Jump to content

Michael Avenatti Says He's Officially "Exploring" a Presidential Run


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

 

Excellent article. It also touches on some of the conversation ITT:

 

Quote

According to our data, 41 percent of candidates who received an endorsement from one or more of these progressive groups won their primary races. The most successful progressive group was the PCCC; the candidates it endorsed won about 67 percent of the time. Justice Democrats and Our Revolution had the worst win rates — candidates they endorsed won only 32 percent of their primaries (but they also endorsed more people overall, giving their candidates more chances to lose). Although those endorsed by progressive groups may not always win, in many races they are shifting the policy debate and forcing favored candidates to at least address some of their progressive stances. Take, for instance, Andrew Cuomo, New York’s incumbent governor. Since Cynthia Nixon, who has won endorsements from all five of the progressive groups we analyzed, announced she would challenge Cuomo in the Democratic primary, the governor has changed his tune on marijuana legalization and announced new progressive plans like voting rights for parolees.

 

Quote

However, there are several caveats: First, we don’t know which way the causation runs. The Democratic establishment is probably purposefully lining up behind candidates who were already the strongest in their field. Second, “establishment” isn’t a synonym for “moderate,” so the success of establishment candidates doesn’t necessarily mean that progressives are losing. For instance, eight party-backed candidates were also endorsed by at least one progressive group. And at least one group explicitly backing centrist candidates in Democratic primaries has struck out so far. Groups financed by No Labels — a bipartisan organization pushing for more compromise in Congress — have supported candidates in two open Democratic primaries so far this year, and neither won.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's disingenuous for the article to say progressives aren't winning. Given the amount of traction they've gained in just the last 5 years means they are winning. People don't go from 0 to 60 mph in half a second, this is a gradual process, and the process is showing success.

 

Furthermore, the more important reason for progressives' existence is to shift the policy debate, which is so fucking imperative. Which the article mentions but fails to emphasize how useful and important that is. And they are succeeding on that end too. That headline is typical mainstream media bias that neutrality equals objectivity. CNN still calls Rudy Giuliani "Mr. Mayor" like I'm supposed to take "Mr. Mayor's" shit seriously. Mr. Magoo or Ghouliani would be more appropriate. Article headline is bullshit. Article itself is solid except it's subconscious bias as per usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

I think it's disingenuous for the article to say progressives aren't winning. Given the amount of traction they've gained in just the last 5 years means they are winning. People don't go from 0 to 60 mph in half a second, this is a gradual process, and the process is showing success.

 

Furthermore, the more important reason for progressives' existence is to shift the policy debate, which is so fucking imperative. And they are succeeding on that end too. That headline is typical mainstream media bias that neutrality equals objectivity. Article headline is bullshit. 

 

I think saying the establishment is "winning" is fine and true given who the DNC has backed, but the article itself actually shows why it's a false dichotomy to separate establishment and progressives (for the same reason establishment vs. far-right implies that the Republican establishment is anywhere close to moderate) for exactly the reasons you're stating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I think saying the establishment is "winning" is fine and true given who the DNC has backed, but the article itself actually shows why it's a false dichotomy to separate establishment and progressives (for the same reason establishment vs. far-right implies that the Republican establishment is anywhere close to moderate) for exactly the reasons you're stating.

 

I have no problem with them saying the establishment is "winning", but the FiveThirtyEight headline (not the article headline, to be fair), says Establishment is beating Progressives. That's intentionally inflammatory language that isn't even per se true (they aren't even necessarily lionizing each other). The article headline is fine, I should have been clear, it's FiveThirtyEight's tweet. Aren't they supposed to not have a political bent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I have no problem with them saying the establishment is "winning", but the FiveThirtyEight headline (not the article headline, to be fair), says Establishment is beating Progressives. That's intentionally inflammatory language that isn't even per se true (they aren't even necessarily lionizing each other). The article headline is fine, I should have been clear, it's FiveThirtyEight's tweet. Aren't they supposed to not have a political bent?

 

I think because the link says "But those groups aren't mutually exclusive," it may have made more sense to not repeat the article headline or the quote in the tweet itself. "The establishment is beating progressives, but they're not mutually exclusive." *clicks to see the numbers behind it* Then you see that not only are you going to have overlap, but a loss by a Sanders-endorsed candidate doesn't mean they haven't shifted the conversation.

