Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 236: The Obama's new house is half baked

(+) Yeah! (+)

Agree or disagree: Biden is going to pick AOC or someone similar as a running mate.

It's the perfect Palin strategy in that it shores up your credibility with the more hardcore base that doesn't like you much, while simultaneously giving you the perfect patsy that you can shove all the blame off on if you lose.
---

Biden cant pick AOC. Shes not old enough to be a constitutionally valid choice.

And no, I think hell pick someone to the left of him but still in the party mainstream (if she hadnt gone after him, I think he probably would have gone with Harris).

---

AOC and and any real progressive would refuse.
---

red sox 777 posted...

most of the Democratic field now wants to scrap the ACA, along with almost all Republicans.

This is disingenuous.

Democrats want to support plans that will give access to affordable (or free) health care to everyone. They want to take the next step forward from ACA to something even more comprehensive.

Republicans just want to take away ACA, call it saving taxpayer money and close up shop.

So to try and lump those positions in the same category seems dishonest.
---

Another thing to note is that the VP choice is particularly important for Biden or Sanders (and to a lesser extent Warren) because theyre old enough that they could possibly die in office (or only serve for one term). They therefore want to pick someone that they think is capable of taking over for them, not just someone who will consolidate another voting bloc.

---

Just think about potential President Pence during a Trump second term. Trump cant be all that healthy at his age and weight.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

red sox 777 posted...

most of the Democratic field now wants to scrap the ACA, along with almost all Republicans.

This is disingenuous.

Democrats want to support plans that will give access to affordable (or free) health care to everyone. They want to take the next step forward from ACA to something even more comprehensive.

Republicans just want to take away ACA, call it saving taxpayer money and close up shop.

So to try and lump those positions in the same category seems dishonest.

I'll take either over the ACA. I'm not too picky about which one, as long as we can get the ACA repealed!
---

Isn't it uncommon for a candidate to pick a VP whose views aren't closely aligned with their own? Only examples I can think of are McCain/Palin (which went horribly) and Trump/Pence (where there weren't any serious options that shared his views). I don't see any reason to expect Biden (or any other Dem) to do it.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Biden cant pick AOC. Shes not old enough to be a constitutionally valid choice.

And no, I think hell pick someone to the left of him but still in the party mainstream (if she hadnt gone after him, I think he probably would have gone with Harris).

Biden/Buttigieg?

---

sup guys what's goin' on i see we have a new topic with 150 post-...oh

I skimmed through all this and just a few thoughts:

1. Saying Obama was the biggest failure as a President politically strikes me as a very... wrong... opinion. Like, even from a "way-to-the-left" standpoint, wouldn't Clinton make more sense for that? I'm not even thinking comprehensively about all this, I literally just went back one Democratic president. Obama's biggest weakness, IMO, was thinking he could work with a Republican party that was obviously never going to. By the time he stopped trying, Congress was ground to a halt, so legislatively nothing could be done anymore. Meanwhile, Clinton could be seen as the modern source for a lot of the right-leaning thinking in the party today. Not to mention some of the actual legislation passed (granted, he had to work with a Republican Congress) like the crime bill and buying into right-wing talking points on issues.

1a. I think the approach taken for the ACA was ill-advised, but I still find the Senate as the most culpable party for how things ended up. Pelosi and the House passed the public option. Lieberman killed it in the Senate along with the refusal to abolish the filibuster. Change either of those conditions and we have a public option today. I think it's fair to say Obama should have pushed Reid to end the filibuster but I think you see even now that it's entirely possible the will to do that wouldn't exist in the Senate. Even after everything we've experienced hardly anyone wants to. This is a major area in which Warren is superior to Sanders btw. Warren wants the filibuster gone, Sanders doesn't. good luck passing progressive legislation of importance needing 60 votes. or being forced to try and contort one reconciliation bill a year. Sanders's answer on this has consistently been awful too. It's the "we need a political revolution!" line... as if that will somehow cow McConnell and the Republican Senate. nah filibuster needs to go. Republicans will kill it themselves at a later date if they need to so keeping it around only cripples progressive policy.

