Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[TranaGreg]

... All of that said, there is no way that he would be the choice of Democratic primary voters, and he probably shouldn't be. Too fiscally conservative to represent the Democratic primary voters or even the American voters on the whole.

I do think that this cycle will be very different from many of the past - the question of electability for the Dems will weigh heavy; how much will Dem primary voters really prioritize fiscal policy?

[B-Fly]

Completely agree on his chances at becoming Dem nominee.

Although the stupidest right wing opinion on Democratic front-runners comes from y'boy Ben Shapiro, saying his bet is Michael Avanatti. No idea why you respect such a basic right wing clown. You must at least admit his sheer stupidity in suggesting Avanatti. Unless you want to suggest it's some kind of clever gaslighting tactic... I find it just as offensive as his statement on Bill Maher saying that he supports Trump's re-election because "anything disastrous would have already happened by now, so we're probably fine"... or whatever stupid rationalizations he was throwing out there (I think I'm pretty close to what he stated)... anyway, he often shows a lack of homework that hurts his stock substantially in my opinion. I see some possible future (let's say 2032) where he will be the last gasp of the right wing hope for president because folks like you irrationally hold him up as a rare beacon of truth from the right. I don't buy it.

Damn, Jesse, that reads like a personal attack against me out of nowhere. That said, I'll respond.

(1) Ben Shapiro is not "m'boy", as I disagree with him around 90% of the time and find a decent percentage of his communication to be mere trollery.
(2) I would place his suggestion that the Democrats will make Michael Avenatti their nominee to be an example of such trollery.
(3) I hope you're correct that the "right wing" will be gasping for relevancy at best by 2032.
(4) I'm pretty sure I've never held Shapiro up as a "rare beacon of truth" from the right, but feel free to prove me wrong. I believe what I've said (without taking the time to search my old posts for confirmation) is that I often find him a worthwhile read as a liberal trying to understand conservative perspectives on issues, in that he often argues his positions rationally and well, and I appreciate that he's willing to call out Trump in ways that many other deeply conservative pundits won't. As such, if I'm having a discussion with conservatives about a hot-button issue, particularly in the Trump era, I often find that reading or even linking to Shapiro's take on the topic of debate can be useful for driving the discussion in a more productive direction.

[B-Fly]

I do think that this cycle will be very different from many of the past - the question of electability for the Dems will weigh heavy; how much will Dem primary voters really prioritize fiscal policy?

I think electability will be as hotly debated as policy/ideology. Many Democrats, including me, thought that Sanders was less electable than Clinton because his positions were further outside the mainstream of American politics. Obviously we still don't know how Sanders would ultimately have fared in a general election contest against Trump, but Clinton's loss will weigh heavily on voters' assessments of what kinds of candidates are more or less "electable" vis-à-vis Trump. Bloomberg as the Democratic nominee for President might well draw more independent and Republican votes against Trump than a traditional Democrat or a progressive, but would also presumably risk turning off progressives who could stay home or vote for a 3rd party candidate to Bloomberg's left. He would also have to overcome anti-Semitism across the political spectrum, plus some degree of homophobia (not that I think he's gay, but he's been slagged by some as effeminate and/or possibly gay), as well as anti-corporatism and anti-NY sentiment. His history of paternalistic policy proposals also makes him anathema to libertarians and others with anti-paternalistic views.

[Teenwolf]

Damn, Jesse, that reads like a personal attack against me out of nowhere. That said, I'll respond.

(1) Ben Shapiro is not "m'boy", as I disagree with him around 90% of the time and find a decent percentage of his communication to be mere trollery.
(2) I would place his suggestion that the Democrats will make Michael Avenatti their nominee to be an example of such trollery.
(3) I hope you're correct that the "right wing" will be gasping for relevancy at best by 2032.
(4) I'm pretty sure I've never held Shapiro up as a "rare beacon of truth" from the right, but feel free to prove me wrong. I believe what I've said (without taking the time to search my old posts for confirmation) is that I often find him a worthwhile read as a liberal trying to understand conservative perspectives on issues, in that he often argues his positions rationally and well, and I appreciate that he's willing to call out Trump in ways that many other deeply conservative pundits won't. As such, if I'm having a discussion with conservatives about a hot-button issue, particularly in the Trump era, I often find that reading or even linking to Shapiro's take on the topic of debate can be useful for driving the discussion in a more productive direction.

We're in total agreement on all points. Thanks for the clarification on exactly why you read Shapiro, I had misinterpreted your earlier posts. It totally makes sense to stay dialed into the conservative perspective, especially when his arguments are often so weak, or so obviously disingenuous (as you say, trollery).

[Gregg]

Damn, Jesse, that reads like a personal attack against me out of nowhere. That said, I'll respond.

