• Light/Dark
  • 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.

The Guardian: Beto O’Rourke frequently voted for Republican legislation, analysis reveals

Kirblar

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Manmademan said:
No it wasn't. It was virtually impossible for Sanders to win against Clinton as late as the end of March.



https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-delegates-221270

The only reason the contest APPEARS to have been anywhere near close is because despite the impossibility of actually winning against Clinton by getting more votes, Sanders continued to run long after the point that wasn't possible with the rationale that superdelegates should support him anyway as the superior candidate.

This is an insane strategy that had no chance of working, and any other primary candidate would have dropped out as soon as a win was out of the question. Sanders of course continued to run an impossible campaign that did nothing but rack up votes that made the election appear closer than it actually was.

Again, no other democratic or republican candidate has done this EVER- because it's nonsensical, wastes money, and damages the presumptive nominee. Sanders of course didn't care.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For reference (going back to the WSJ thing I posted) Obama had 90% of Black voters and barely beat her, primarily because he campaigned like crazy in rural areas to help w/ his margins there because of the proportional nature of the Dem primary setup.

Not being willing/able to campaign in "unfriendly territory" was a problem with both Sanders and Clinton in 2016 and we deserve a candidate who actually understands that part of the gig.
 
nomis

nomis

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,013
O-Zips said:
So what you're saying is that people are trying to stunt the momentum Beto has.

How coincidental this attempt at dirt comes up after the consideration of a presidential run is floated.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

fucking weird that people try to vet candidates to see if they adequately align with progressive values after the notion of them holding the highest office in the country is floated AMIRITE FELLAS

what a hit job
 

Deleted member 24907

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
5,354
Helio said:
Well, he can't even say if he's progressive or not and he defended the possible gentrification of a poor Hispanic neighborhood because the rich folks wanted to develop the area.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Read up on this since I hadn't heard the bolded before, and the gentrification affair does sound sketchy even if nothing happened in the end.

At the same time I'm not aware of any redevelopment plan that doesn't cause intense ire from the locals.

Again, at the end of the day I don't believe Beto to be a hard-left progressive. I'm not against vetting him for a 2020 run either. But I'm not convinced he's automatically disqualified in an ideological sense or give him side-eye for nebulous "I bet that guy's a centrist wolf in sheep's clothing, he totally looks the type" like a lot of people in this thread. We're in the middle of the vetting process process to see if candidates are good for a presidential run.
 
Chaos Legion

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,912
... I'm trying to find out what the mass hysteria is for.

He's occasionally bipartisan? Oh my God.
 
Zip

Zip

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,020
nomis said:
fucking weird that people try to vet candidates to see if they adequately align with progressive values after the notion of them holding the highest office in the country is floated AMIRITE FELLAS

what a hit job
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

For this original thought I will again suggest catching up on the thread.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
Eatin' Olives said:
Read up on this since I hadn't heard the bolded before, and the gentrification affair does sound sketchy even if nothing happened in the end.

At the same time I'm not aware of any redevelopment plan that doesn't cause intense ire from the locals.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, of course there is going to be ire from them. They wouldn't have been able to live there anymore.
 
Kirblar

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
inner-G said:
Gore and Kerry were even stronger in their respective primary counts, but that didn't get us very far. The only recent losing Democratic primary candidate to put up numbers like Bernie besides them is Hillary herself.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No one has made that correlative claim. "Blowout" refers only to the Dem primary race here.
 
inner-G

inner-G

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
14,473
PNW
Kirblar said:
No one has made that correlative claim. "Blowout" refers only to the Dem primary race here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm talking about primaries too, Gore had 75% and Kerry 60%. Their challengers only got up to like 20% apiece tops.

Or, what are you saying 55% is generally considered a blowout in comparison to if not recent democratic primaries? The Obama/Clinton one was tight like the Clinton/Sanders one.
 
Kirblar

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
inner-G said:
I'm talking about primaries too, Gore had 75% and Kerry 60%. Their challengers only got up to like 20% apiece tops.

Or, what are you saying 55% is generally considered a blowout in comparison to?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm saying generally in elections if you're getting ~55% + it's a blowout.

Northam's 9 point win in VA (54-45-1) was considered a blowout , for example. It's not a contextual thing, that's generally where the line is for any election, primary or not.
 

