Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Beto is a great candidate. I don’t know why the media and others turned on him so hard. He has a lot of good progressive policies and is someone that can get out the vote better than anyone in the race. In the last head to head poll, he had the largest margin of victory over trump  

 

He messed up by not jumping into the race until late and missing those early town halls on cnn as well as getting behind the Mayor Pete wave. 

 

Still, I think he has a lot to offer

[Cooked Crack]

 

[ixcuincle]

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

3 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

This is a weak attempt to appeal to Obama supporters where he can frame the healthcare argument "Side with me and Obama or these other people"

 

Which is really his only card to play in this entire primary, playing up his link to Obama. 

 

The ACA was a massive compromise. A step toward universal healthcare because we were never going from the previous way straight into universal. Obama even acknowledges this. 

[mcsluggo]

22 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

She is who I thought she was, she jus happened to win a game of chicken with Trump earlier this year to earn some good will.  That good will is gone with me now. She talks to our generation like we're children. Look forward to AOC as Speaker of the House one day.

 

 

.....personally i have grown tired of the constant AOC--look-at-me parade.   I hope Pelosi (or somebody) is successful reining it back a bit.

[Renegade7]

27 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

 

.....personally i have grown tired of the constant AOC--look-at-me parade.   I hope Pelosi (or somebody) is successful reining it back a bit.

 

Think this is a misunderstanding, she's more trying to bring attention to the issues instead of herself and is constantly playing defense because of it.  I follow her on Twitter, that's most of what she posts

[mcsluggo]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Think this is a misunderstanding, she's more trying to bring attention to the issues instead of herself and is constantly playing defense because of it.  I follow her on Twitter, that's most of what she posts

 

there is certainly some of that (plenty of that).   But it isn't all of it.   

 

the right LOVES to use her (and misrepresentations of what she has said, also) as their straw-boogie-man to scare their base voters, and whip-em up to a froth.    But AOC (and to some extent some of the other freshmen as well) also like to have themselves  center-front, and are happy to swim outside of the party politics lanes.   

 

without making any comparisons to substance underlying the two groups... it is the the same tactics and strategies that the tea-partiers used to blow up the the GOP establishment (and that Trump eventually took to an even further level).   It hasn't ended well for either the GOP or the country.

 

the current crop of freshman, and many of their supporters, want to do the same thing to the Democratic party... although they would say they just want to bring the party further to the left, that  is pretty much just what the freedom-tea-baggers said at the time too.      

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, mcsluggo said:

 

the current crop of freshman, and many of their supporters, want to do the same thing to the Democratic party... although they would say they just want to bring the party further to the left, that  is pretty much just what the freedom-tea-baggers said at the time too.      

 

That's the thing, the progressives arent derailing the moderate agenda, quite the opposite.  It's because of them and their base Pelosi got back the Speakership,  but she doesn't act like it at all.

[Bozo the kKklown]

THe right will use anything a democrat says as a lightning rod. You have to stop being scared of those nutters and instead start standing for something.

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That's the thing, the progressives arent derailing the moderate agenda, quite the opposite.  It's because of them and their base Pelosi got back the Speakership,  but she doesn't act like it at all.

exactly

[PleaseBlitz]

I think AOC increasing views herself as the leader of a movement, not one of 435 house representatives.  To Pelosi, who's mind is wired to count votes, AOC is one vote, nothing more and nothing less.  

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That's the thing, the progressives arent derailing the moderate agenda, quite the opposite.  It's because of them and their base Pelosi got back the Speakership,  but she doesn't act like it at all.

 

Wait what?  Pelosi got the gavel back because moderate Dems like Jennifer Wexton, Abigail Spanberger, Andy Kim, Conor Lamb, Katie Hill and many more ousted Republicans, not because AOC took over a seat already held by a Democrat.   

[Llevron]

3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

To Pelosi, who's mind is wired to count votes, AOC is one vote, nothing more and nothing less.  

 

You think thats right or wrong? Me personally, I feel like you could leverage AOCs popularity? (not sure if thats the right word im looking for) and political talent to your advantage....for something. Rather than let her make your life more difficult through rookie mistakes and the appearance of disunity. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

This is a weak attempt to appeal to Obama supporters where he can frame the healthcare argument "Side with me and Obama or these other people"

 

Which is really his only card to play in this entire primary, playing up his link to Obama. 

 

The ACA was a massive compromise. A step toward universal healthcare because we were never going from the previous way straight into universal. Obama even acknowledges this. 

Or maybe he is playing to the voters that don't want universal healthcare.  Or he thinks we are still more than one step from universal healthcare so his 2.0 is to continue to get us closer.

