• 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

It’s the title of the book she wrote in 2009.
 
Only one of those 3 is an empty slogan. Im still waiting on someone to explain what it means, you know, in relation to every other Dem candidate. Just how and why is Kamala Harris "smart" on crime?

predictive policing/analytics it looks like
 
Recently she said she thinks we should be seeking longest sentence possible, so her “smart on crime” messaging is just euphemism for expanding mass incarceration.
 
There are reasons to support Kamala Harris, but her reputation as a prosecutor and AG are not good reasons, and chasing phantom moderate voters is a fucking terrible excuse for supporting her.
 
Last edited:
What exactly is "smart on crime" an alternative to? It sounds like bullshit. Is someone campaigning as "Dumb on crime"?

It's just as important, if not more important, to engage younger progressive voters than to politically tiptoe around "moderates". Moderates arent staying home and they arent voting for Jill Stein. We need radical politics, full stop. I say all this not to disagree that moderates need to be "sold" progressive policy, but to say that moderates should not be steering policy. They need to fall in line.

Being “tough on crime” is essentially equivalent to being “dumb on crime” and America has been dumb on crime for well over half a century now
 
There are reasons to support Kamala Harris, but her reputation as a prosecutor and AG are not good reasons, and chasing phantom moderate voters is a fucking terrible excuse for supporting her.

To my knowledge, not a single person on this thread that supports her (including most of all myself) has suggested that her going for moderate votes is a reason to support her
 
You can have his spot ITC, as long as you promise to show up dressed like your avatar
 
giphy.gif
 
well, PH sort of did

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.
 
“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.

“Tough on crime” has worked for democrats for decades. What does it mean to “fight back?”
 
“Tough on crime” has worked for democrats for decades. What does it mean to “fight back?”

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.
 
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.

Democrats trying to counter the narrative of being weak on crime is how we got into an arms race of incarceration. I have no interest in a candidate that talks a “tough on crime” or even “smart on crime” platform, when it’s a dog whistle for law and order, broken windows policing.
 
Saying you still support seeking maximum possible sentences, even if you are talking about “violent crimes” is bad, and Harris should be challenged on it.
 
M and Strick are stuck on this idea that a person couldn’t possible appeal to multiple groups.

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.
 
What exactly is "smart on crime" an alternative to? It sounds like bullshit. Is someone campaigning as "Dumb on crime"?

It's just as important, if not more important, to engage younger progressive voters than to politically tiptoe around "moderates". Moderates arent staying home and they arent voting for Jill Stein. We need radical politics, full stop. I say all this not to disagree that moderates need to be "sold" progressive policy, but to say that moderates should not be steering policy. They need to fall in line.

It seems like most of them are falling in line. I think every candidate who has declared has said they support Medicare for All.

The truth though is that the President shouldn’t be steering policy alone. We place far too much importance on, and thus vest far too much authority in, the Presidency. Come 2021 I want a strong Progressive Caucus pushing radical progressive ideas in the House; a President who will be a team player, help sell those big policy ideas, but will yield to Congress final decisions on how far left to go; and a Senate willing to do whatever it takes to ram that agenda through.

I don’t really think we necessarily need the most ideologically pure candidate to fill that role.
 
It seems like most of them are falling in line. I think every candidate who has declared has said they support Medicare for All.

The truth though is that the President shouldn’t be steering policy alone. We place far too much importance on, and thus vest far too much authority in, the Presidency. Come 2021 I want a strong Progressive Caucus pushing radical progressive ideas in the House; a President who will be a team player, help sell those big policy ideas, but will yield to Congress final decisions on how far left to go; and a Senate willing to do whatever it takes to ram that agenda through.

I don’t really think we necessarily need the most ideologically pure candidate to fill that role.

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.
 
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
 
Back
Top