Zelas

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,020
Helio said:
Yup. It's a bad faith critique all around

I'm like "hell yeah im gonna purity test because I have standards"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eatin Olives appropriately highlighted the context of his senate electorate and you ignored that and responded with basically "not liberal enough!"

You're arguing in bad faith. Or are you willing to elaborate why, according to the majority of the electorate, someone viewed as too liberal should taking more visibly liberal stances. Why would more liberal actions or a different stance on gentrification convince republicans voters to vote for Beto?
 
Cub3h

Cub3h

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
438
Quick, quick! We can't let this energetic Democratic upstart gain any momentum!

This stuff is pathetic, he sometimes is bi-partisan. He's a Democrat in f'in Texas, what else would you expect?
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
Zelas said:
Eatin Olives appropriately highlighted the context of his senate electorate and you ignored that and responded with basically "not liberal enough!"

You're arguing in bad faith. Or are you willing to elaborate why, according to the majority of the electorate, someone viewed as too liberal should taking more visibly liberal stances. Why would more liberal actions or a different stance on gentrification convince republicans voters to vote for Beto?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A different stance on gentrification probably wouldn't garner more republican votes. But it would garner less poor hispanic people from being forced out of their homes because everything got too expensive around them.

His votes have consequences and I'm not going to ignore them because he wanted to turn into Carcetti
 
Inuhanyou

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
TaleSpun said:
The "purity test" shit is stupid online lingo that not even pundits use. There is no purity test. There is candidates, their campaigns, their voting records, their stated views and motivations, and the scrutinization of all of those. All of it is part of a healthy, functioning democracy and, contrary to what Era seems to think, it's good to do it on and off-season relative to elections. You don't hold politicians accountable only six months out of every four years if you really care.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Its stupid on the face of it. Everyone has a purity test, a litmus test they have for their politicians, that is why dont vote for insane right wing nutjobs. If your litmus test is relegated to social policy, that's your litmus test. if your game is economic policy, that's your litmus test. And if your for both social and economic policy and against corruption, your for the progressive litmus test.

I want some people who try and tap dance around money in politics and the corrupting influence of neoliberal sentiments just for once admit they are not for actual positive change to the governmental apparatus and just want to play political games against the opposite team on hollow issues forever.
 
Manmademan

Manmademan

Election Thread Watcher
Member
Aug 6, 2018
15,993
Kirblar said:
For reference (going back to the WSJ thing I posted) Obama had 90% of Black voters and barely beat her, primarily because he campaigned like crazy in rural areas to help w/ his margins there because of the proportional nature of the Dem primary setup.

Not being willing/able to campaign in "unfriendly territory" was a problem with both Sanders and Clinton in 2016 and we deserve a candidate who actually understands that part of the gig.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Oh i don't dispute that at all. Clinton either not understanding caucus states or not being willing to campaign there is absolutely the reason Obama beat her in the primary.

She repeated these mistakes in '16...being unwilling to go anywhere she wasn't strongest. I'm not even talking Wisconsin here. She went to Pennsylvania several times but avoided the rural parts of central PA entirely despite being explicitly warned by Ed Rendell and Bill NOT to do this.
 
Kirblar

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Manmademan said:
Oh i don't dispute that at all. Clinton either not understanding caucus states or not being willing to campaign there is absolutely the reason Obama beat her in the primary.

She repeated these mistakes in '16...being unwilling to go anywhere she wasn't strongest. I'm not even talking Wisconsin here. She went to Pennsylvania several times but avoided the rural parts of central PA entirely despite being explicitly warned by Ed Rendell and Bill NOT to do this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
(I probably need to be more clear when I'm adding something as a follow up, was meant as a expansion on your thoughts. :) )
 
Manmademan

Manmademan

Election Thread Watcher
Member
Aug 6, 2018
15,993
inner-G said:
I'm talking about primaries too, Gore had 75% and Kerry 60%. Their challengers only got up to like 20% apiece tops.
..
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Gore got 75 and Kerry got 60% because their challengers conceded rather than continuing to run after being mathematically eliminated.

Had Sanders conceded at THAT point Hillary would have been over Kerry's 60% Margin.

The difference between Hillary in 08 and Sanders in 16 is that it was actually possible for Hillary to exceed Obama in total votes going up to the last contest because of the Florida/Michigan situation.
 
Midnight Jon

Midnight Jon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,161
Ohio
Zelas said:
You're arguing in bad faith.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We're posting in a thread about a David Sirota article (where he appears to be lambasting Beto for voting in favor of GOP legislation approximately 1% more often than the rest of the party), bad faith is kind of assumed.

