Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[B-Fly]

Voting for the better of two evils - is still voting for evil........

Yes, I agree. But voting for a candidate/party you agree with 75% of the time, who has a 49% chance of winning, over one you agree with 25% of the time, who has a 49% chance of winning, makes perfect sense, even if there's a candidate/party you agree with 95% of the time who has a 2% chance of winning.

[chancellor]

Voting for the better of two evils - is still voting for evil........

Yeah, that's where we part ways, my friend. Sometimes you can only get OK or good and not perfect.

[baldgriff]

I vote third party primarily because I believe that the major two parties honestly do not have our best interest in mind. If they did we would already have:

Prison Reform
Infrastructure Focus
Reasonably Priced Healthcare for all that want to have it
Reduced Military Spending
Increased spending for Veterans Care
Legalized Marijuana
Reasonable Immigration Reform
End of the War on Drugs

However, all we have now is two parties participating in a dick swinging contest. This contest allows them to essentially point and blame each other, all the while telling its constituency that they need more funds in order to make headway. Its bullshit! Both parties are more concerned with pandering to their extremes rather than actually accomplishing anything on any of the issues above.

There is no diplomacy going on in DC and that tone has spread across the country. Constructive discourse just doesnt appear to occur and the idea that something can be done in a BI-Partisan manner is absolutely off the books. Both parties should be able to come to an agreement on most if not all of the topics I have listed. Nope - its the other parties fault.

So I understand where you all come from with the I get 75% at a 49% win rate........ Part of my voting third party is a "NO Confidence" vote of the major two parties. Though I do vote for a party that I tend to align with.

[cardboardbox]

Yes, I agree. But voting for a candidate/party you agree with 75% of the time, who has a 49% chance of winning, over one you agree with 25% of the time, who has a 49% chance of winning, makes perfect sense, even if there's a candidate/party you agree with 95% of the time who has a 2% chance of winning.

This is exactly how I think of it.

[onejayhawk]

Yes, I agree. But voting for a candidate/party you agree with 75% of the time, who has a 49% chance of winning, over one you agree with 25% of the time, who has a 49% chance of winning, makes perfect sense, even if there's a candidate/party you agree with 95% of the time who has a 2% chance of winning.

Most would agree as a general proposition. In practice, most people only care deeply about 2-3 issues, five at most.

J

[B-Fly]

The President King?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-lebron-can-say-whatever-he-wants-about-politics/

[B-Fly]

Or LeBron for Secretary of Education...

https://www.newsweek.com/lebron-james-replace-betsy-devos-education-secretary-petition-1064383

LOL

[revo]

Mike Bloomberg is preparing to run for President in 2020 as a Democrat.

[Judge Jude]

Cynthia Nixon was getting 41 point spread points in her upstart D Governor campaign against the odious Andrew Cuomo.

Ocasio-Cortez campaigned for Nixon to try to help her at least cover the spread.

The NY Times already has called the fight for Cuomo and taken the gloves off the combatants, although the early online story looks like it was written 2 months ago. the final results might have a modest bit of intrigue.

[The Feral Slasher]

Mike Bloomberg is preparing to run for President in 2020 as a Democrat.

So Mike Bloomberg vs. Jamie Dimon ?

[B-Fly]

So Mike Bloomberg vs. Jamie Dimon ?

Bloomberg is a highly competent executive who, unlike Dimon or Trump when he announced, has significant material experience in government. The NYC Mayoralty and all of the City's Mayoral agencies make NYC, in my opinion, more like the executive branch of the US than probably any other domestic governing unit. He's intelligent with a strong sense of ethics and deeply held moral beliefs. He is 100 times better on his worst day than Trump on his best. 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.

[B-Fly]

Andrew Cuomo is a hard call for me. On the one hand, he displays many of the worst characteristics of a career political insider and politician. On the other hand, he has among the best skills as a political insider and politician that I've seen, and when he sets his mind on something he generally gets it done. For a leader so disliked by progressives, he has a pretty damn good list of progressive accomplishments.

[chancellor]

Andrew Cuomo is a hard call for me. On the one hand, he displays many of the worst characteristics of a career political insider and politician. On the other hand, he has among the best skills as a political insider and politician that I've seen, and when he sets his mind on something he generally gets it done. For a leader so disliked by progressives, he has a pretty damn good list of progressive accomplishments.

Heh. At some point, I suspect Cuomo's skeleton closet will be opened and it'll be like like the scene from The Return of the King where Aragorn confronts the Dead Men of Dunharrow.

EDIT TO ADD: That said, anyone who orders a cinnamon-raisin bagel with lox, red onions, capers, tomatoes and cream cheese is not fit to be dogcatcher, much less governor. ::

[B-Fly]

EDIT TO ADD: That said, anyone who orders a cinnamon-raisin bagel with lox, red onions, capers, tomatoes and cream cheese is not fit to be dogcatcher, much less governor. ::

Bipartisan agreement alert: Yes, that's gross, but I think all sweet/fruit bagels are inferior and morally wrong.

[Teenwolf]

Bloomberg is a highly competent executive who, unlike Dimon or Trump when he announced, has significant material experience in government. The NYC Mayoralty and all of the City's Mayoral agencies make NYC, in my opinion, more like the executive branch of the US than probably any other domestic governing unit. He's intelligent with a strong sense of ethics and deeply held moral beliefs. He is 100 times better on his worst day than Trump on his best. 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.

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.