2. I think another "hard truth" the left has to grapple with is that a lot of the public isn't there with them on some of these things. It's usually on these divides I find myself siding with LotM here, albeit for different reasons, LotM often thinks its better policy. I sometimes join in because despite my ideal world, the general electorate isn't there yet. M4A is the classic example. Poll after poll shows that the public hates the idea of eliminating private insurance, last time I checked it polled worse than repealing the ACA. Meanwhile, the public option is very popular. I'm concerned that coming out for the elimination of private insurance could be general election poison even if it wins some points with the left during the primary. If you want to take that position after being elected as a starting point in a negotiation, cool. But right now my primary concern is about results. know what's even less progressive than biden? losing the election. Now, given Trump's downright atrocious numbers, it may not matter here but that thinking is dangerously similar to the 2016 thinking and we saw how that ended up.

Really it's my biggest concern with Warren atm. I think she's the best candidate by far but there's a small part of me that fears that positions like this and even others I agree with like decriminalizing border crossings and moving it to a civil offense are just ones that are going to hurt come the general. This isn't "oh we can't have big change" no we need structural change and that's why as frustrating as it is, you have to keep an eye on what the electorate is ready for.
---

I forget which candidates "promised" what on VP, but my "veep-stakes" thinking has been something like:

Abrams for Biden/Sanders and Beto for Warren/Harris. Both might help them in upcoming battleground states like GA and TX. Even if you think TX is still too far off for Democrats (and it probably is) the downballot effect can't be understated. A bunch of Dems best House flip chances are in Texas, where the gerrymander is almost cracked.

I don't think Buttigieg is a particularly savvy choice. Hmm, I guess, in theory Klobuchar wouldn't be a bad pick if you were hyper-focused on shoring up the Midwest. I think 2018 showed the snapback is real and you don't need this (just.... just actually campaign there.) I'd understand the thinking however.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Agree or disagree: Biden is going to pick AOC or someone similar as a running mate.

disagree.
he picks Tulsi Gabbard.

+ she's a woman
+ former military
+ young
+ pulls from Trump's base hard
+ sounds fully capable
+ attractive

of his options there ain't better ones. he's guaranteed to get that 30% who don't want trump and he pulls a decent amount of people in the middle but she can pull in people he can't that lean more towards Trump and non-intervention, which still is a significant chunk of his base.
---

i swear biden picking gabbard would make my vote so painful.

i mean there's no sane or responsible alternative so i'd vote for him of course but i might feel ill

more reason we need warren to win to make sure this future never comes to pass
---

lol

the establishment HATES and despises Tulsi

shes the Democratic Ron Paul

not only is she not getting to be VP, her delegates won't even be seated at the convention
---

xp1337 posted...

i swear biden picking gabbard would make my vote so painful.

i mean there's no sane or responsible alternative so i'd vote for him of course but i might feel ill

more reason we need warren to win to make sure this future never comes to pass

Tulsi is pretty good lol
---

Bernie's the only person I can see picking Tulsi (and even he probably wouldn't?)

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Tulsi is pretty good lol

let's just say i disagree strongly (we've had this discussion like 8 times in the past 3 years in this topic)
---

I would love a bernie/Tulsi ticket
---

xp1337 posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Tulsi is pretty good lol

let's just say i disagree strongly (we've had this discussion like 8 times in the past 3 years in this topic)

Totally ok.
---

Bernie Sanders > Tulsi Gabbard > Marianne Williamson > Elizabeth Warren > Andrew Yang > The Rest

I'll consider voting for those 5 over Trump.
---

https://twitter.com/spectordeforce/status/1164955609512521728?s=21
---

I would go so far as to say that Tulsi is the best Democrat running right now
---

Tulsi is totally awesome
---

I'd vote for a Tulsi/Trump ticket she's that good
---

Jakyl25 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Biden cant pick AOC. Shes not old enough to be a constitutionally valid choice.

And no, I think hell pick someone to the left of him but still in the party mainstream (if she hadnt gone after him, I think he probably would have gone with Harris).

Biden/Buttigieg?

This is also my prediction

Also AOC isn't eligible to be VP
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Agree or disagree: Biden is going to pick AOC or someone similar as a running mate.

It's the perfect Palin strategy in that it shores up your credibility with the more hardcore base that doesn't like you much, while simultaneously giving you the perfect patsy that you can shove all the blame off on if you lose.

palin didnt work out so I dunno why anyone would want to emulate that strategy

obviously Biden will target the Hispanic vote and pick Tim Kaine

---

Tulsi sucks.

---

TotallyNotMI posted...

Tulsi sucks.

You say this every time and it is still not true. Especially for the reasons you cite.
---

I just don't see what advantages adding Buttigieg to the ticket gives a candidate that Beto doesn't do better at.

