-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
NBC News: Inside Bernie-world's war on Beto O'Rourke
- Thread starter Deleted member 2426
- Start date
So anyone but Bernie or Tulsi.
Beto supporters see him as the best option to beat Trump. They don't see him as their lefist savior.
They see him from a mostly pragmatic perspective. That he has the assets best served to win a landslide against Trump to help coattails to build the house margins and win back the senate.
So thats why Obama and Biden have stronger favorables than Bernie?
Not if the losing side gets butthurt and stays home as Dems are wont to do.
Your major post on this I've was devoid of any policy. All you ever talk about Beto is his personality.
Because his policies are standard Democratic policies. He is for the same things all mainstream Democrats are for. He is against the same things Trump does all mainstream Democrats are against. What is there to talk about? Look at Obama. There, that's Beto's policy perspective pretty through and through.
His defining asset is he combines that Obama type policy perspective with charisma and a down to earth personality which makes him extremely electable.
This only happened with Hillary voters when Obama won the primary.
So maybe they're the ones we should look not to get their feelings hurt. Bernie stans were at the polls supporting hill like they should have!
His actions this year suggest he is aware that it is time to pass the torch to a new generation. I seriously doubt he will run and if he does he would not do very well or even close to his 2016 primary results.
I wish he would fuck off for life. Preferably in an orange jumpsuit, locked behind bars.
Says the person who just changed their avatar to Susan Sarandon who's recent accomplishments amount to joining a cult.
User Banned (3 Days): Trolling over a series of posts
I can't change my avatar to an awesome actress now?
only jen kirkman avatars are permitted in this part of the internet
Susan Sarandon: 'I thought Hillary was very dangerous. If she'd won, we'd be at war'
https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...-was-very-dangerous-if-shed-won-wed-be-at-war
How Many Bernie Backers Would Refuse to Vote for Hillary Clinton?
Susan Sarandon says she might prefer Donald Trump because he'd bring about revolution faster. There's little evidence that many Democrats would join her.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/susan-sarandon-bernie-sanders/475875/
This is where I'm at, which is why I hope America selects someone with a history of campaigning for policies that address the numerous systemic inequalities currently inherent to American life.
America is moving left. Policy polls support this. Moderate Dems with a problematic past and an eye on the presidency building their campaign on progressive policy - Booker on a jobs guarantee, Harris on single-payer health-care and a living wage, both on a Green New Deal - support this. I don't trust either as much as Sanders, but they're reflective of a Democratic understanding that the way forward is with comprehensive progressive policy because it's good and popular. O'Rourke or Biden aren't there, and they'd be a mistake.
A thing left often unsaid while Democrats rush to the White House is that the Democrats, as a national party, need senators and governors in addition to the presidency. Beto O'Rourke, Texas senator isn't a bad thing to aspire to.
So I can't have Susan as my avatar because she said that? I don't see the use in getting angry over it,m.
One who worked her ass off to help elect Trump after Bernie lost.
Jill Stein is a Russian stooge whose only job was to try and help elect Trump.
And no that isnt hyperbole. She was LITERALLY a Russian stooge in the pocket of Putin. And publicly embraced being so.
Having her as an avatar is no better than having Sean Hannity. Both worked hard to help elect Trump.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/why-are-democrats-trying-to-annihilate-an-beto-campaign
This article makes some pretty good points and is worth a read.
This article makes some pretty good points and is worth a read.
Peter Hamby said:
Peter Hamby said:
You really think Surandon changed that many minds? Speed Racer kind of bomber at the box office.
Doesn't matter if she changed any minds she tried her hardest to help elect Trump. She campaigned to try and help Trump win. How is that admirable?
Bernie's essentially said that he's looking at the field to see if anyone can successfully communicate what the party needs to in order to win before deciding
I don't know who in Bernie's view that would be. He doesn't have anyone to pass the torch to. He still doesn't have any real allies in the party, that aren't in their 20s at least.
I'm really fucking tired of hypocritical calls for unity and bullshit accusations of purity tests.
The primary will be used to find the strongest possible candidate and THEN we can call for unity to defeat the gop.
Centrists just love crying when they get criticized and accuse the left of purity tests but left is relentlessly attacked. Criticism is not a purity test.n
The primary will be used to find the strongest possible candidate and THEN we can call for unity to defeat the gop.
Centrists just love crying when they get criticized and accuse the left of purity tests but left is relentlessly attacked. Criticism is not a purity test.n
I don't know of any centrists being criticized. Beto is and has never been close to being a centrist. He is a progressive with a progressive voting record. Manchin? Sure. Biden? A lot closer to centrist than Beto at least.
Posts claiming Beto would enact policy that's almost as bad as Trump's? Yup, this thread is as fucking insane as I thought it would be.
lol dude, get real
It's Texas. Getting as close as we did was pretty amazing.
lol dude, get real
It's Texas. Getting as close as we did was pretty amazing.
He isn't going to win, again. And whether or not hes responsible for it or not he is a cancer to the party because a bunch of his followers are crazy. But if he runs Ill legit enjoy voting against him and seeing him lose again. I really like Beto, he would definitely get my vote.
"New blood"
"Younger candidates, no more old people"
Right?
Given what's going on right now, you could at least be transparent about your reasoning.
*sigh*
She wasn't a surrogate or anything and she didn't help him win. Like her, don't like her. I'm gonna keep Aunt Agatha as my avvy
He's for all the standard Democrat things, as long as we ignore the times he broke from Democrats and voted with Republicans. Even if we grant him a do-over and try to argue that he will move left for national appeal, there's no reason as of yet to believe that he's just Obama, but white, or that we should be content with another Obama.