This is literally the same guy who attacked the party for not taking the GOP's bait on that "single-payer" vote last summer apparently without realizing that even Bernie voted present on that bill and then went on to double, triple, and quadruple down on being breathtakingly fucking wrong.

Like I'm on his block list specifically for gently calling him out about that!
 
Doomsayer

Doomsayer

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,621
I'm confused, is this really a problem? He voted bipartisan ~1% more than his counterparts? Big deal.
 
excelsiorlef

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
KoopaTheCasual said:
*Remembers the one thread where she got one statistic wrong, and everyone called her an idiot or unintelligent*

If y'all thing AOC won't be subject to her own brand of "she's not the one" when its her turn, then lol.

Point being, lets hold people accountable, but avoid clickbait articles like the one this thread is about...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes but she's a bonfide unabashed progressive who talks social and economic issues
 
AztecComplex

AztecComplex

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,371
Doomsayer said:
I'm confused, is this really a problem? He voted bipartisan ~1% more than his counterparts? Big deal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You don't see? He's clearly a CENTRIST!!!

I consider myself very very liberal but some of you make me feel like I'm pro GOP in comparison, seriously. Needless to say I don't get it either.

EDIT: removed the parenthesis. Im sorry about that, didnt know the meaning of them, I was making fun of conspiracy theorists only.
 
Last edited:
Inuhanyou

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
So on top of the voting record i already knew about, not supporting ANY pro medicare for all legislation even when pressed, and supported to fast track the TPP, he also has v oted against a bill restricting drilling in the gulf of mexico, voted to kneecap the volker rule, voted for GOP bill to weaken rules saying corps had to let consumers know their personal information was being shared with other corps, and voted for GOP tax cuts..even against the texas democratic authority...

Yeah, he's done as far as i'm concerned.
 
nomis

nomis

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,013
O-Zips said:
For this original thought I will again suggest catching up on the thread.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

this pragmatist's logic is BS, the man represents El Paso ffs

unless you subscribe to him obama-esque 12 dimensional chess of doing bad shit on purpose, occam's razor says that beto is just a shitty milquetoast center right politician
 
Kirblar

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
AztecComplex said:
You don't see? He's clearly a ((CENTRIST))!!!

I consider myself very very liberal but some of you make me feel like I'm pro GOP in comparison, seriously. Needless to say I don't get it either.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Their use of the term is to mean "Centrist" = "not in favor of hard-S Socialism and/or communism, etc."

So virtually any politician that can actualy get elected in the US (where free market support is at ~70%) is a "centrist" to them, because they wrongly think themselves representative of the "true" left, and not as the extreme outliers that they actually are.
 

Deleted member 3896

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,815
Inuhanyou said:
So on top of the voting record i already knew about, not supporting ANY pro medicare for all legislation even when pressed, and supported to fast track the TPP, he also has v oted against a bill restricting drilling in the gulf of mexico, voted to kneecap the volker rule, voted for GOP bill to weaken rules saying corps had to let consumers know their personal information was being shared with other corps, and voted for GOP tax cuts..even against the texas democratic authority...

Yeah, he's done as far as i'm concerned.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
lol

I love this little song and dance you've performed as if your mind wasn't made up long ago. Cute!!!

TaleSpun said:
People are way too hung up on statices here. The policies and the substance of them are objectionable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And again who are you supporting for 2020?
 
Ignatz Mouse

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,741
Melkr_ said:
Being "very very" liberal makes you "very very" centrist. Liberalism is in confrontation with leftism.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Only because socialists turned the use of that word into "centrist" in an effort to spend more time attacking other people on the left (but not as left as them) rather than the real enemies.

Liberal IS left, for 99% of the people in this country.
 
Titik

Titik

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,490
God the bs purity test will be our undoing isn't it. Russian troll accounts are probably having a field day.
 
TaleSpun

TaleSpun

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,449
Kirblar said:
Their use of the term is to mean "Centrist" = "not in favor of hard-S Socialism and/or communism, etc."

So virtually any politician that can actualy get elected in the US (where free market support is at ~70%) is a "centrist" to them, because they wrongly think themselves representative of the "true" left, and not as the extreme outliers that they actually are.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This view really falls apart when you have genuine conviction in a progressive ideology, rather than just finding comfort in polling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.