Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[Joe]

What about Julian Castro? He's an actual Latino, unlike my boy Beto.

[Jwheel86]

44 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

 

No, we want steak, but we need steak with sizzle.

By steak I assume we mean experience. If so, do we? Obama had none and ran one the cleanest White Houses ever, I'm not sure how more experience would have helped or how his lack of experience hurt. 

[Jwheel86]

3 minutes ago, Jose said:

What about Julian Castro? He's an actual Latino, unlike my boy Beto.

This is another thing we have to stop, a third of Latinos voted for Republicans in 2018 and I think the number was about the same in 2016, despite everything Trump said in the campaign and has done as President. Picking a Latino because he's a Latino isn't going to move that number and might back fire. Even if it did help it would only run up the score in States we'll win anyway or have a low chance of winning (except PA, kinda). 

 

 

Only thing that matters is the rust belt, we can't safely win without it. Everything else is gravy that'll make us feel better, but it's a binary outcome, adding to 270 doesn't really matter. 

[Joe]

Texas could possibly be in play with Castro. It's also super disrespectful to Castro and his credentials to act like the only thing going for him is his ethnicity.

[thewhyteboar]

If you want the rust belt, nominate Sherrod Brown.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

We're gonna have a fucking ten way tie and dipshit leftists and/or centrists won't get on board with whomever wins and Trump's gonna get four more years

[Massdriver]

9 minutes ago, Jose said:

Texas could possibly be in play with Castro. It's also super disrespectful to Castro and his credentials to act like the only thing going for him is his ethnicity.

You overestimate Castro's popularity if you think he is anything like Beto. 

 

If Democrats want to win, they will cast aside Harris, Warren, Sanders, Biden, etc., and nominate Beto. If they want to win, that's the right move. That doesn't mean he would be the best president. 

 

For Beto, it's a super risky move. He could easily lose the primary, and then disappear off the face of the earth. The smart, conservative play for him is to challenge Dan Patrick for Lt. Governor in Texas in 2022. His one of the least popular state statewide officials in Texas, and Lt. Governor in Texas is an extremely powerful position. They control the Texas Senate, so he would have significant power to legislate however he wants, and could even face down the governor. The con here is he would have find a way to stay relevant and popular during the next 4 years. 

[Joe]

1 minute ago, Massdriver said:

You overestimate Castro's popularity if you think he is anything like Beto. 

 

If Democrats want to win, they will cast aside Harris, Warren, Sanders, Biden, etc., and nominate Beto. If they want to win, that's the right move. That doesn't mean he would be the best president. 

 

For Beto, it's a super risky move. He could easily lose the primary, and then disappear off the face of the earth. The smart, conservative play for him is to challenge Dan Patrick for Lt. Governor in Texas in 2022. His one of the least popular state statewide officials in Texas, and Lt. Governor in Texas is an extremely powerful position. They control the Texas Senate, so he would have significant power to legislate however he wants, and could even face down the governor. The con here is he would have find a way to stay relevant and popular during the next 4 years. 

 

He's an unknown, but that does not mean that couldn't change in the primaries.

[skillzdadirecta]

57 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

By steak I assume we mean experience. If so, do we? Obama had none and ran one the cleanest White Houses ever, I'm not sure how more experience would have helped or how his lack of experience hurt. 

By steak, I mean actual ability to lead, a knowledge of policy and the ability to run things with a modicum of dignity and respect. Experience is cool but not essential.  Folks here seem to be longing for some type of personality to latch onto, substance be damned. That's my issue. And without a cult of personality,  people are willing to let the G.O.P. continue to regress the country back 100 years.

[Massdriver]

Just now, Jose said:

 

He's an unknown, but that does not mean that couldn't change in the primaries.

Being from the San Antonio area, I have heard Castro speak on NPR numerous times in years past when he was mayor. He is one of the least inspiring politicians I've ever listened to. He doesn't have charisma. I think he's a weak choice, but he seems very motivated to run, so we will probably get to see if he gets any traction. 

