Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He checks all the right boxes, and he's charismatic. But it's all general and has that "engineered by handlers" polish to it. I don't see him competing with the likes of Harris or Warren when they get into the weeds. I think Booker would school him on policy as well, and Brown certainly could.

Nice guy, good ideas, but too young. You can be a bit green when you're as gifted as Obama. Beto is no Obama.

In a few more years, with some offices under his belt, Beto will be a contender. But I think he was more a shiny object for the media last cycle (He can beat Cruz, the most hated man in DC!) than a serious political force.

He is a charismatic guy with good ideas who is a bit too green right now but will be a contender in a few years. I guess "vacant" doesn't mean what I thought it did.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

He is a charismatic guy with good ideas who is a bit too green right now but will be a contender in a few years. I guess "vacant" doesn't mean what I thought it did.

I'm being charitable. His checking off all the boxes is, as I suspect and have noted, based on handlers crafting a really swell platform for him.

He's also benefiting from looks. Chicks dig him, and he was running against a portly, mean, hunch-shouldered Joseph McCarthy lookalike (and sometimes soundalike).

Warren would own him on economics in 30 seconds.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

Ultimately my point is that because of the politics of the situation, there wasn't another way for this to go.

Right. And I disagree. If it hadn't been for people like Gillibrand (who saw an opportunity to build her brand) who weren't interested in his side at all, the political pressure wouldn't have been such that he would have had a chance to be heard, to defend himself, and to be appropriately punished.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Right. And I disagree. If it hadn't been for people like Gillibrand (who saw an opportunity to build her brand) who weren't interested in his side at all, the political pressure wouldn't have been such that he would have had a chance to be heard, to defend himself, and to be appropriately punished.

TM

He was a big boy. He made his choices on each occasion.

Blaming Gilli is a cop out.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He checks all the right boxes, and he's charismatic. But it's all general and has that "engineered by handlers" polish to it. I don't see him competing with the likes of Harris or Warren when they get into the weeds. I think Booker would school him on policy as well, and Brown certainly could.

Nice guy, good ideas, but too young. You can be a bit green when you're as gifted as Obama. Beto is no Obama.

In a few more years, with some offices under his belt, Beto will be a contender. But I think he was more a shiny object for the media last cycle (He can beat Cruz, the most hated man in DC!) than a serious political force.

Beto lost to Cruz 50.9 - 48.3, a margin of 2.6%. Trump beat Clinton in Texas, 52.0 to 43.1, a margin of 8.9%. So Beto outperformed the top of the ticket by 6.3%. That's a lot. You can say that Cruz is disliked, but so is Trump.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

He was a big boy. He made his choices on each occasion.

Blaming Gilli is a cop out.

She is not responsible for what he did. She is responsible for what she said, but a lot of other people said the same things, and she seems to get a disproportionate share of flak on that score.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Beto lost to Cruz 50.9 - 48.3, a margin of 2.6%. Trump beat Clinton in Texas, 52.0 to 43.1, a margin of 8.9%. So Beto outperformed the top of the ticket by 6.3%. That's a lot. You can say that Cruz is disliked, but so is Trump.

You can't really understand the difference between dislike for Cruz and Trump until you've spent time hanging out with GOP campaign managers.

Cruz might be hated more by Republicans than Democrats.

From DC to bumfuck, ask a GOP operative about Cruz and they'll explain why they wish any other sentient creature could win that seat for the GOP. The line I heard often about him was that he's not a Republican, but in the "Party of Ted Cruz." Libertarians, liberals, conservatives, non-voters, people who don't even live in this country -- people who may never have even heard of Ted Cruz, but osmotically absorb the impenetrable dread that enters the bones upon hearing his name -- hate Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz's wife hates Ted Cruz, and won't allow photos, or any likeness of him, in her bedroom. Mitch McConnell, who subsists on a breakfast shake of powdered hatred and children's blood, has privately expressed astonishment at the level of hatred he senses for Cruz within The Force. John Boehner can't recall 15 minutes ago, or his shoe size, but will publicly claim to anyone who'll listen that he wishes to see 90 only to dance on Ted Cruz's grave.

Ted Cruz hates Ted Cruz, and it takes him seven paragraphs to explain all the reasons why in adequate detail.

I digress, but the point is, there's hatred, and then there's Hatred of Ted Cruz. And these are different like a Hyundia and a Maybach are different. People will hold their nose and vote for Trump. Not even his mother would vote for Ted Cruz.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

He was a big boy. He made his choices on each occasion.

Blaming Gilli is a cop out.

Two different issues.

He fucked up, both in what he did and in not maneuvering to outlast the cries for his ouster more effectively and aggressively than he did. Fault is ultimately his that he's not in office.

She played it for political gain. She's got to suffer the negative impressions that garnered.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You can't really understand the difference between dislike for Cruz and Trump until you've spent time hanging out with GOP campaign managers.

Cruz might be hated more by Republicans than Democrats.