 

That's my take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SaysWho? said:

 

I think because the link says "But those groups aren't mutually exclusive," it may have made more sense to not repeat the article headline or the quote in the tweet itself. "The establishment is beating progressives, but they're not mutually exclusive." *clicks to see the numbers behind it*

 

That's my take.

 

It's suspect, but I'll live. :p

 

The article itself is worth a read either way, I agree. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the policy debates where progressive viewpoints seem to be moving the needle? Only things I can think of in the last decade are same sex marriage and pot laws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

What are the policy debates where progressive viewpoints seem to be moving the needle? Only things I can think of in the last decade are same sex marriage and pot laws. 

 

Current policy debates - lay people are hearing words like "medicare for all" and "college for all" for the first time. These messages are gaining traction - to the degree that right wing "sites" like The Daily Caller are feeling the need to address progressives' policy positions by going to Ocasia-Cortez rallies and stump speeches for others to "learn" about them. This is all new in terms of mainstream media news coverage of a long existing group. 

 

We haven't seen anything actually passed yet (beyond what you mentioned). This is the beginning of these things happening more openly and more often, hopefully. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, those specific phrases, but those concepts flat out aren’t new within the realm of policy debate. This certainly could be the point where they have the right marketing push...but the GOP gets the tax cuts for wealthy folks done without calling them that because public policy debates have pretty much nothing to do with actual policymaking as far as I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

What are the policy debates where progressive viewpoints seem to be moving the needle? Only things I can think of in the last decade are same sex marriage and pot laws. 

The fact that "Medicare for all" is now no longer purely a left-wing fringe position but is front and center within the party is another example of the Overtown Window shifting within the party itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not convinced that the window is truly shifting so much as the belief that populist policies are going to be winners.

 

One of the supposed lessons of 2012 for the GOP is that they needed to stop hurting themselves with Hispanics and in 2016 ran a candidate with a campaign based most strongly on keeping Hispanics/Latinos out, all while calling them rapists and murderers.

 

I suppose the proof is not very far away either way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I’m not convinced that the window is truly shifting so much as the belief that populist policies are going to be winners.

 

One of the supposed lessons of 2012 for the GOP is that they needed to stop hurting themselves with Hispanics and in 2016 ran a candidate with a campaign based most strongly on keeping Hispanics/Latinos out, all while calling them rapists and murderers.

 

I suppose the proof is not very far away either way!

 

We can reasonably disagree if we think the window is shifting, but people like Ocasia-Cortez winning, and high percentages of candidates backed by progressive groups winning that wouldn't have had even a chance of winning even four years ago tells me that things are changing. Maybe it's justa drive towards "populist policies must be winners" group think, but either way things are changing, and that's a very positive thing in this shithole of a situation (Trump's favorite word to describe countries!). :p 

 

A healthy skepticism should be our default, so I understand not really believing much has changed, but I can say Medicare for All now to people and they don't at least laugh me right out of the room anymore because the facts are there, it can't just be ignored anymore. Our current system has made us think we don't deserve or can't have good things - that ideas like Medicare for All are ridiculous, like that insane Daily Caller "reporter" believed. But I think people are seeing now and waking up and going: if we just take control, we can set things that are best for everyone, as in us, like, the actual average American. We'll see but it is shifting I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cohen's lawyer was asked on Today if Cohen's hoping for a pardon. His lawyer said he's not only not hoping for it but he wouldn't accept it because the administration is so deep in corruption. I lol'd at the latter, but interesting nonetheless.

 

His lawyer's been making the rounds because I watched him do interviews at the same time on CBS This Morning and Today (didn't check GMA) and was also on CNN, so he's been up early on every show possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

Cohen's lawyer was asked on Today if Cohen's hoping for a pardon. His lawyer said he's not only not hoping for it but he wouldn't accept it because the administration is so deep in corruption. I lol'd at the latter, but interesting nonetheless.

:jordan:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Just to be clear, I think it's interesting that they're saying they don't want to accept a pardon and distancing themselves from the administration this much, while the lol was the reason they're giving. :p 

And so I’m clear, my reaction was to Cohen’s lawyer, not your take. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Qualifications for the Office of President

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

 

 

Dude's qualifications check out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...