***Official Political Discussion Thread***



In a 33,000-person town that is 94 percent white, Ashanty, whose father is half-black and whose mother is Mexican American, had always worked to fit in. She attended every football game and won a school spirit award as a freshman. She straightened her hair and dyed it blond, hoping to look more like her friends.

She had known those boys who’d heckled her since they were little. For her 15th birthday the year before, some had danced at her quinceañera. .

Further proof that no matter how much you try to "fit in" you're still going be reminded that you're a minority in the worst way.
 
Bernie has a better shot that McGovern because Trump is not Richard Nixon, and white people don't have the same stranglehold hold on the Presidential election in the same way they did in 1972.

If someone is making a case against Bernie's electability, 1972 is a bad piece of evidence. The stronger one would for the last few decades, leftist candidates have most been getting smacked up against Republicans in purple and red districts. The electoral college makes the Presidential race mirror a purple district, so there is a reason for concern.

But there is no way Bernie gets washed. Given the state of polarization and demographics, nearly any Democrat has a good shot at the presidency.

Right and to be clear, I'm not saying that Bernie is a lock. His higher turnout strategy may not be enough to overcome the electoral college.

Thankfully, gerrymandering doesn't play a role in the electoral college but voter suppression does. Now what makes me optimistic is negative partisanship, which you alluded to a few days ago. So many Democratic voters dislike Trump that they'll vote for Bernie and Bernie starts off which Hillary Clinton's coalition in 2016. Then it's up to Bernie to activate enough non voters in a few States to insure that he can at least the win the electoral college.

Down ballot is a a bit of a gamble. If Bernie can bump up turnout, he could help to overwhelm voter suppression and create Democratic majorities in some State houses and then those laws can be over turned. As far as Gerrymandering in concerned, you know but others may not know, the point of Gerrymandering is to let Republicans win a bunch of close races in a number of districts. Gerrymandering only works up to a certain point and when turnout is big enough, it can backfire in the face of the party who gerrymandered.

In the face of gerrymandering, voter suppression and court packing and the malapportionment of the Senate, voter turnout has to be the strategy. Triangulating means a slow strangulation for Democrats and the GOP's ability to establish permanent white minority rule. In certain districts and States, moderation still can be more successful than mobilization but overall, the Democratic Party needs to make changing the electorate in its favor its grand strategy. The GOP wants to keep shrinking the electorate and the Democratic Party must respond by trying to expand it.
 


giphy (1).gif

They scoured the globe for a black friend and this is the best they could do? :lol:


I hate to break it to Mayor Pete but Keagan Michael Key is black yes, but he's not actually popular in the black community.

Like Gary Owens would have been a bigger get if you want some name ID with black voters. :lol:
 
But Bloomberg isn't stupid as Trump is and clearly he can get Dems politicians in his back pocket with ease because of his wealth.

I'm NOT saying I'd vote for Trump or that he's better, but Bloomberg is only 0.000002% behind him on the POS meter
They Bloomberg is a piece of ****, and absolute piece of **** just like Trump. I completely agree with you.

But I think there is some daylight between a Bloomberg presidency and a Trump presidency.

Bloomberg will sign some sort of ACA reform, and actually let the EPA do its job.

At least with Bloomberg, the GOP's court packing with stop. And it would be ****ing disastrous if Trump gets to replace RGB.

Democrats will not fall in line behind a Bloomberg presidency the all they did behind Trump.

I say all this not to make Bloomberg look good, he is trash, but to say that Trump is just that far off the damn rails with his destructive behavior.

That being said, neither should be the president come 2021. People considering Bloomberg need to pull their head out their asses. Have some damn principles. Any other Democrat, except for Tulsi, would be a better president than Mike Bloomberg.
 
RustyShackleford RustyShackleford Fair points.

I don’t necessarily agree with the Supreme Court thing tho. I think a Brett Kavanaugh type would be someone he would pick. And I don’t as much faith in Dems holding their ground against him either seeing how easily he’s bought off black politicians with a mere half *** apology for Stop and Frisk.

but yeah anybody considering voting for him needs to be smacked. He shouldn’t be graded on a scale just because Trump is terrible.
 
I wonder how Barr's intervention in the Stone case will affect criminal defense attorneys' arguments. Judges have a lot of discretion obviously but are guideline sentences not presumptively 'reasonable'?
 