[skillzdadirecta]

3 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

You overestimate Castro's popularity if you think he is anything like Beto. 

 

If Democrats want to win, they will cast aside Harris, Warren, Sanders, Biden, etc., and nominate Beto. If they want to win, that's the right move. That doesn't mean he would be the best president. 

 

For Beto, it's a super risky move. He could easily lose the primary, and then disappear off the face of the earth. The smart, conservative play for him is to challenge Dan Patrick for Lt. Governor in Texas in 2022. His one of the least popular state statewide officials in Texas, and Lt. Governor in Texas is an extremely powerful position. They control the Texas Senate, so he would have significant power to legislate however he wants, and could even face down the governor. The con here is he would have find a way to stay relevant and popular during the next 4 years. 

Beto lost to Ted Cruz. TED. CRUZ. Think about that for a second and ask yourself do really want a guy who lost to Ted Cruz running for President.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

By steak, I mean actual ability to lead, a knowledge of policy and the ability to run things with a modicum of dignity and respect. Experience is cool but not essential.  Folks here seem to be longing for some type of personality to latch onto, substance be damned. That's my issue. And without a cult of personality,  people are willing to let the G.O.P. continue to regress the country back 100 years.

Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love. 

[Massdriver]

7 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Beto lost to Ted Cruz. TED. CRUZ. Think about that for a second and ask yourself do really want a guy who lost to Ted Cruz running for President.

 

I didn't say I wanted him to be running for president. I'm saying if the Democrats want a high probability of winning the general, they should nominate Beto. He will likely win with ease as long as there aren't some huge skeletons in the closet.

 

You're also making a mistake by putting too much stock in Ted Cruz's lack of popularity (Texas GOP still loves the guy) and the amount of people Beto inspired. The numbers in Texas were absolutely shocking to me. I have lived here my entire life. Beto is the variable that will probably push Texas blue 4-6 years earlier than it would have been otherwise. His charisma and energy is why Democrats did so well in Texas. The secondary factors are the gradual demographic shift taking place and Cruz's lack of popularity. But Beto got a bunch of Texans to vote that normally don't bother. It wasn't Ted's lack of charisma and popularity that inspired so many people to show up and vote Democrat. That just causes Republicans to stay home. 

 

Texas House Dems that won should give Beto a call and thank him.  

[Scott]

14 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

The con here is he would have find a way to stay relevant and popular during the next 4 years. 

I think a general election campaign against Donald Trump would get him all the face time he'd ever need to stay relevant.

10 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Beto lost to Ted Cruz. TED. CRUZ. Think about that for a second and ask yourself do really want a guy who lost to Ted Cruz running for President.

Yeah, he lost.

 

In Texas.

By 3 points.

To an incumbent candidate with a high national profile.

If he can almost swing Texas away from Ted Cruz then I have high hopes for him nationally.

1 hour ago, Jwheel86 said:

By steak I assume we mean experience. If so, do we? Obama had none and ran one the cleanest White Houses ever, I'm not sure how more experience would have helped or how his lack of experience hurt. 

No, not just experience. Obama and Trump both had little experience.

 

21 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

We're gonna have a fucking ten way tie and dipshit leftists and/or centrists won't get on board with whomever wins and Trump's gonna get four more years

Agreed. Here in Montana, Kathleen Williams was running against Greg Gianforte (reporter bodyslammer) for the House. A Democrat friend I know refused to vote for her because she didn't support single payer. All was moot, because Gianforte won. Now isn't the time to make some high-minded, principled stand. Democrats need to WIN.

[Jwheel86]

10 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

 

I didn't say I wanted him to be running for president. I'm saying if the Democrats want a high probability of winning the general, they should nominate Beto. He will likely win with ease as long as there aren't some huge skeletons in the closet.

