male, but because they think he has the best chance of defeating Trump- at least so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheCid said:

This was very confusing until I realized that the bold statements are Lawrence's responses to James' statements?????  Notice none of it copied when I tried to quote it.

Sorry about that. I couldn't think of a better way to address his post point-by-point. Well, I probably could have, but I was too lazy. :(:lol:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Also, if you are honestly trying to imply that there were no voters that would not vote for Hilary based largely on her gender, then you're being naive or delusional - I don't think you're either one, BTW. Was that a majority of non-Hilary voters? I don't think so, not even close, but there were more of them than I think you're acknowledging. 

Of course there were sexist men (and even some women),  that believed the job of President of the USA is too-much for a women and therefore wouldn't vote for Hillary.    My point related to this was that there were some Sanders supporters that were NOT sexist but because they were told they were sexist if they didn't vote for Hillary,  decided to fulfill the self-fulfilling prophesy.     As you note now many were in each camp, no one knows. 

Yea,  anyone that voted for Sanders in the Dem primary that voted for Trump in the general was a fool,  especially if the reason was identity politics (or anti-identity-politics).    

But I can see identity politics tripping up the Dems again;   If an old-white-male is the candidate,  in the general will they be able to rally all the women,  minorities, and younger voters that voted for a non-old-white-male in the Dem primary?      

E.g. Evangelical voters were pragmatic and supported Trump.    I just don't see progressive non-old-white-males being as pragmatic and supporting Biden or Sanders after being told repeatedly that the two are out-of-touch with one's specific identity politics.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

  

But I can see identity politics tripping up the Dems again;   If an old-white-male is the candidate,  in the general will they be able to rally all the women,  minorities, and younger voters that voted for a non-old-white-male in the Dem primary?      

E.g. Evangelical voters were pragmatic and supported Trump.    I just don't see progressive non-old-white-males being as pragmatic and supporting Biden or Sanders after being told repeatedly that the two are out-of-touch with one's specific identity politics.   

You have a valid concern after 2016, but I think maybe they have learned their lesson.  Of course I may also be naive.  IF the race comes down to two old-white-males, will the Progressives, millenials, women, minorities, etc. sit out the election - again?  This was a large factor in Trump winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Why is it that when a white-man votes for someone-that-looks-like-him it is considered bigoted \ racist

Who says that? When a white-man votes there are usually just two choices. If both candidates are black or both women or both white same diff. Who is feeding you that propaganda?

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TheCid said:

You have a valid concern after 2016, but I think maybe they have learned their lesson.  Of course I may also be naive.  IF the race comes down to two old-white-males, will the Progressives, millenials, women, minorities, etc. sit out the election - again?  This was a large factor in Trump winning.

Yes,  one would hope 'they have learned their lesson'.       In addition whoever wins the Dem nomination should have much better campaign personal than the chumps on the Clinton team,  and the understanding that the main goal is getting support from voters that do NOT look-like-their-candidate.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mr6666 said:

Dave WeigelVerified account @daveweigel 21h21 hours ago

 
🚨NEW: @DMRegister Iowa Poll results on the 2020 caucus field

Since last poll

Biden: 24% (-5)

Sanders: 16% (-9) Warren: 15% (+6) Buttigieg: 14% (+13)

Harris: 7% (+0) Klobuchar: 2% (-1)

Not an authority, but as I understand it the Iowa caucuses are so weird that polling data can be misleading.  I believe there are actually two?  Ironically Jimmy Carter came from nowhere to win the Iowa caucus and become president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was driving down I-85 in Greenville SC last week and saw a big billboard for Tusi Gabbard.  Only presidential primary one I have seen so far.  She was advertising herself as veteran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Why is it that when a white-man votes for someone-that-looks-like-him it is considered bigoted \ racist but when anyone else does it,  that is A-OK because they are just voting for someone like-themselves to represent themselves.

From a policy perspective I can't understand why someone that supported Sanders would vote for Trump over Clinton,  but since the Dem party's overall message to voters is that only-those-that-look-like-you can represent you,   once a Sanders supporter found out how the DNC had assisted Clinton by cheating (as well as the super-delegates BS),   I can see such a voter going all emotional and voting for Trump as their way to stick it to the DNC.

PS:  and it could happen again;   Will Sander voters support a women candidate if they believe the DNC again did all they could do to ensure a white-man wasn't the parties' candidate?       