TX is more vulnerable than IN and even though I don't expect either to be winnable, again, downballot. Punished Beto is often praised for his ability to connect with people. Beto clearly loves campaigning given his Senate Race so he could zip around everywhere (admittedly so could Buttigieg but Beto has more experience with it.) He'd also be in a better position to challenge Trump's inevitable xenophobia given his background in Texas and El Paso.

I mean, I still like Buttigieg but tactically like... I don't see how Beto can't be seen as the better choice. unless you are beto. in which case you should still choose beto as vp to maximize the chance of flipping tx.
---

Im a little worried about this guys old brain

https://twitter.com/betaodork/status/1164553547960246272?s=21

---

xp1337 posted...

I just don't see what advantages adding Buttigieg to the ticket gives a candidate that Beto doesn't do better at.

TX is more vulnerable than IN and even though I don't expect either to be winnable, again, downballot. Punished Beto is often praised for his ability to connect with people. Beto clearly loves campaigning given his Senate Race so he could zip around everywhere (admittedly so could Buttigieg but Beto has more experience with it.) He'd also be in a better position to challenge Trump's inevitable xenophobia given his background in TX and El Paso.

I mean, I still like Buttigieg but tactically like... I don't see how Beto can't be seen as the better choice. unless you are beto. in which case you should still choose beto as vp to maximize the chance of flipping tx.

TX is way past the median point. If the Dems can win TX they almost certainly won't need it.
---

https://medium.com/@kathrynrosefisher/im-lgbt-here-s-where-the-media-is-wrong-on-tulsi-gabbard-bb0fde008d16

Great article on tulsi tbh
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

And no, I think hell pick someone to the left of him but still in the party mainstream (if she hadnt gone after him, I think he probably would have gone with Harris).

If Biden doesn't pick someone far left enough, he can't win. Hillary picking Tim Kaine was one of her biggest mistakes.
---

red sox 777 posted...

TX is way past the median point. If the Dems can win TX they almost certainly won't need it.

Right, right.

However, there are secondary factors in play here that still make it advantageous to compete there.

1. Downballot races. As I said, many of the best Democratic House flip chances lie in TX. The gerrymander came close to cracking thanks to suburbs fleeing the GOP and putting Beto on the ticket lets you push for it now before Republicans can try to re-gerrymander it to be safer in a post-Trumpism Republican party.

1a. If you can accomplish this you can help build up the Texas Democratic Party and get more candidates with experience for the future when it's a real battleground. The Rust Belt is trending to the GOP and the Sunbelt is trending Democratic. Texas, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, etc. is going to be the new future for Democrats as places like Michigan and Wisconsin slip away. Starting the work early and continuing to build on a foundation is not a bad thing.

2. Force the Republicans to play defense/spend money there. It'll divert time, attention, and resources away from other places.
---

When was the last time the VP mattered to the outcome of a presidential election? 1960?
---

Republicans are clearly pretty terrified of what Beto could do to Texas. They're resigning left and right, and going back to when he first announced for President, there were Republican attack ads IMMEDIATELY that were attacking him from the left to make him more unappealing to Democrats.

And I do think this is more about the state government than flipping electoral votes, but it's a big deal.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

When was the last time the VP mattered to the outcome of a presidential election? 1960?

2000.

imagine if gore won NH
---

xp1337 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

When was the last time the VP mattered to the outcome of a presidential election? 1960?

2000.

imagine if gore won NH

Dick Cheney didn't swing NH. If anything, Lieberman drew some votes to the Gore ticket.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Republicans are clearly pretty terrified of what Beto could do to Texas.

Beto has completely and utterly emasculated himself in the eyes of the average Texan. He wouldn't get 40% in the general there.
---

I meant if Gore had picked Shaheen or someone as VP. She was Governor at the time.
---

xp1337 posted...

I meant if Gore had picked Shaheen or someone as VP. She was Governor at the time.

Well sure, but I'm saying when was the last time a specific VP made or broke a ticket? Has to be LBJ.
---

Isnt it strange how the moderate Republicans and the far Left both like Tulsi, but the moderate Dems absolutely HATE her?

I genuinely wonder why that is, and I also wonder if someone not lazy like me could research and make a good case that Biden as the candidate to bring in the moderate Right is actually faulty?

