Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Cuomo might run for president, but I don't think he'd be popular and I don't see the current DNC promoting him unless there's no other option. There's Sanders, Cory Booker, and apparently Kirsten Gillibrand
might be gearing up for a run.
Good news everybody: the EPA will not take down opendata.com. There was a threat it would be shut down in the likely event of a government shutdown.
http://mashable.com/2017/04/24/epa-open-data-website-shutdown.amp
WH sources: Trump open to "border security" money instead of money for the wall this go around.
Gillibrand is a literal Blue Dog. I mean she was actually in the Blue Dog coalition in the House.
She's more liberal as a senator and sells that as an evolution of her views but it smacks of opportunism to me.
Who knows what her view would be as a presidential candidate.
Plus when it comes to the economic sides she's even more of a centrist than Hillary is. Not a fan of austerity candidates.
That's on top of endorsing Cuomo to run for president.
edited 24th Apr '17 5:31:08 PM by MadSkillz
Who knows what her view would be as a presidential candidate.
How do you know that her prior views weren't the opportunistic ones and these are her real views? I don't know a lot about the Congressional district she used to represent, but if it's a right-wing one, she may not have had a lot of choice in the views she espoused then.
Seriously, this is something that bothers me a lot when we talk about Blue Dogs, conservative Democrats, etc. To win in a Deep Red State or district, you have to espouse at least some of the views that Deep Red Staters like. It doesn't automatically follow that you agree with those views, and when you move on to a wider constituency it gives you the opportunity to abandon at least some of those views and embrace your actual positions.
To use the guy who is often held up as the ultimate Blue Dog, take Joe Manchin. The poor bastard's in West Virginia, a state that is not only a good twenty years behind the rest of the country when it comes to social policy, but in which much of the voter base is so detached from reality that they voted for Trump on the assumption that he could magically refill their mines with coal. To win in that state, Manchin has to run as essentially a Republican-lite. That doesn't mean he necessarily agrees with all the views that he's adopted from his voter base in order to get things done—just that he's going to have to say those things in order to get into office and be in a position to vote liberally on at least some issues.
Have any of you actually considered how much courage it takes to be a Blue Dog? If these people were just opportunists who wanted to get elected, they'd screw the Democrats and run as a Republican. But they don't. They choose to run as Democrats in Deep Red territory, where putting that "D" next to your name is the equivalent of painting a target on your back. When you get right down to it, people like Manchin have to believe in the Democratic Party and what it stands for because otherwise why would they run as Democrats?
I loathe Tulsi Gabbard, but I loathe her because she's in a Deep Blue State. She doesn't need to have a record of saying homophobic, Islamaphobic, pro-Trump, pro-dictator nonsense to get elected there. If anything, saying those things only hurts her chances with Hawaiians. I believe, one hundred percent, that she agrees with all the reactionary crap she's said, because it was never necessary for her to say it. Accordingly, any future liberalization on her part is worthy of viewing at least slightly askance. The same isn't true of people like Manchin whose less liberal (or outright conservative views) are a product of where they're from and could believably soften once they are representing a wider constituency.
Long story short if, God forbid, a Democratic primary came down to Manchin vs Gabbard, I'd probably cheer for Manchin (and before anyone tells me, yes, of course, I know this is not a thing that's ever gonna happen). Because his worst views may well have been a product of trying to win votes in West goddamn Virginia, while Gabbard's likely came straight from the heart.
![]()
![]()
here's the source for that, if anyone wants to read it.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/donald-trump-border-wall-237552
Also this is encouraging, make the big Republican donors squirm!
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/trump-congress-midterms-2018-237505
And a nonsensical interview with our president. It's somewhat painful to read.
https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83
edited 24th Apr '17 6:08:52 PM by megaeliz
That's the problem. I don't know where her real views really line up. Is she willing to espouse any view she thinks the crowd will like as long as she wins? True opportunists are naturally unreliable.
