• 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!

'19 Special & '20 Congressional Election Thread

myDeaconmyhand said:
Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Bernie, Liz Warren, Barbara Lee, Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Eleanor Norton, Yvette Clarke, Chuy Garcia,
Click to expand...

That’s not many people. What do you expect them to do?
 
How many does he have to list? He gave you a list of 10 people. That seems sufficient to recognize who meets his bar and who he likes.
 
Good night, Trump sucks and is an open racist. I tend to vote for the D's in state elections and R's in federal, but it is just time to vote Joe and all come together from there.
 
Tobacco Road said:
How many does he have to list? He gave you a list of 10 people. That seems sufficient to recognize who meets his bar and who he likes.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how he thinks 10 people can advance his desired agenda and create meaningful change.
 
lol MDMH get back to me when you like at least a simple majority of a house of congress, ok?
 
PhDeac said:
I'm not sure how he thinks 10 people can advance his desired agenda and create meaningful change.
Click to expand...

What a strange response. I'm sorry I didn't know you collected congressmen like baseball cards. To me, they are just workers whom I mostly disagree with. Whether I "like" them or not has no effect on their job performance, not to mention that I only voted for maybe 2 of them.
 
TownieDeac said:
lol MDMH get back to me when you like at least a simple majority of a house of congress, ok?
Click to expand...

The mdmh philosophy on politicians: if they breathe they a thot
Ph's philosophy: all politicians are queens
 
I'd wager that around 75% of our current Congress(wo)men are shitty people. Anyone want to disagree?
 
BillBrasky said:
I'd wager that around 75% of our current Congress(wo)men are shitty people. Anyone want to disagree?
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's that high. I think it's more of a system issue that puts party agendas and getting reelected ahead of the people's welfare. Most politicians really only serve their party, not the people
 
mikedrum4prez said:
I don't know if it's that high. I think it's more of a system issue that puts party agendas and getting reelected ahead of the people's welfare. Most politicians really only serve their party, not the people
Click to expand...

I would argue that a Congressperson who values their re-election over the interests of their constituents is a shitty person.
 
BillBrasky said:
I would argue that a Congressperson who values their re-election over the interests of their constituents is a shitty person.
Click to expand...

True, but if they don't play the game and toe the party line, they are gone. Jeff Sessions followed the advice of an DOJ ethics lawyer, and now he is done in politics. Other pubs who have stood up to the party have met a similar fate.
 
MDMH, it just seems like you'd prefer to see two senators talk about 100% of what you want than see 51 senators bring 85% of what you want to law.
 
PhDeac said:
MDMH, it just seems like you'd prefer to see two senators talk about 100% of what you want than see 51 senators bring 85% of what you want to law.
Click to expand...

Aww man, I thought I was getting 90% of what I wanted, now it's just 85%? What happened to the 5%?
 
Not to wade in too deeply here, but I believe Ph’s point is that if you only like a tiny minority of reps and your only want to elect reps like those few, unless you get a big change in voter sentiment, you will have a tiny minority of reps making lovely speeches while laws that go against everything they stand for get passed.
 
seriously, you liberals need to come to an agreement on this fantasy %, otherwise you just seem silly throwing out random numbers
 
WFU03 said:
Not to wade in too deeply here, but I believe Ph’s point is that if you only like a tiny minority of reps and your only want to elect reps like those few, unless you get a big change in voter sentiment, you will have a tiny minority of reps making lovely speeches while laws that go against everything they stand for get passed.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you. 5 years ago most of the people on my list weren't even in office, and most of the postera here would have called those politicians unelectable. So lets slow down with the pessimism, because I dont need anyone here telling me what's possible and what isn't, and my ideology certainly isn't bending
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
I disagree with you. 5 years ago most of the people on my list weren't even in office, and most of the postera here would have called those politicians unelectable. So lets slow down with the pessimism, because I dont need anyone here telling me what's possible and what isn't, and my ideology certainly isn't bending
Click to expand...

You disagree with Ph, not me (assuming I paraphrased him correctly). That being said, I do agree with him.

The politicians you mentioned were elected in very left-leaning districts or states. Running the same type of ideological candidate in a district that is D+15, D+3, and R+7 seems like a bad call to me.

For instance, I live in SC-1, which is R+10. The current representative is a Democrat, but a very moderate Democrat. His slogan is "Lowcountry over Party" and has touted being named one of the most bipartisan members of congress by several organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Would you rather he:
A) Be the Dem nominee in the district where he might get re-elected (it's probably 50/50 right now)
B) Get beaten in the primary by someone farther to the left, likely causing a Republican to win the seat but leaving open the possibility that the more liberal Dem could win (probably 90/10 odds at best).

Over time, the district could get more liberal or more conservative, but that's where it sits right now. Those are the only two real options I see currently. Which is preferable to you?
 
also Ph, I recognize the Meiosis rhetorical device you're using to dismiss the universality of my political ideology and reframe it as simply a list of my own personal wants.

I doubt you would appreciate someone referring to a demand for Black American civil rights (you know, civil rights, those things you want!) in the same casual and unserious manner, but who knows.
 
Last edited:
WFU03, can you describe a "south carolina moderate" to me? I dont ask that in bad faith - I seriously am curious about which specific traits or beliefs that would make a candidate a safe bet moderate vs a risky liberal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top