Idk
---

Tulsi Gabbard's extreme views are still much more recent than today's dems. Like... Hillary Clinton definitely wasn't an advocate for Same Sex Marriage until very recently, but she DID support civil unions dating back to 2000 and opposed Don't Ask Don't tell despite it being her husband's program. Gabbard on the other hand in 2004 opposed a bill to prevent BULLYING against LGBT Students because 'it might normalize homoseuxality'. I'd say it's a pretty extreme stance to be against a law opposing BULLYING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN on the basis of their sexuality.

Also, her PERSONAL views are still against same sex marriage. She just doesn't think that it's her job to push her beliefs on other people.

I'm not going to forget her attacking her fellow senators for 'anti-religious bigotry' for daring to ask if a judge could rule impartially on issues such as abortion and LGBT Rights.

I don't trust Tulsi Gabbard. I'm sure she's evolved since 2004. But I wouldn't trust her one bit as President, because she could very well put people in power who have NOT evolved (as demonstrated by the fact that she attacked Hirono and Harris for questioning a judge's ability to be impartial)
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Also, her PERSONAL views are still against same sex marriage. She just doesn't think that it's her job to push her beliefs on other people.

Im pretty sure this is conjecture.
---

Still haven't heard a non-bullshit explanation for the Assad apologism

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Dancedreamer posted...

Also, her PERSONAL views are still against same sex marriage. She just doesn't think that it's her job to push her beliefs on other people.

Im pretty sure this is conjecture.

https://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/surfing-with-tulsi-gabbard-long-before-her-presidential-bid/62604

Fittingly for her narrative, though, the explanation for her changed ideology feints us back onto familiar territory the military. It was, she says, the days in the Middle East that taught her the dangers of a theocratic government imposing its will on the people. (She tells me that, no, her personal views havent changed, but she doesnt figure its her job to do as the Iraqis did and force her own beliefs on others.)

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Beto has completely and utterly emasculated himself in the eyes of the average Texan. He wouldn't get 40% in the general there.

fam I live in Texas and there are still Beto signs and bumper stickers everywhere

also there are poll numbers on this, do some basic fucking research
---

Would one of the countless Tulsi Gabbard fans please explain what the fuck is actually worthwhile about her? Because, and I say this as someone who LITERALLY got her as my highest choice on "ISideWith", but my view on her, based on the information I've gathered, is that she is a flat, uncharismatic, reasonably attractive woman whose only real policy position is "I'm gonna end ALL THE WARS", and constantly receives praise from the kinds of people who are more than happy with how Trump is currently running the country.

Seriously, what am I missing about her that makes all of these red flags okay?
---

I dunno, seems strange they sort of brush over and couldnt provide an actual quote for something like that.

I cant find it rn, but I remember she posted a video to address it that was pretty compelling and believable.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I genuinely wonder why that is

Do you mean actual "moderates" or are you using it even more ironically to mean the alt-right? If the former... I'm actually not sure I've seen much of that. If the latter, well, I really don't want to get into another fight but genuinely from what I've seen it's "ironically" on a more interventionalist/hostile side.

I remember seeing her garner praise from the right for calling out Obama on not using the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" back when Republicans were trying to make that a thing. Shortly after 2016, I believe Bannon more or less echoed that saying she "got that issue" or something like that. I know the snap response from you would be that she's against intervention and all that but I'm just telling you what I've seen from the right and why they say they approve her.

And while I'm not sure I've seen the right explicitly praise her for this because I try not to go too far into the bubble, I imagine attacking Hirono, etc. saying they were going after religious beliefs when interviewing judicial nominees of Trump's helped.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I also wonder if someone not lazy like me could research and make a good case that Biden as the candidate to bring in the moderate Right is actually faulty?

i am also lazy and so will not do research but i can riff on this too

I think the case to be made here can take two approaches. First that the "moderate right" no longer exists and has been captured by Trumpism and so there is no audience here to bring in. The second, and I suspect the one more appealing to you, is that you're largely talking WWC types here and that economic populism could be an effective vehicle to bring them in. It's what Trump did in 2016... only he then completely and utterly failed to deliver on it. You could probably make the case that making that argument again, but from the left, and from someone who is believed to be credible on actually delivering could pick some of them up. This is essentially Sanders's theory of the case I think. Though I would throw a cautionary flag up and refer back to argument one, which is that this group doesn't really exist, and will still back Trump anyway, citing the way-too-many stories about "we talked to these rust belt trump voters in a diner about their plant closing, here's why they're still with him" you see in the NYT.
---