[mcsluggo]

16 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That's the thing, the progressives arent derailing the moderate agenda, quite the opposite.  It's because of them and their base Pelosi got back the Speakership,  but she doesn't act like it at all.

 

really?  it wasn't the country reacting against Donald ****ing Trump and the general incompetence that he and the tea-party has brought with them?   

[tshile]

1 hour ago, mcsluggo said:

 

 

.....personally i have grown tired of the constant AOC--look-at-me parade.   I hope Pelosi (or somebody) is successful reining it back a bit.

I don’t feel like she’s running that parade. Seems like she’s doing her job and well at this point. It’s others running the parade trying to get people sick of her. 

 

When everyone else grandstands in congressional hearings she asked pointed questions and maximized her speaking time. 

 

These are things we should want. The rest of them seem like the problem to me. 

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

This is a weak attempt to appeal to Obama supporters where he can frame the healthcare argument "Side with me and Obama or these other people"

 

Which is really his only card to play in this entire primary, playing up his link to Obama. 

 

This was the final straw. Biden is a weak candidate and an idiot to boot. His only move is tie himself to Obama. ACA 2.0? Which idiot came up with that? This entire campaign is a clown show. 

 

The sooner the media starts pointing out how awful of a candidate he is the sooner we can move on to real choices that can beat trump. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

24 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That's the thing, the progressives arent derailing the moderate agenda, quite the opposite.  It's because of them and their base Pelosi got back the Speakership,  but she doesn't act like it at all.

 

Swing and a miss.

[Bozo the kKklown]

24 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Wait what?  Pelosi got the gavel back because moderate Dems like Jennifer Wexton, Abigail Spanberger, Andy Kim, Conor Lamb, Katie Hill and many more ousted Republicans, not because AOC took over a seat already held by a Democrat.   

He meant that there was a movement from moderate and right-leaning dems to vote someone else speaker of the house. AOC and the progressives actually backed Pelosi.

[PleaseBlitz]

59 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

You think thats right or wrong? Me personally, I feel like you could leverage AOCs popularity? (not sure if thats the right word im looking for) and political talent to your advantage....for something. Rather than let her make your life more difficult through rookie mistakes and the appearance of disunity. 

 

For someone in Pelosi's position, it's right.  She has to protect her most vulnerable members, not cater to the representative from the Bronx because she has more twitter followers.  I agree, it would be great to leverage AOC's popularity, but that's tough to do when AOC wants things that the main part of the caucus do not want and AOC doesn't particularly feel the need to go along with the rest of the team for the sake of the appearance of unity.  Then having the nerve to say Pelosi admonished them because they are women of color was infuriating.  

 

Edit:  Just because I think Pelosi's position is right doesn't mean I think AOC is entirely wrong.  AOC's role is to push the Dem caucus to the left.  She is effectively part of a counterweight to the House Freedom Caucus.  The Freedom Caucus actually ousted John Bohner back in the day because they were/are SO FAR RIGHT.  That counterweight is very important, so I think AOC is playing her public role well.  At the end of the day though, she's one vote on the floor of the House.  

 

 

46 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

He meant that there was a movement from moderate and right-leaning dems to vote someone else speaker of the house. AOC and the progressives actually backed Pelosi.

 

Fair enough, although Pelosi was voted in by a margin of 220-15 among the Democrat caucus, it's not like she was seriously challenged and needed anyone in particular's support.  Pelosi is also, personally, extremely progressive, she just again has to act on behalf of the entire caucus which includes a bunch of moderates.  

[Bozo the kKklown]

10 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Fair enough, although Pelosi was voted in by a margin of 220-15 among the Democrat caucus, it's not like she was seriously challenged and needed anyone in particular's support. 

Considering she needed 218 votes to become speaker of the house and got 220, that shows that it actually was very close. 

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Considering she needed 218 votes to become speaker of the house and got 220, that shows that it actually was very close. 

 

Interestingly, the Dems that did not vote for her were the moderates that had to promise not to vote for Pelosi in order to win their campaigns.  You may recall Pelosi being totally fine with it.  It's because she knew she'd get however many votes she needed to win.  

 

If it was actually close, who was she in danger of losing to?  Surely a name would have come up if it were actually a close vote, right?

[PeterMP]

19 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Considering she needed 218 votes to become speaker of the house and got 220, that shows that it actually was very close. 

 

It is a political (and meaningless) vote.  People don't vote her simply so that they can't be attacked for voting for her in a later election.  Not because they actually opposed her, and if necessary would have voted for her.

 

But it does save them from having to go into another election without having to worry about they voted for Pelosi ads.

 

The term limit thing is also nothing really and just an election trick.  In 4 years, Pelosi will be 83.  She's not going to be speaker of the house at 83.  But it does allow people to say that they stood up to Nancy Pelosi.

