• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

PhDeac said:
This. We need a Dem candidate who will get elected and bolster down ballot candidates. And no, M boys that's not some "electability" BS.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, I wasn’t saying an ideologically pure candidate couldn’t fill that role, just that they aren’t the only ones who can fill that role and that ideological purity isn’t the most important attribute in filling that role.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
By and large the party follows the lead of the President, so I want the most progressive President possible. We need radical change, and with climate change, we need it ASAP
Click to expand...

Not the Dem party.
 
myDeaconmyhand;3235915[B said:
]By and large the party follows the lead of the President[/B], so I want the most progressive President possible. We need radical change, and with climate change, we need it ASAP
Click to expand...

Yeah and look where that has gotten us. To the extent that’s true of the Democratic Party, it shouldn’t be and need not be. I agree with you on the climate change front. I’d love to see a candidate with name recognition make that the sole issue of their campaign.
 
PhDeac said:
No I didn’t. M and Strick are stuck on this idea that a person couldn’t possible appeal to multiple groups.

“Tough on crime” has worked for conservatives for decades even though Democrats haven’t had a “weak on crime” slogan. It’s time to fight back.
Click to expand...

You are putting words in my mouth, Ph. Disappointing to say the least. Not only did I never say that, but I have actually said the opposite a few times. You're the one who is caught up on Kamala Harris right now.

And, you're basically endorsing re-purposing doublespeak methods that brought us mass incarceration (see, 13th, New Jim Crow, Misdemeanorland, and a whole generation of law and society scholarship that disagrees with you) as a way to bring moderates into the progressive agenda.

That. Does. Not. Make. Any. Damn. Sense.
 
PhDeac said:
Not the Dem party.
Click to expand...

Who in Congress or local government didn't support Clinton and Obama-era policy? You're making a ton of claims on here that have about as much empirical substantiation as a Washington Post "fact check."
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Forgive me if I dont trust the Democratic establishments attempts to appeal to moderates, since these appeals always coincidentally involve a dismissal of the needs of the most vulnerable, despite Democrats assuring us that these voting groups interests arent at odds.
Click to expand...

This is also not what I believe, so Ph - kindly, please stop putting the two of us together simply because we disagree with you.
 
PhDeac said:
To counter the perception that Democrats are weak on crime. Redefine how we understand crime and criminalization in this country and brand it. Don’t let Republicans define it.
Click to expand...

I feel like this is a conversation actually occurred while Bill Clinton was gearing up to run for president. How about instead of rebranding messaging that we know doesn't work and reproduces racial inequality on an extreme level, how about we focus on messaging that is actually consistent with progressive political goals?

Seriously, fuck "smart on crime." What a dumb fucking message.
 
As I've said over and over again, the DEMS should NOT nonimate anyone over 60 for POTUS in 2020
 
PhDeac said:
Not the Dem party.
Click to expand...

Whatever. I disagree.

RChildress107 said:
Yeah and look where that has gotten us. To the extent that’s true of the Democratic Party, it shouldn’t be and need not be. I agree with you on the climate change front. I’d love to see a candidate with name recognition make that the sole issue of their campaign.
Click to expand...

I want every elected official to be as progressive as possible, from President to dog catcher, and yet I still think it's most important that the leader of the country be a progressive firebrand, not a capitulating corporatist or an "aw shucks" huckleberry moderate dimwit
 
You guys keep putting words into my mouth and then accuse me of doing the same thing as I try to make sense of your objection to some very simple points.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Whatever. I disagree.



I want every elected official to be as progressive as possible, from President to dog catcher, and yet I still think it's most important that the leader of the country be a progressive firebrand, not a capitulating corporatist or an "aw shucks" huckleberry moderate dimwit
Click to expand...

Yeah cause those are the only two options.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Smart on crime?

Click to expand...

Nationwide bail reform has long been a piece of the progressive agenda, but IMO this isn’t what she meant in her book about being smart on crime. Smart on crime, in my reading, involves using more data analytics (eg predictive policing, geospatial hotspot analyses, AI-based profiling crime prevention measures).

Making Minority Report into policy doesn’t seem to me, at least, to be a good good criminal justice reform. Already, sociologists and policy scholars have showed how these methods reproduce racial inequality because the data is already biased because it is collected via racist policing practiced.
 
PhDeac said:
You guys keep putting words into my mouth and then accuse me of doing the same thing as I try to make sense of your objection to some very simple points.
Click to expand...

I’m just asking you to show your work and you’re lumping me in with posters you clearly don’t respect. I just don’t appreciate it. For example, mdmh provides some links that he claimed rebutted your claim about “the center,” as a flexible voting base. You disagreed. You could also provide some links, too, though.

Ultimately, though, this appears to be some subtle Kamala Harris stanning since she started getting some well deserved heat on a national stage. We have talked on this board before, long before it became fashionable to do so, about Harris’s controversial record as California AG.
 
I did provide a link. You’ve been using straw men this whole argument.
 
PhDeac said:
I did provide a link. You’ve been using straw men this whole argument.
Click to expand...

what are the straw men that I’m using? every time you “semantically drift” from one population to the next, I try to respond to the moving target.

How about this: define your population, enumerate the proportion of this population that your claim corresponds to, and then cite some data that substantiates your claim. For example, do you have actual data on how groups of moderates (among registered Democrats, registered Republicans, and Independents) vote? Based on my interpretation of polling data, voters tend to vote for the mainstream candidate representing their political values and protest vote when the major party candidates don’t correspond to their ideological orientation. Look at 2016, conservatives overwhelmingly voted for Trump, Johnson, or a write-in when Clinton was a better fit for so-called moderate voters’ political ideology.

Gallup polls on how voters self-ID doesn’t have anything to do with this conversation. For example, that most Americans historically identify as middle class on surveys doesn’t mean that most Americans are middle class. Invoking this data to make a claim about the middle class doesn’t substantiate such a claim.
 
Strickland33 said:
I’m just asking you to show your work and you’re lumping me in with posters you clearly don’t respect. I just don’t appreciate it. For example, mdmh provides some links that he claimed rebutted your claim about “the center,” as a flexible voting base. You disagreed. You could also provide some links, too, though.

Ultimately, though, this appears to be some subtle Kamala Harris stanning since she started getting some well deserved heat on a national stage. We have talked on this board before, long before it became fashionable to do so, about Harris’s controversial record as California AG.
Click to expand...

Not that it’s at all relevant, but I’m pretty sure it’s been fashionable to do so for a couple of years now. At least since her name was first floated as a potential candidate for president at some point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top