 

You're also making a mistake by putting too much stock in Ted Cruz's lack of popularity (Texas GOP still loves the guy) and the amount of people Beto inspired. The numbers in Texas were absolutely shocking to me. I have lived here my entire life. Beto is the variable that will probably push Texas blue 4-6 years earlier than it would have been otherwise. His charisma and energy is why Democrats did so well in Texas. The secondary factors are the gradual demographic shift taking place and Cruz's lack of popularity. But Beto got a bunch of Texans to vote that normally don't bother. It wasn't Ted's lack of charisma and popularity that inspired so many people to show up and vote Democrat. That just causes Republicans to stay home. 

 

Texas House Dems that won should give Beto a call and thank him.  

 

I don't see Beto as a high probability win because I don't see which States he safely adds to the board. He could put Texas in play, but he lost Texas, so it's at best 50-50 chance on election night, same math probably applies to Florida too given Gillum's loss as an inspirational figure. 

[Jwheel86]

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

ow isn't the time to make some high-minded, principled stand. Democrats need to WIN.

Agreed, but the democratic party needs to play to the base instead of trying to shame the base into showing up. I don't see which States you put at risk by offending "centrists", maybe Virginia? I don't think Medicare for All is popular because of the policy details (there are good arguments against it), it's popular because from a marketing it's simple and all the other discussed alternatives feel like DC bullshit (fix the ACA isn't clear).

[skillzdadirecta]

Only on The Left would folks look at a loss as an "almost win"

 

"You know that guy who lost to one of the most unpopular Senators in the Country? Yeah let's nominate him for President! HE'S the answer!"

[Guest]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Only on The Left would folks look at a loss as an "almost win"

 

"You know that guy who lost to one of the most unpopular Senators in the Country? Yeah let's nominate him for President! HE'S the answer!"

That’s a poor way to look at it. It reminds me of the similarly narrow view that Jones beating Moore barely didn’t mean much, while other folks correctly pointed out that Jones even being competitive in Alabama indicates gains that lead to wins in places elsewhere in the nation that were much more competitive in 2016.

 

A Democrat coming within 3 points in a statewide race in Texas is the type of candidate that can flip states that went narrowly to Trump in 2016. That’s not something to downplay.

[Jwheel86]

3 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Only on The Left would folks look at a loss as an "almost win"

 

"You know that guy who lost to one of the most unpopular Senators in the Country? Yeah let's nominate him for President! HE'S the answer!"

Even if he won I'd still feel uneasy about it. If he won by Sherrod Brown levels then he'd be the answer. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

8 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Only on The Left would folks look at a loss as an "almost win"

 

"You know that guy who lost to one of the most unpopular Senators in the Country? Yeah let's nominate him for President! HE'S the answer!"

That's a really terrible take. You really underestimate the significance of what Beto did in Texas. 

[johnny]

Beto could produce THE TEXAS RATTLESNAKE STONE COLD STEVE AUSTIN level promos on Trump so I’m okay with it 

[outsida]

Sherrod Brown is the answer. 

[johnny]

BETO 3:16 GIMME A HELL YEAH @SFLUFAN

[Jwheel86]

5 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

That's a really terrible take. You really underestimate the significance of what Beto did in Texas. 

But what electoral math does that translate to on election night?

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, Jwheel86 said:

But what electoral math does that translate to on election night?

It translates to "We don't even know if he can win Texas, his own fucking state".

[CastlevaniaNut18]

13 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

But what electoral math does that translate to on election night?

I mean, no one can predict that with 100% accuracy, but like others have said, he'd probably have a pretty damn good chance to take those Rust Belt states. 

12 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

It translates to "We don't even know if he can win Texas, his own fucking state".

You really don't get it. 

[Guest]

I’m not sure why “got 4 million votes as a Democrat in Texas in a midterm” is not clearly a major feat with obvious national electoral implications.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I know sblfilms hates me these days, but he's right on this one. 

 

I'm not even certain he could win, but don't underestimate his appeal. What he did in Texas was huge. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I know sblfilms hates me these days,

I don’t. Water under the bridge as far as I am concerned.