(1) Ben Shapiro is not "m'boy", as I disagree with him around 90% of the time and find a decent percentage of his communication to be mere trollery.
(2) I would place his suggestion that the Democrats will make Michael Avenatti their nominee to be an example of such trollery.
(3) I hope you're correct that the "right wing" will be gasping for relevancy at best by 2032.
(4) I'm pretty sure I've never held Shapiro up as a "rare beacon of truth" from the right, but feel free to prove me wrong. I believe what I've said (without taking the time to search my old posts for confirmation) is that I often find him a worthwhile read as a liberal trying to understand conservative perspectives on issues, in that he often argues his positions rationally and well, and I appreciate that he's willing to call out Trump in ways that many other deeply conservative pundits won't. As such, if I'm having a discussion with conservatives about a hot-button issue, particularly in the Trump era, I often find that reading or even linking to Shapiro's take on the topic of debate can be useful for driving the discussion in a more productive direction.

And this is an example of what makes it hard to have discussions in the Sports Bar. You took it as a personal attack but answered anyway. After reading your answers Jesse came into agreement with you. But why did you have to experience the personal attack in the first place?

[onejayhawk]

I would love to see Bloomberg debate Cruz. Should Trump decline to run again, that is a likely event.

J

[Teenwolf]

And this is an example of what makes it hard to have discussions in the Sports Bar. You took it as a personal attack but answered anyway. After reading your answers Jesse came into agreement with you. But why did you have to experience the personal attack in the first place?

I actually think B-Fly is very perceptive to notice my repeated personal digs, and I'm glad that he brought it up and acknowledged all of my concerns. I think it's easy to pigeonhole certain posters in here ( myself included), and harder to talk about the issues at hand, but B-Fly stays on topic and wont take the bait. I loved hearing his rebuttal, and I think his noted annoyance was justifiable.

We can all disagree on topics without expressing our aggrievement at the drop of a hat... but sometimes when posters are getting prickly they deserve some pushback.

[Teenwolf]

I would love to see Bloomberg debate Cruz. Should Trump decline to run again, that is a likely event.

J

Funny, I would love to see your reaction to Ted Cruz getting ousted by Beto O'Rourke. Not long now!

[B-Fly]

And this is an example of what makes it hard to have discussions in the Sports Bar. You took it as a personal attack but answered anyway. After reading your answers Jesse came into agreement with you. But why did you have to experience the personal attack in the first place?

I usually find that the best approach is more, better and clearer communication, and that it generally helps to better connection and understanding and community. I understand why others react by communicating on "hot button topics" less or not at all. It's just not me. That's why, despite around four years away from this place, I have over 46,000 posts, lol.

And in case you were worried, Teenwolf and I are good.

[Gregg]

I usually find that the best approach is more, better and clearer communication, and that it generally helps to better connection and understanding and community. I understand why others react by communicating on "hot button topics" less or not at all. It's just not me. That's why, despite around four years away from this place, I have over 46,000 posts, lol.

And in case you were worried, Teenwolf and I are good.

I wasn't worried.

I would probably have caught you had I kept posting on "hot button" topics. It just became no fun.

I am glad you are back.

[heyelander]

I wasn't worried.

I would probably have caught you had I kept posting on "hot button" topics. It just became no fun.

I am glad you are back.

you would have also needed to join the Vintage drafts...

[Gregg]

you would have also needed to join the Vintage drafts...

That would have helped. I also had quite a few posts as Guest when I was having computer issues. Not enough to catch Mr. B-Fly, but the gap would be a bit closer.

[onejayhawk]

Funny, I would love to see your reaction to Ted Cruz getting ousted by Beto O'Rourke. Not long now!

Not according to the polling and Cruz has not gotten back on the stump yet.

I live in a heavily Hispanic neighborhood (there is a Beto sign in the yard next to mine). I'll keep an eye on this.

J

[Teenwolf]

Not according to the polling and Cruz has not gotten back on the stump yet.

I live in a heavily Hispanic neighborhood (there is a Beto sign in the yard next to mine). I'll keep an eye on this.

J

Now Cruz is under fire for his pathetic fundraising attempt to make it look his campaign mailers were official county summons request for money. Both sick and pathetic, considering nobody in Texas will give money to Puddy-face... the money race is even, $23 Mil in small donations for Beto, $23 Mil for Cruz in Super PAC money... does that really sound even to you? Seems like an edge.

Cruz's other ads have been equally pathetic. The "Beto song"? The ad showing Beto saying "f*ck" a bunch of times. Or shouting out that "Beto wants to ban BBQ."

Ted Cruz is absolutely pathetic. You like his campaign of non-substance identity politics?

[nots]

Now Cruz is under fire for his pathetic fundraising attempt to make it look his campaign mailers were official county summons request for money. Both sick and pathetic, considering nobody in Texas will give money to Puddy-face... the money race is even, $23 Mil in small donations for Beto, $23 Mil for Cruz in Super PAC money... does that really sound even to you? Seems like an edge.

Cruz's other ads have been equally pathetic. The "Beto song"? The ad showing Beto saying "f*ck" a bunch of times. Or shouting out that "Beto wants to ban BBQ."

Ted Cruz is absolutely pathetic. You like his campaign of non-substance identity politics?

I am pretty clearly not a Ted Cruz fan, but saying his $23M is from Super PAC money is simply not true. $14M is from individual donors, both large and small.

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00033085