RustyShackleford RustyShackleford Fair points.

I don’t necessarily agree with the Supreme Court thing tho. I think a Brett Kavanaugh type would be someone he would pick. And I don’t as much faith in Dems holding their ground against him either seeing how easily he’s bought off black politicians with a mere half *** apology for Stop and Frisk.

but yeah anybody considering voting for him needs to be smacked. He shouldn’t be graded on a scale just because Trump is terrible.
-I think picking judges now, especially Supreme Court judges, are kinda a binary choice now. Reasonable/Liberal or Hardcore Conservative. Mike Bloomberg is not picking a hardcore conservative because that would protect the NRA and erode the power of the EPA. The GOP will accept nothing less that a hardcore conservative Justice. And since the only judges that would do that are fairly liberal, Bloomberg is only getting a judge through if he picks a liberal when the Senate is control by Dems.

-The Progressive Caucus is not gonna **** with Mike Bloomberg like that. AOC not gonna **** with him, neither is Bernie, or Warren. Sure some in the center will. Party loyalist that want cabinet positions and money for races will, but there will exist a faction that will make it their job to try to keep Bloomberg honest.

Yeah, at this point grading Bloomberg against Trump is not something people should be doing to rationalize a primary vote.

I'm making educated guesses here. I really don't want to live in a reality where Mike Bloomberg is the ****ing president. He is such a opportunistic piece of **** he might change damn parties, and completely sell out the Dems, to win reelection.
 
Last edited:
-I think picking judges now, especially Supreme Court judges, are kinda a binary choice now. Reasonable/Liberal or Hardcore Conservative. Mike Bloomberg is not picking a hardcore conservative because that would protect the NRA and erode the power of the EPA. The GOP will accept nothing less that a hardcore conservative Justice. And since the only judges that would do that are fairly liberal, Bloomberg is only getting a judge through if he picks a liberal when the Senate is control by Dems.

-The Progressive Caucus is not gonna **** with Mike Bloomberg like that. AOC not gonna **** with him, neither is Bernie, or Warren. Sure some in the center will. Party loyalist that want cabinet positions and money for races will, but there will exist a faction that will make it their job to try to keep Bloomberg honest.

Yeah, at this point grading Bloomberg against Trump is not something people should be doing to rationalize a primary vote.

I'm making educated guesses here. I really don't want to live in a reality where Mike Bloomberg is the ****ing president. He is such a opportunistic piece of **** he might change damn parties, and completely sell out the Dems, to win reelection.


You're exactly right about the Federal Bench. It is binary. Obviously the legal world is ultimately as political as everything else however, it has its quirks. My wife, who is a jurist and has a great deal of interest in the comings and goings of the Federal Judiciary, said that the politics of the Federal Judges and potential Federal judges looks like America 35 years ago: No organized left, a distinct hard right and some potentially good or at least tolerable Republicans.

Either you are in the federalist society or you're not. The federalist society members believe in 19th Century Juris Prudence save for the power of the executive which is unlimited if a Republican in office. Non federalist judges, by contrast have common traits. They believe in popular sovereignty. They really do feel their job is to clarify ambiguity in statutes, respect precedent and to understand that they are no to obstruct popular will lest they lose their legitimacy as an institution.

Obviously, within the non federalist Society world, there are judges who are more liberal especially on criminal justice. It's also interesting what my wife said, while there is no left in the judicial world, there doesn't need to be since conservatism requires anti majoritarianism while left politics needs full engagement and institutions that respect popular sovereignty.
 
You all keep making fun of Bloomberg but many of my DC and Dem Party contacts over 45yrs old are jumping on the bloomberg bandwagon to stop Bernie.
Many of them liked Kamala and Biden because they are entrenched in the party and would easily get jobs in the new administrations. Bloomberg keeps the dem status quo in washington.
All of them voted for Hillary in the primary in 16....they were banking on an easy transition from an Obama job to Hillary job.
Not sure though why the establishment dems that i know are not running to Buttigieg.
 
Last edited:
I can't think of anything more discrediting of a political institution than Mike Bloomberg buying his way to the top of it.

It been wild seeing some of the black political elite in this country selling out for Mime Bloomberg, it's been a scary sight. They should be permanently disinvited from the cook out.
 
Back
Top Bottom