6293

Is this more his doing you or maybe how others are doing better?

6294

Scott Walker is an idiot (sorry, Idiot with a capital “I”). Kamala isn’t. You can come up with a better comparison.

6295

Nah. First: go scold someone else.

Second, it’s a great comparison, even if you’re unable to see it.

They’re both candidates who had strong resumes for the primaries that seemingly lent themselves to wide appeal but ended up, by trying to appeal to the broadest swath of primary voters, as everyone’s 2nd or 3rd or 4th choice but not the first choice of many within their respective parties. Both seemed to have difficulties connecting personally with voters and ended up running fairly bland but also very expensive primary campaigns.

That’s the comparison. Nothing to do with ideology or the native intelligence of either candidate.

6296

I feel like Buttigieg has recently displayed some naked opportunism by pivoting more to the center and also, specifically, his attacks on Warren’s MFA plans. I actually agree with Buttigieg that Medicare Buy In is a better policy than MFA and yet I didn’t care for the way he attacked Warren, which struck me as very opportunistic.

Maybe I’m overreacting but his performance in the most recent debate pissed me off and I still haven’t calmed down.

6297

LOL. I’m just insulted by it (being from CA). I do wish she had run a better campaign, because I think she could do well (Scott Walker on the other hand, may have had support/etc, but his capital I-ness and reliance on ALEC as a blueprint - pretty much verbatim, and without anything original for Wisc, etc added, would have been a pretty poor President and ended up a complete tool, even moreso than most Presidents).

FWIW, all that said, she still would be my 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice ;). Could well be my 1st choice for VP however.

6298

Beto remains my top choice, which isnt as unusual here in Texas as it is in the rest of the country.

Hasnt been a statewide poll since sept, but it was interesting:

6299

Nah, I had the same reaction - it caused me to unsubscribe to his newsletter, literally and figuratively.

6300

Buttigeig has always struck me as a guy who would either need to bound up the polls early, or else he was going to be “next time” guy.

Like I think everyone likes the guy (and I’m really not sure why people are picking on him for attacking one of the front runners - that’s literally what you have to do if you’re behind), but everyone also kind of thinks he’s not going to be it this time around, and will probably be back in another cycle or two after his name has had more time to percolate (and maybe after he has had a chance to go after higher office).

Like there are some candidates that you assume you’ll never see again (Yang). Then others where you think, they’ll be there again.

6301

It’s simple for me - I like Warren a lot, she is my favorite candidate, so when he went off on her I did not care for it. Doesn’t matter to me their respective place in the polls.

6302

Thanks for sharing. I was curious because I haven’t fully ruled anyone out on the D side for the most part, except that crazy lady that sounds like a Russian plant, and he was one I kind of liked earlier on, but I have not followed him recently.

6303

Time to fire up the “Tulsi is being cheated by the corrupt DNC establishment” Twitter campaign.

6304

Warren is still my first choice, but Beto is my second, because I believe he would be willing to break rules to do what is needed, and after Trump, we’re going to need to have someone who will punish the Republicans. That’s the first thing I want in a president right now.

6305

Having a president who will break the rules is exactly the wrong thing.

6306

Maybe he means un-break the rules? Fix this shit? That’d be nice.

6307

Beto does not advise breaking rules or laws.

But unspoken political landmines like an assault weapon buyback or changing the law to make them illegal to own? He’s ok with that.

We have a lawless president now. Beto wants to change the laws and work within the laws, but the changes to those laws may be bigger and go farther than most politicians would go for. Im fine with that and feel it is what is needed to solve some of the current issues.

If all you know about Beto is from the debates or viral videos, you are unlikely to know much about his platform.

6308

My preferred candidate is a blend of whoever is likeliest to beat Trump and whoever puts the strongest focus on climate change. I’ve heard the strongest climate language, I think, from Warren, Bernie, and Beto. Of them, Bernie seems to feel it the most, which is interesting as he is also the oldest candidate. However, Warren’s adoption of Jay Inslee’s climate framework is highly encouraging. It’s astonishing to me how little time in the last debate was spent on that issue. We still, fundamentally, on a gut level, don’t get it. We should all be talking about it the way Greta Thunberg does, 24/7.

My biggest fear is that victorious Dems (should we be so lucky) will get exactly one shot at the net and they will spend it on health care, leaving climate change pissing in the wind yet again. If the GOP were rational actors who actually gave a shit about the habitability of this particular biosphere, of course, that wouldn’t be an issue. There is literally no issue imaginable which is more deserving of bipartisan, nay omnipartisan, consensus than climate change.

6309

It’s a valid fear. Of course, I’d temper it with the notion campaigning is bad poetry and governing is awful prose. Someone did focus groups and found hitting the GOP on health care was the best way to win at the ballot boxes. What they’ll really do once in office is anybody’s guess.

6310

The thing is, what the Dems do in that situation will basically be up to Joe Manchin, and maybe Kyrsten Sinema. It could be we will be quite lucky to get something decent on health care.

And if you are sick, or your loved ones are, and you can’t afford the health care you need even with the ACA, probably that seems way more important than climate change. In the long run we are all dead, as Keynes said.

6311

I’m sure it seems that way. But it’s not. Individuals will put their personal interest above all else, but I would like to think government can take a longer view.

6312

It kinda is. If the fewer people who are going to die tomorrow are less important than the many more who will die 100 years from now, then the solution to climate change becomes obvious: Massive population culling. But that’s obviously wrong, because why kill people tomorrow because people are going to die years from now?

Personally, I’d take a public option over the sort of weak-sauce carbon tax that is likely to survive Manchin’s veto. And I don’t really see any reason why we can’t have both anyway.