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

[Jason]

[CayceG]

Progressives can do better than Beto. 

 

As Jwheel has said, the bar is to beat Trump in the Rust Belt and hopefully florida. NC and AZ and NM are gravy on top. If Beto can't beat Ted Cruz in Texas, could he beat Trump in the Rust Belt?

 

 

I'm not so sure. 

[Chris-]

Just now, CayceG said:

Progressives can do better than Beto. 

 

As Jwheel has said, the bar is to beat Trump in the Rust Belt and hopefully florida. NC and AZ and NM are gravy on top. If Beto can't beat Ted Cruz in Texas, could he beat Trump in the Rust Belt?

 

 

I'm not so sure. 

 

Progressives have invested all of their love into someone who isn't legally old enough to be President and someone who is on the verge of being 80.

 

There's no one better.

[RedSoxFan9]

liberals don't stand for anything so the only things they can rally around is stuff like vote shaming 

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, CayceG said:

Progressives can do better than Beto. 

 

As Jwheel has said, the bar is to beat Trump in the Rust Belt and hopefully florida. NC and AZ and NM are gravy on top. If Beto can't beat Ted Cruz in Texas, could he beat Trump in the Rust Belt?

 

 

I'm not so sure. 

 

New Mexico isn't gravy. If Dems don't win New Mexico, they're probably losing in many other states.

[Chris-]

Just now, RedSoxFan9 said:

liberals don't stand for anything so the only things they can rally around is stuff like vote shaming 

 

I stand for plenty of things. In fact, I stand for most of the things you do. But above what I stand for is what I stand against, which is the Republican Party. I think it was @SFLUFAN who said it best in the lead up to the 2016 election...All of the corrupt, awful, nasty things said about Clinton could be entirely true, but it still wasn't going to be a difficult choice. 

 

No matter who it is, I will vote for the Democratic candidate, because I don't want Republicans in power for one second longer than they have to be. If you want to take your ball and go home because Democrats don't elect a sufficiently leftist candidate, so be it. You'll have no one but yourself to blame when Trump takes his second oath of office.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

11 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

I stand for plenty of things. In fact, I stand for most of the things you do. But above what I stand for is what I stand against, which is the Republican Party. I think it was @SFLUFAN who said it best in the lead up to the 2016 election...All of the corrupt, awful, nasty things said about Clinton could be entirely true, but it still wasn't going to be a difficult choice. 

 

No matter who it is, I will vote for the Democratic candidate, because I don't want Republicans in power for one second longer than they have to be. If you want to take your ball and go home because Democrats don't elect a sufficiently leftist candidate, so be it. You'll have no one but yourself to blame when Trump takes his second oath of office.

I agree. And this is the time to hash it out but after the convention, shut up and get in line. I doubt the dnc will be as shitty this year since it's not a coronation, and hopefully some lessons learned after 2016 that you can't just railroad a candidate into the nominee and it not backfire

[RedSoxFan9]

Republicans have already won when all Democrats strive for is someone who is not a Republican.

 

The actual goal of politics is to enact your own policies not to temporarily block your opponents from enacting their polices.  

[GeneticBlueprint]

40 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

New Mexico isn't gravy. If Dems don't win New Mexico, they're probably losing in many other states.

 

Well I don't eat mashed potatoes without gravy so yes New Mexico is gravy.

[Joe]

1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Republicans have already won when all Democrats strive for is someone who is not a Republican.

 

The actual goal of politics is to enact your own policies not to temporarily block your opponents from enacting their polices.  

 

He never said all he stands for is that. He said it's his priority.

 

At the end of the day, if you dont vote for someone that isn't "progressive enough" for you, you are culpable when Roe or Casey gets neutored.

[RedSoxFan9]

Beto isn’t progressive at all, and Republicans already already have the votes to do whatever they want on the Supreme Court. 

 

Also, what’s the better way to get people to vote your way:  vote shaming or offering voters M4A and a Green New Deal

[Jason]

[SaysWho?]

If you want M4A, then vote that way in the primary. That's what I did and I watched him lose anyway, but I don't regret the vote. If the M4A guy doesn't win, then I'm not gonna not vote for them or else I'll get nothing I want the other way.

[Greatoneshere]

3 hours ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Republicans have already won when all Democrats strive for is someone who is not a Republican.

 

The actual goal of politics is to enact your own policies not to temporarily block your opponents from enacting their polices.  

 

Sometimes, actually, it is just about blocking your opponents from enacting their policies. Because the other option is unacceptable, that's flatly true. That's why we have primaries. I would vote for Hillary Clinton until the end of time if it meant stopping Donald Trump (and I was a full Bernie bro and hated how Hillary stole the primary), and anyone who doesn't understand that is completely complicit in allowing Donald Trump getting elected because, ladies and gentlemen, those are the fucking stakes.