You're basing your support of this guy off of photographs and a pretty close race in Texas. But if you were from Texas, you'd have seen that people have had these problems with Beto for a while now. I've seen "Betos" running in Austin, Dallas, Denton. They are not the kind of thing I want anymore.
I grew up in Texas. Most of my family is there. I have family members who campaigned for him. I didn't just pick up on Beto this summer because of viral videos.
As someone who followed his election closely, yeah he was a progressive in his policy goals. Through and through. On every single major issue.
I don't know why someone would base their primary vote off of "electability" when the least electable man of all time is sitting in the oval office. I have my issues with Sanders (although I'd support him before any of the other front runners), but at least the people who support him think he would be a good president. I don't know if I can say the same about Beto supporters. They just think he can win an election.
Was that meant to be a reply to my tulsi joke post lol
Evreyone indluding myself
Who thought of trump as unelectable just underesrimated how awful and how many many (white) americans their are.
Y'all need to start defining EXACTLY what the fuck centrism is to you. Like give a seriously detailed reason because to me, it's as if a centrist is anyone who criticizes Bernie or calls out Garbage super far left wing radical ideas for what they are.
You can't sit and call Nancy Pelosi for example a freaking centrist when her district is San Francisco, and expect to be taken seriously.
You can't sit and call Nancy Pelosi for example a freaking centrist when her district is San Francisco, and expect to be taken seriously.
Ultimately I think Osita has a good thread on all this, while you can start from anywhere here is a good one:
He talks about Berine, Beto, etc.
He talks about Berine, Beto, etc.
It's done because they want to signal their "angry leftist socialist permanent minority" perspective instead of actually have an actual discussion.
honestly, that article's actually kind of awful, and willfully misrepresents data and quotes in order to make a lot of its conclusions.
example 1:
the issue: the data says sanders has the third-highest unfavorable ratings of democrats. true. what is conspicuously left out here is that the vast majority of the surveyed candidates also have 30+% "don't know" responses. when you normalize unfavorables relative to the number of people who have opinions on the candidate at all, you get different results and he's solidly middle-of-the-pack. (and this assumes that people without opinions follow the same distribution as the people with them, which is just kinda a thing you have to do)
example 2:
aside from making it incredibly clear where this writer's bias is, this is a clear failure of reading. christman's quote doesn't say "democrats suck ass because they don't win elections". christman's position is that democrats, ideologically, suck ass and are incapable of taking the bold and massive steps necessary to actually fix the world's problems. that's why he's saying "democrats suck ass and therefore the world is hopeless and you should go full jonestown", and this is being completely lied about in order to generate a narrative that matches with his article.
(also, acknowledging in your article that the dude is visibly drunk out of his mind and then eviscerating his argument with facts and reason is some pretty little league shit. like, congratulations, I guess? you beat a dude who could barely sit up straight?)
example 3:
the issue here is that "progressive" still means something. it still stands for a (relatively) concrete set of policy proposals and a general ideological outlook on what should be done by the government. trump is president (factually true), the world is different (factually... mostly true), but those positions still exist. the notion that "sanders and his supporters do not get to have a monopoly on what it means to be a progressive" is fundamentally the same tortured logic that clinton's campaign used to argue that, actually, she's a progressive. words have meanings. moving four years into the future doesn't mysteriously make them stop having meanings. this leads into example 4:
we're not doing that
the assertion here is that bernie sanders supporters are engaged in the fucking blood war or something against the evil forces of clintondom. that's not what this argument is about. we're not trying to re-litigate the 2016 primaries. we're trying to litigate the 2020 primaries. which is important and necessary.
You can always tell the people who have little clue about Southern politics for Democrats. A democrat winning statewide in Texas or even coming within 4-5 points was considered like a generation away. Beto coming within 2 points was basically thought to be impossible. If Beto was on the ticket in any "blue state" in the country he'd win. When I was canvassing for him here, you would talk to Republicans that voted for Trump that were considering or would vote for him by sheer force of his personality. Mind I'm in liberal Austin, but still. Once Beto's plank comes out as long as it's to the left of Obama, could even be to the right of Bernie as long as he promises to push for some sort of public option Medicare, then I'd be satisfied.
Not that Bernie would know anything about winning in the south.
I made a post a page or so back, but like... if you look at the election results, beto improved on clinton's 2016 numbers in almost exactly the same amount as the nationwide numbers improved.
fundamentally, while it feels like he really pulled that race into something incredibly close, extrapolating the national vote trends would have predicted a result that was like .5% lower than what he ended up with.
Yep. And now thanks to them, the Supreme Court is loaded in such a way that Bernie's vision will never happen in his lifetime. Liberals aren't as smart as we think, sometimes. Bernie's campaign and supporters better stand up to GOP/Russian misinformation campaigns this time instead of promoting them and then falling prey to them themselves.
Surely you see parallels to Wendy Davis here, then. Why do you think it is that Beto (who absolutely did a better job with his campaign than Davis did, I'm not discounting that) has so much pull with young bourgie liberals, but has failed to pick up support from working-class and hispanic voters?
Support dropped relative to Clinton w/ Hispanic voters was due to his opponent being Ted Cruz. The idea that he had a problem with "working class" voters is something you've invented though. He wouldn't have improved on Clinton's numbers in the way he did if he was having a "class problem". And Wendy Davis flopped hard, Beto didn't.
People like to ignore the fact Cruz is fairly popular on Texas, among Hispanics to boot.
National views on cruz are very different than in texas. He crushed Trump in Texas after all.
National views on cruz are very different than in texas. He crushed Trump in Texas after all.