I mean the reverse could be true. Sure you can win a red district as a conservative just like in California but you'll have a hard time winning either state to become a senator. So maybe she's really a Republican that realized that she wouldn't have any chance of upwards advancement in New York unless she ran as a Dem.
And well her economic policies are her most consistent views and I'm not a fan of those.
edited 24th Apr '17 6:25:01 PM by MadSkillz
@Ambar-
Well I think the issue with Manchin and ditto John Bel Edwards (the Louisiana Governor) is that part of their "Blue Dogedness" is being relatively friendly toward Trump which is why the former is kind of a necessary evil and the latter would IMO make for a bad candidate.
Re Gillibrand, I do cut her a lot more slack than Gabbard and as I said, the change in her views is apparently sincere. But it's not a good look that with a lot of issues (I think immigration is the big one) that she had awful views previously because of her constituency as well as not knowing or caring about the subject.
Depends on what you mean by "backslide". Compromising on a few core principles may mean we can advance the others, resulting in a net gain for society. On the other hand, that doesn't mean we have to endorse any centrist candidate that comes along, either, just because they have a D next to their name.
We cant afford to be "pure" in either direction, neither idealists pursuing perfection, nor realists sacrificing everything that matters in the interest of victory. There's a fine line to be walked.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.I don't see him thrown out a lot as an idea but I kind of like Al Franken. He's from a Midwest state and I think his comedic background could help him defang Trump and make him look foolish. He's also got some pretty progressive views like supporting universal cealthcare, cutting oil subsidies, raising the social security cap, and increasing financial aid to college students.
edit: He's also up for reelection in 2020 so the Democrats will have to run someone for that seat anyway.
edited 24th Apr '17 6:51:49 PM by Kostya
Ah, it's so nice, Madskillz.
"Anything she does I agree with is shameless pandering. Anything she did that I disagree with is her real position." Never a way to win here. God forbid we have Blue Dogs to support us on 80-90 percent of issues, though. Being like the Tea Party and purging all ideological dissent sounds brilliant.
Whatever you make think of her actual views and their sincerity, Gillibrand's political 180 is something of a problem in terms of electability at the presidential level. Trump got away with it, but I don't think anyone else woud be able to replicate that feat, certainly not against the man himself.
edited 24th Apr '17 7:05:28 PM by CaptainCapsase
Huh? I'm fine with partnering with Blue Dogs. I don't want them leading the party though.
I'm specifically making an argument against Gillibrand, the hypothetical presidential candidate.
Gillibrand is probably just right where she is. She's a reliable Democratic vote in the Senate from a state that seems to love her. A presidential election would probably bring her Slave to PR gun control opinions to the forefront (i.e. acts pro-gun upstate, more conventionally Democratic when she can get those coveted NYC votes). It'll make her look like someone who lacks conviction. I still really like her as a lawmaker.
As for whether we could (or should) have a "leftist" as President — whatever that means in America — that depends on their relationship with Congress. A reasonable, even-handed Fabian Socialist with a good working relationship with a Democratic Congress might be doable. Anything else will result in a reaction from the right. Congress being swept, the Presidency going to the GOP.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Re: the idea of Cuomo's name floating around for 2020. I don't follow NY state politics nearly enough but my general impression is "meh?" He's a second generation governor (his father was governor when I was a kit). He looks good after the disaster that his two predecessors were. He has strong bulletpoints on his resume (not least riding head over what had been a notoriously factious legislature) but dabbles in hardball partisan maneuvering more than I'd like. Far-lefters won't like that he (as HUD secretary under Bill Clinton) was a cheerleader for some of the increase in mortgage lending that eventually led to the subprime crisis. Far-righers won't like his connections with the Clinton administration and will certainly try to paint a bribery scandal that involved his close friends on him regardless of any actual involvement.

Nishiki Prestige on Twitter. I can't post the link, due to being a new user.
edited 24th Apr '17 4:42:49 PM by FireCrawler2002