From DC to bumfuck, ask a GOP operative about Cruz and they'll explain why they wish any other sentient creature could win that seat for the GOP. The line I heard often about him was that he's not a Republican, but in the "Party of Ted Cruz." Libertarians, liberals, conservatives, non-voters, people who don't even live in this country -- people who may never have even heard of Ted Cruz, but osmotically absorb the impenetrable dread that enters the bones upon hearing his name -- hate Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz's wife hates Ted Cruz, and won't allow photos, or any likeness of him, in her bedroom. Mitch McConnell, who subsists on a breakfast shake of powdered hatred and children's blood, has privately expressed astonishment at the level of hatred he senses for Cruz within The Force. John Boehner can't recall 15 minutes ago, or his shoe size, but will publicly claim to anyone who'll listen that he wishes to see 90 only to dance on Ted Cruz's grave.

Ted Cruz hates Ted Cruz, and it takes him seven paragraphs to explain all the reasons why in adequate detail.

I digress, but the point is, there's hatred, and then there's Hatred of Ted Cruz. And these are different like a Hyundia and a Maybach are different. People will hold their nose and vote for Trump. Not even his mother would vote for Ted Cruz.

If Texas voters were all political insiders, and if no one had strong feelings about Trump, that would be incredibly persuasive.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She played it for political gain. She's got to suffer the negative impressions that garnered.

Among those likely running for president, Harris, Brown, Warren and Sanders all called for him to resign. Why weren't they "play[ing] it for political gain" and, if they were, why haven't you mentioned it?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Who said Gillibrand was shrill? I said she's soulless. She's a stuffed suit. And an ambitious opportunist.

I think she's a zero. Like Mitt Romney was a zero. I think she's guided by nothing but focus groups and polls, and has no independent thought.

So without knowing who exactly you were writing to, or what your point was, here's my view on the candidates:

Beto: Vacant media darling, McCandidate
Harris: Smart and thoughtful, but has to up the charisma a bit
Warren: Super-smart and formidable (if people will pay attention to her sometimes complex policy arguments)
Bernie: Past sell by date
Klobuchar: Don't know anything about her
Booker: Smart, but overthinking and too perfect, occasionally precious
Biden: He can walk away with it, as he could have in 2016
Gillibrand: 0.00, total phony

Kasich: DOA, egomaniac
Christie: Trump v. Trump
Romney: Oh, fuck... Not again

Schultz: Not dynamic enough to be a spoiler... 15 min almost up

I don't know what your basis for the Beto assessment is, but he has an absolutely amazing ground game and brought Texas up considerably in the Senate race. There were pop up campaign shops all over the state, and the block walking app was outstanding. He had thousands of volunteers mobilized, and he NEVER seemed exhausted on the campaign trail. Turning places like Tarrant County blue is no small feat. He was an infectious, effective campaigner and I haven't seen anything like it in this state.

Frankly, I'd rather see him go for Cornyn's seat than the White House, because I think he'd do more to helping anyone's White House bid by having his ground game activated again in Texas and making sure that money is diverted here. Also, Dems have done a terrible job of focusing on anything but the presidency and that needs to stop.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Tell me how Bangkok is - I'm going to be there in 2 weeks.

Dysfunctional, colorful and exhilrating, and deeply twisted.

LessinJasper, Alberta

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I don't know what your basis for the Beto assessment is, but he has an absolutely amazing ground game and brought Texas up considerably in the Senate race. There were pop up campaign shops all over the state, and the block walking app was outstanding. He had thousands of volunteers mobilized, and he NEVER seemed exhausted on the campaign trail. Turning places like Tarrant County blue is no small feat. He was an infectious, effective campaigner and I haven't seen anything like it in this state.

Frankly, I'd rather see him go for Cornyn's seat than the White House, because I think he'd do more to helping anyone's White House bid by having his ground game activated again in Texas and making sure that money is diverted here. Also, Dems have done a terrible job of focusing on anything but the presidency and that needs to stop.

I underrated Clinton in 1992 and Obama in 2004 because I didn't realize how good they were at this sort of thing. Being a Senator gets you attention from the political press, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are a good retail politician, and the longer you are in the Senate the less good you have to be, because incumbency protects you and you only have to run every six years.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here's the thing. I think we ought to hold elected officials to a high standard, and that multiple credible charges of truly bad behavior (whether or not criminal, and especially if that bad behavior relates to racism, sexism, or sexual assault) can (and generally should) sufficiently impair someone's qualification for the office, credibility, and ability to their job that it makes sense for them to step aside.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. It doesn't sound that far off from what I'm saying. If the offense merits the "death" penalty, so be it. But why should a few extra-vocal reps wield the power to make that decision for the entire Party or the accused's constituency? And if that's the case, Dems should put together a distinct ethics committee to make sure the person gets a fair shake.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Should we be giving Northam or Fairfax some process or hearing before they step down? I'd say giving a little time to verify the credibility of the accusers and the underlying facts is often a good idea, because sometimes the crazy stuff that comes out first is misleading. And some degree of forgiveness should be afforded for old incidents where there is true contrition.

Yes. We all have opinions. Why should the ones with the loudest megaphones apply their standards?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

He is a charismatic guy with good ideas who is a bit too green right now but will be a contender in a few years. I guess "vacant" doesn't mean what I thought it did.

I skipped the reply because I don't think he's ever even heard him speak.

TM