[skillzdadirecta]

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I’m not sure why “got 4 million votes as a Democrat in Texas in a midterm” is not clearly a major feat with obvious national electoral implications.

Because he lost. Yes it's a feat, but does it mean we should be running him for President? No. If that's the case then Stacy Abrams should run too.

 

7 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

You really don't get it. 

So running a got who LOST his bid for elected office for President in an election with so much at stake when there are potentially better candidates with a better shot of winning,  or at least winning their home states makes sense to you? And I'm the one that "doesn't get it". Ok... I'm hope more people don't  get it like me or else were definitely looking at a second Trump term.

[johnny]

Where are you gonna be when Beto body slams Donald the Giant in front of 93,000 screaming Betomaniacs in the silverdome brother 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Because he lost. Yes it's a feat, but does it mean we should be running him for President? No. If that's the case then Stacy Abrams should run too.

 

So running a got who LOST his bid for elected office for President in an election with so much at stake when there are potentially better candidates with a better shot of winning,  or at least winning their home states makes sense to you? And I'm the one that "doesn't get it". Ok... I'm hope more people don't  get it like me or else were definitely looking at a second Trump term.

 

Plenty of eventual presidents lost elections prior to winning the presidency. A Democratic candidate who can get 4 million votes in Texas during a midterm election can flip those state’s that Trump won by narrow margins. That is all that matters, can any given candidate flip a handful of the narrow Trump 2016 wins.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

21 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I don’t. Water under the bridge as far as I am concerned.

Oh, cool, I don't have to feel awkward anymore. Thanks!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

But we need a centrist. Keep this in mind during the primaries in 2020

 

[SaysWho?]

 

11 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Beto lost to Ted Cruz. TED. CRUZ. Think about that for a second and ask yourself do really want a guy who lost to Ted Cruz running for President.

 

If you think many Democrats should be able to beat Cruz in Texas, I don't know what to tell you.  

 

11 hours ago, sblfilms said:

That’s a poor way to look at it. It reminds me of the similarly narrow view that Jones beating Moore barely didn’t mean much, while other folks correctly pointed out that Jones even being competitive in Alabama indicates gains that lead to wins in places elsewhere in the nation that were much more competitive in 2016.

 

A Democrat coming within 3 points in a statewide race in Texas is the type of candidate that can flip states that went narrowly to Trump in 2016. That’s not something to downplay.

 

Yup. The bad takes from the Alabama election:

 

1) Before the election, the notion that Jones potentially barely losing was a moral victory is laughable. No, that would mean that Democrats are competing in red states.

2) "Jones gonna lose anyway we're doomed" No, he won.

3) After the election, "HERP DERP he barely beat a pedophile!" No, he was competitive before the accusations arrived.

4) "Still, HERP DERP he barely beat a pedo!" Hey, Democrats just won 40 seats, 8 governors' races since last year, and made huge inroads in state legislatures and will now have redistricting duties, which means more gains down the line next decade.

 

It's Texas. Every Democrat has lost it since 1980, even if they won the election. Judging a Democrat's national promise not by how well he did in Texas, but whether or not he won it, is a bad take.

 

10 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Because he lost. Yes it's a feat, but does it mean we should be running him for President? No. If that's the case then Stacy Abrams should run too.

 

So running a got who LOST his bid for elected office for President in an election with so much at stake when there are potentially better candidates with a better shot of winning,  or at least winning their home states makes sense to you? And I'm the one that "doesn't get it". Ok... I'm hope more people don't  get it like me or else were definitely looking at a second Trump term.

 

The fact of the matter is many Democrats who could win the presidency would lose to Cruz in Texas. Obama lost Texas twice and easily won re-election.

 

Texas is shifting, but it's not some blue-tinted swing state yet. However, Beto came within three points against a Republican, helped Democrats down-ballot, and the Appellate Court of Texas, which didn't even have one Democrat on it for 19 years, turned blue.