 

I would hope no one votes for someone just because it looks like them, though the media has been pushing that concept for years. They keep saying that people want someone they can have a beer with, which is absurd. We wouldn't have gotten FDR that way.

I can understand the Sanders/Trump connection. Of course I think there were many voters of various stripes in that camp, but there is a strand of libertarianism which is fashionable these days. Some of them can equate even a big government liberal like Bernie with Trump's pandering to the "Washington is evil" crowd. I see it in the UK: North Country socialists having a flirtation with right-wing Nigel Farage.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Swithin said:

I would hope no one votes for someone just because it looks like them, though the media has been pushing that concept for years.

Albright :  “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

Note that at a town hall Buttigieg got asked an ID politics question;  A women asked him why, with all the fine female candidates,  a women should vote for him.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Albright :  “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

Note that at a town hall Buttigieg got asked an ID politics question;  A women asked him why, with all the fine female candidates,  a women should vote for him.

 

 

Poor Butt_Plug doesn't stand a chance. :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Albright :  “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

Note that at a town hall Buttigieg got asked an ID politics question;  A women asked him why, with all the fine female candidates,  a women should vote for him.

I'm gay, and I'm not voting for Buttigieg. I do have at least one gay friend who is voting for him. (In the primaries, I mean. Of course if he's the candidate I'll vote for him.)

I think it's scary the way someone can come from "nowhere" and become a credible candidate, just by using the media and social media. That can get ugly, in the wrong hands. Though it's good that a gay candidate is being taken seriously. Ireland has a PM who is gay and part Indian!

I heard someone (a white man) on MSNBC recently ask whether the Democrats can nominate a white man for President. That made me angry. The Democrats nominated -- and elected -- a black man twice; and nominated a woman for President. It's about the issues!

My congresswoman of years ago was nominated for VP: the great Geraldine Ferraro. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Swithin said:

I heard someone (a white man) on MSNBC recently ask whether the Democrats can nominate a white man for President. That made me angry. The Democrats nominated -- and elected -- a white man twice; and nominated a woman for President. It's about the issues!

With the current Dem party to me that is a reasonable and logical question,  especially when most of the candidates have the same positions on most issues.     (you say "The Democrats nominated ,,,,", and I'm saying those Dems are no longer "The Democrats").

Hillary losing to Obama and then to Trump took progressive identity politics in a much different and angrier place.   In many ways that makes sense;  until there is a women President,  the question of if America is ready for a women President will remain.    (just like the question of if sexist was the primary reason Sanders supporters voted for Trump over Hillary).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

Poor Butt_Plug doesn't stand a chance. :lol: 

The guys comes off as smart so I assume he is running just to increase his name recognition in the state.   I can see him running for governor or the US Senate soon: (instead of having to do what most mayors have to do,,, run for the state House seat or state Senate,  or US House before these other higher level positions).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

With the current Dem party to me that is a reasonable and logical question,  especially when most of the candidates have the same positions on most issues.     (you say "The Democrats nominated ,,,,", and I'm saying those Dems are no longer "The Democrats").

Hillary losing to Obama and then to Trump took progressive identity politics in a much different and angrier place.   In many ways that makes sense;  until there is a women President,  the question of if America is ready for a women President will remain.    (just like the question of if sexist was the primary reason Sanders supporters voted for Trump over Hillary).

I meant to say "nominated a black man twice!" Just fixed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Swithin said:

I'm gay, and I'm not voting for Buttigieg. I do have at least one gay friend who is voting for him. (In the primaries, I mean. Of course if he's the candidate I'll vote for him.)

I think it's scary the way someone can come from "nowhere" and become a credible candidate, just by using the media and social media. That can get ugly, in the wrong hands. Though it's good that a gay candidate is being taken seriously. Ireland has a PM who is gay and part Indian!

I heard someone (a white man) on MSNBC recently ask whether the Democrats can nominate a white man for President. That made me angry. The Democrats nominated -- and elected -- a white man twice; and nominated a woman for President. It's about the issues!

*My congresswoman of years ago was nominated for VP: the great Geraldine Ferraro. 

Swith--

Years ago I had the pleasure of meeting and interviewing *Geraldine Ferraro when she was running for Vice President on the Democratic ticket with Mondale.

She was a perceptive and charismatic person, whose intelligence and maturity we really could have used at that time in the White House.

I know she had to have a lot of courage to take the kind of abuse that she had to take being a pioneering woman in politics at that time.

Also around this time I had the opportunity to interview Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, who told me she took more abuse as a woman than as a black person in the political arena.