 

I've seen families, in real life, ripped apart and destroyed by Trump's policies. If anyone didn't vote for Hillary because she wasn't "good enough" even if it meant stopping Trump, fuck what you have wrought on all of us in your pride and ego. 

 

It's disingenuous to argue otherwise because you always pick the lesser of two evils, especially when the gap between the two evils is the equivalent of at least the distance between Trump's Uranus and the Sun. 

[RedSoxFan9]

Obama was very good at destroying families and Hillary would have been good at it too if she won.  

[CitizenVectron]

28 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Obama was very good at destroying families and Hillary would have been good at it too if she won.  

 

I mean yeah Hitler was bad but the alternative was also slightly antisemitic so you can see why I abstained from voting.

[RedSoxFan9]

12 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I mean yeah Hitler was bad but the alternative was also slightly antisemitic so you can see why I abstained from voting.

 

Godwin’s law never fails

 

Trump has a lot of work to do if he wants to catch up to Obama’s deportation numbers

[Jason]

13 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Godwin’s law never fails

 

Godwin's Law doesn't actually say that you lose for bringing up Hitler/Nazis, it only says Hitler/Nazi comparisons are inevitable.

[RedSoxFan9]

I didn’t say anything about losing

[Greatoneshere]

15 hours ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Obama was very good at destroying families and Hillary would have been good at it too if she won.  

 

But that's disingenuous to say because it's a sliding scale and Trump is clearly far worse than Obama/Hillary/whoever on that scale. So what does this matter?

[johnny]

22 hours ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Republicans have already won when all Democrats strive for is someone who is not a Republican.

 

The actual goal of politics is to enact your own policies not to temporarily block your opponents from enacting their polices.  

You can do both. Sometimes in sports ball the time comes when you need to play defense. 

 

Im truly sorry the 2016 election fucked you up this much 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

7 minutes ago, johnny said:

You can do both.

 

Yes that’s what I’m saying.  Beto is a guy who would only play defense.

[johnny]

4 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

 

Yes that’s what I’m saying.  Beto is a guy who would only play defense.

So if you only had a choice between getting throttled by the Republicans or playing defense what would you choose 

[RedSoxFan9]

Just now, johnny said:

So if you only had a choice between getting throttled by the Republicans or playing defense what would you choose 

 

Vote shaming and psychologizing

[johnny]

4 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

Vote shaming and psychologizing

Great answer 

[RedSoxFan9]

Also the it’s weird how the psychologizing crowd says people on the left were messed up by the 2016 election.  The left thought Hillary was a terrible candidate.  If anything the centrist Democrats are the ones who lost big.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

So how well did truly progressive candidates do in deep red districts, or even purpleish ones? Is there any metric on that to look for? Or is this just gonna be another game of redsoxfan bashing centrist allies because fuck em?

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

So how well did truly progressive candidates do in deep red districts, or even purpleish ones? Is there any metric on that to look for? Or is this just gonna be another game of redsoxfan bashing centrist allies because fuck em?

 

Although I liked Gillum more than Nelson, Nelson gathered more votes being a boring moderate than Gillum did running as a progressive. Abrams lost in Georgia. Evers won in Wisconsin, tho.

[Jason]

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

Although I liked Gillum more than Nelson, Nelson gathered more votes being a boring moderate than Gillum did running as a progressive. Abrams lost in Georgia. Evers won in Wisconsin, tho.

 

Given the extent of the vote-counting fuckery in Florida I'm not sure it's particularly instructive to draw conclusions like that.

[SaysWho?]

5 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Given the extent of the vote-counting fuckery in Florida I'm not sure it's particularly instructive to draw conclusions like that.

 

Actually, the one who would have benefited was Nelson.

[Jwheel86]

You're not going to talk the progressive wing of the party to show up by shaming them to show up, you should be able to, but you can't. So by logic the only way to unify the party is to find a progressive. The Republicans figured this shit out a long time ago. In my mind the progressive test isn't M4A, it's no big donors, I think they'd show up for a democratic conservative so long as he was clean and had a spine. 

[Greatoneshere]

Don't get me wrong, I would love a populist, left, truly progressive candidate. But the argument that if we aren't lucky enough to get one then fuck the election Trump can win who cares then? That makes no sense.

[Chris-]

[constantly bemoans the idea of tact and respect in political discourse]

 

 

[complains about vote shaming]

[PaladinSolo]

Clinton is super toxic, lol.

 

 

 

Only 64% of respondents knew who Beto was, while Biden and Sanders were at 97% and 94%, Beto has also not visited the state, so expect that number to change if he announces and starts boosting name recognition probably see a drop in Biden and Sanders as he does.  I mean the top 4 is 3 candidates in their 70s and one in his 40s.  Warren is likely toast with 84% name recognition and in 4th, along with Harris and Booker both at ~60% name recognition and barely registering. 
 

 

[Anathema-]

It always strikes me as strange how the bro-brigade doesn’t think racial justice issues qualifies as progressive. Reparations? What a centrist corporatist position amirite?