[Llevron]

30 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

For someone in Pelosi's position, it's right.  She has to protect her most vulnerable members, not cater to the representative from the Bronx because she has more twitter followers.  I agree, it would be great to leverage AOC's popularity, but that's tough to do when AOC wants things that the main part of the caucus do not want and AOC doesn't particularly feel the need to go along with the rest of the team for the sake of the appearance of unity.  Then having the nerve to say Pelosi admonished them because they are women of color was infuriating.  

 

Fair. She has to think about Dems staying in power first and foremost, no argument there. I do think she could have managed the AOC thing better from the beginning though, but thats a two way street. Part of what got AOC there in the first place was her unwillingness to be managed and told what to do. So i guess in that sense a clash was inevitable. 

 

I didn't like the POC/WOC thing either to be honest. Rather you think its true or not, this was opportunity for AOC to be a politician and benefit from it. I dont think it helps anyone right now to take the focus off of Trump and the republicans like that. 

 

I dunno, Im just thinking and wanted your input. I dont really have a point

[Bozo the kKklown]

14 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Interestingly, the Dems that did not vote for her were the moderates that had to promise not to vote for Pelosi in order to win their campaigns.  You may recall Pelosi being totally fine with it.  It's because she knew she'd get however many votes she needed to win.  

 

If it was actually close, who was she in danger of losing to?  Surely a name would have come up if it were actually a close vote, right?

 

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

It is a political (and meaningless) vote.  People don't vote her simply so that they can't be attacked for voting for her in a later election.  Not because they actually opposed her, and if necessary would have voted for her.

 

But it does save them from having to go into another election without having to worry about they voted for Pelosi ads.

 

The term limit thing is also nothing really and just an election trick.  In 4 years, Pelosi will be 83.  She's not going to be speaker of the house at 83.  But it does allow people to say that they stood up to Nancy Pelosi.

 

I am really confused now. Do you both not remember there was an actual campaign to not have Pelosi be speaker of the house? They had propped up candidates to run against her.

 

My overall point is really that the progressives could have screwed her and not voted for her, which could have lead to a disaster for Dems. They didn't.

 

And its not about who was she in danger of losing to, it was about she being three votes away from not being the speaker of the house.

[PleaseBlitz]

17 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

 

I am really confused now. Do you both not remember there was an actual campaign to not have Pelosi be speaker of the house? They had propped up candidates to run against her.

 

My overall point is really that the progressives could have screwed her and not voted for her, which could have lead to a disaster for Dems. They didn't.

 

And its not about who was she in danger of losing to, it was about she being three votes away from not being the speaker of the house.

 

I remember it clearly.  I think you may not understand how these things actually work, because politics are illogical sometimes.  A few Dem congresspeople made some noises about challenging her (and overstated their position for the cameras), and she crushed them.  

 

Pelosi was always going to be Speaker.  You say "they had propped up candidates to run against her."  Who?  The reason you can't name anyone is because there was never really a serious challenger to Pelosi.  Some she intimidated, some she cut deals with.  That's how it works.  She got 220 votes because that's how many she needed and, as PeterMP correctly stated, the people that didn't vote for her did so because they didn't want to have it held against them in a later campaign in a swing district and they made a campaign promise to not back her.  The progressives didn't have any other options, didn't want to piss her off and didn't have a reason to not vote for her.  

[PeterMP]

48 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

 

I am really confused now. Do you both not remember there was an actual campaign to not have Pelosi be speaker of the house? They had propped up candidates to run against her.

 

My overall point is really that the progressives could have screwed her and not voted for her, which could have lead to a disaster for Dems. They didn't.

 

And its not about who was she in danger of losing to, it was about she being three votes away from not being the speaker of the house.

 

Okay, that's true for essentially any block in the party.

 

People that were talking concretely about not supporting her though included progressives.

 

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/11/14/seth-moulton-nancy-pelosi-house-speaker

 

Moulton is a progressive (He's AOC before AOC and won by defeating an incumbent Democrat in the primary and was endorsed by the likes of Warren).

 

Pelosi did what a good leader does.  She got the votes in line by pulling the safe Democrats to vote for her allowing less safe Democrats vote against her.

 

It would be equally true to say that Pelosi owes her leadership to the Black Caucus because if they voted against her, she would not have won.

 

There's no group in the Democratic caucus that Pelosi doesn't owe her leadership position to because if any of them enmasse would have voted against her, she would have not won.

 

But it also wasn't really ever a threat.  There was nobody that ever was looking to oppose her.  Long term, for some, there was a political benefit to saying they stood up to Pelosi or they extracted some condition from her (i.e. that 83 she won't run for speaker again).

[PeterMP]

Wrong thread!