I was truly amazed by the Brilliance and Tenacity of these two women. Coming from New York City they were so ahead of their times.

And the rest of the country could learn a lot from the voters in New York City.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

Swith--

Years ago I had the pleasure of meeting and interviewing Geraldine Ferraro when she was running for Vice President on the Democratic ticket with Mondale.

She was a perceptive and charismatic person, whose intelligence and maturity we really could have used at that time in the White House.

I know she had to have a lot of courage to take the kind of abuse that she had to take being a pioneering woman in politics at that time.

Also around this time I had the opportunity to interview Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, who told me she took more abuse as a woman then as a black person in the political arena.

I was truly amazed by the Brilliance and Tenacity of these two women. Coming from New York City they were so ahead of their times.

And the rest of the country could learn a lot from the voters in New York City.

I remember Shirley Chisholm, of course, she was in the news a lot when I was young. The funny thing is, the UK, from which some of our roots come, has now had two female Prime Ministers. It's a little different there, since they are party heads who become PM if their party gets the majority. A relevant point I think is that the head of the DUP -- which is the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party (meaning very pro staying with the UK) is a woman: Arlene Foster. And the DUP is sort of connected by heritage to our Appalachian Scots-Irish folks, many of whom now support Trump.

Maybe a woman President has to come from the Republicans, just as the first Black Senator came from the Republicans: Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, who was a liberal Republican. In his race for Senate, Brooke defeated the most old-line Yankee WASP of old-line WASPs: Governor Endicott Peabody, a man who said he wouldn't even authorize the death penalty for the Boston Strangler. Peabody's mother was one of the great New England activists. She was arrested in Florida for attempting to integrate a segregated restaurant. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swithin said:

I meant to say "nominated a black man twice!" Just fixed it.

I should have read my Sunday L.A. Times before commenting here;   Today there is a good article by Mark Barabak;  Casting a vote for pragmatism;    As black voters weigh the Dem field,  they have one priority:  Beat Trump.

The article is mostly interviews with various black voters (mostly women);   E.g.  "Ms. Carter;  As a black women she's delighted with Kamala Harris' presidential bid.   As a liberal activist, she's thrilled with Elizabeth Warren's groaning board of progressive policy proposals.    But as someone consumed with defeating Trump,  Carter is determined to think with her head,  not her heart,  and that cold calculation is pushing her toward Biden".

One interesting take is that the nation is a lot more sexist and racist today then black voters felt it was back in 2008 when Obama was elected.    If this is true,   why take the risk of nominating a women or person-of-color: if a white-male has the best chance of winning those battleground states,  than that is the logical choice.

  

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I should have read my Sunday L.A. Times before commenting here;   Today there is a good article by Mark Barabak;  Casting a vote for pragmatism;    As black voters weigh the Dem field,  they have one priority:  Beat Trump.

The article is mostly interviews with various black voters (mostly women);   E.g.  "Ms. Carter;  As a black women she's delighted with Kamala Harris' presidential bid.   As a liberal activist, she's thrilled with Elizabeth Warren's groaning board of progressive policy proposals.    But as someone consumed with defeating Trump,  Carter is determined to think with her head,  not her heart,  and that cold calculation is pushing her toward Biden".

One interesting take is that the nation is a lot more sexist and racist today then black voters felt it was back in 2008 when Obama was elected.    If this is true,   why take the risk of nominating a women or person-of-color: if a white-male has the best chance of winning those battleground states,  than that is the logical choice.

 

I think Ms. Carter is very sensible. My two favorites are Amy Klobuchar and Julio Castro, but I'll vote for Biden in the primary, which in New York (and several other states) is April 28, 2020. Though it may be pretty clear by then who the nominee will be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Swithin said:

I think Ms. Carter is very sensible. My two favorites are Amy Klobuchar and Julio Castro, but I'll vote for Biden in the primary, which in New York (and several other states) is April 28, 2020. Though it may be pretty clear by then who the nominee will be.

Yes,  Ms. Carter is very sensible.    My favorite is Klobuchar but since she is known for working with the other party she doesn't have a chance in the blue state primaries.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Yes,  Ms. Carter is very sensible.    My favorite is Klobuchar but since she is known for working with the other party she doesn't have a chance in the blue state primaries.    

I don't know. She's been on MSNBC so much, that's mostly where I've seen her. If she doesn't break through, it may be because it's such a crowded field. She was the best Democrat in the Kavanaugh hearings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us