The State of the Democratic Party II

[USS Monitor]

My thoughts on the poll options-

Bernie- too old and too much 2016 baggage. No thanks.
Biden- like yay he's a pretty great dude, but getting pretty old. I'd get behind him though.
Warren- too tied to Bernie's wing and frankly just better in the Senate atm. Nah.
O'Malley- lol no
Booker- discount, off-brand Obama. Fake, boring freshman senator (ugh) like Harris. Nah.
Gillibrand- meh. Participated in the Franken takedown and has that kind of baggage. Maybe. At least she has some experience.
Harris- meh. as I said, fake, boring, freshman senator (ughhhh). No.
Cuomo- New York baggage winning the presidency? I guess I'd be fine with him, he's experienced, but like... meh.
Murphy- had to google him, but srsly another fuckin freshman senator? And not even black or anything, borrrrrring lol nope.
Brown- Generic Inoffensive Boring Candidate/Movie President #74,920,949,402,294,752,301,923, nope.

Why does in matter if they're "not even black or anything"? Are you voting based off of skin color now?

Makes him more boring, I guess. I dunno how serious Senkaku is about that as a reason for rejecting him.

[Ngelmish]

Sanders is in conflict with running as hard to the left as possible unless he's substantially changed planks of his platform.

Who would you vote for from that list?

Biden - Decent enough guy personally but I'm tired of the "inch along" movement the Dems have been taking since the 80s.
Warren - My #2 after Sanders, very minor issues but would be a solid pick all told.
O'Malley - Literally who? Okay, guy was a decent governor but he wasn't even really a blip on the radar. Maybe for VP, but as POTUS? No, sorry.
Booker - I'm sorry but he's too in bed with Wall Street and is clearly pandering in the last year. Voting against drug reimporation and immediately feeling the backlash so hard he had to go to Dem management to have them tell Sanders and his supporters off so that he could come out and "support" it again later. He gives me the same sort of uneasy feel HRC did.
Gillibrand - I will admit, she's not even on my radar right now. I strongly believe that if she runs she would be blown out about as fast as O'Malley. She's gone hard on the sexual assault line recently but that's not saying much since any decent American should be.
Harris - She had the chance to bring charges down hard on OneWest Bank's Steven Mnuchin after his bank legit debacle over home foreclosures and she didn't. She was also the only Dem to get campaign contributions from Mnuchin (wonder why). Also, a key thing here:

After the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Plata (2011) declared California's prisons so overcrowded they inflicted cruel and unusual punishment, Harris fought federal court supervision, explaining "I have a client, and I don't get to choose my client."[12] After California failed to fully implement the court's order to reduce crowding, and was ordered to implement new parole programs, lawyers for Harris appealed the decision on grounds that if forced to release these inmates early, prisons would lose an important labor pool.[80]

There's more than that even.
Cuomo - No. Just... No.
Murphy - Seems okay but I don't know enough about him to make a judgement at this time.
Brown - Another good one and my #3 from the list.

I mean, since you participate in this thread and read posts, you're perfectly aware (or should be) that I think that successfully implementing groundbreaking environmental regulations, making the state tax code more progressive, aggressively funding the state education system from K-12 to university, not caving to the gun lobby, repealing the death penalty, passing a gay marriage referendum before 2015, passing a state version of the Dream Act, implementing the ACA in good faith while also making improved healthcare access a priority by implementing all-payer reforms to the hospital industry, off the top of my head, makes Martin O'Malley an excellent candidate for president, who, importantly would also be an excellent president. And that's not an exhaustive list of why he was a "decent" governor.

Now, to be sure, I recognize that there are legitimate reasons not to vote for him. If you don't want the next Democratic nominee/president to be a left-politician, then O'Malley's a bad choice. If you don't want a president to be technochratically involved in policy, O'Malley's a bad choice. If you don't want a white man, O'Malley's a bad choice. If you don't want someone who doesn't pretend not to be a professional politician or anti-establishment, (although O'Malley's proven he's willing to buck the party and embrace structural reforms) O'Malley's a bad choice.

Since you want a left-politician, however, almost none of that seriously applies to you. As for being on the radar, Donald Trump is and was on the radar. Should he be president? That's not a serious objection to O'Malley (see Senkaku's more concise and more honest "lol no"), it's an absurd capitulation to a media narrative that O'Malley should be ignored because reasons. You didn't accept that narrative in the case of Sanders, you shouldn't now. Policy, not personality. Deeds, not words.

All of that said, I would consider either Warren or Brown as well depending on how things played out. Out of your choices, I'd prefer Warren, probably.

[Tyrassueb]

My thoughts on the poll options-

Bernie- too old and too much 2016 baggage. No thanks.
Biden- like yay he's a pretty great dude, but getting pretty old. I'd get behind him though.
Warren- too tied to Bernie's wing and frankly just better in the Senate atm. Nah.
O'Malley- lol no
Booker- discount, off-brand Obama. Fake, boring freshman senator (ugh) like Harris. Nah.
Gillibrand- meh. Participated in the Franken takedown and has that kind of baggage. Maybe. At least she has some experience.
Harris- meh. as I said, fake, boring, freshman senator (ughhhh). No.
Cuomo- New York baggage winning the presidency? I guess I'd be fine with him, he's experienced, but like... meh.
Murphy- had to google him, but srsly another fuckin freshman senator? And not even black or anything, borrrrrring lol nope.
Brown- Generic Inoffensive Boring Candidate/Movie President #74,920,949,402,294,752,301,923, nope.

Bernie - You do realize older people have been leaders of nations before and done well, right? And what 2016 baggage? The guy is the most popular politician right now, hands down, as well as the betting industries "safe money" candidate.
Biden - Is barely a year younger than Bernie but I never hear people bring that up...
Warren - Being tied to the Bernie wing is more a boon than detriment right now since, again, he's the most popular politician in America.
O'Malley - Agreed.
Booker - Also agreed.
Gillibrand - Yep.
Harris - Don't really like her either.
Cuomo - Would have been fine in like 2004, not so much for 2020.
Murphy - Same feelings from what I've seen, barring the whole blank thing you put at the end there.
Brown - He's fairly progressive and, again, was my #3 pick. But he does seem rather bland compared to Warren or Sanders (even Biden or Cuomo).

[USS Monitor]

My thoughts on the poll options-

Bernie- too old and too much 2016 baggage. No thanks.
Biden- like yay he's a pretty great dude, but getting pretty old. I'd get behind him though.
Warren- too tied to Bernie's wing and frankly just better in the Senate atm. Nah.
O'Malley- lol no
Booker- discount, off-brand Obama. Fake, boring freshman senator (ugh) like Harris. Nah.
Gillibrand- meh. Participated in the Franken takedown and has that kind of baggage. Maybe. At least she has some experience.
Harris- meh. as I said, fake, boring, freshman senator (ughhhh). No.
Cuomo- New York baggage winning the presidency? I guess I'd be fine with him, he's experienced, but like... meh.
Murphy- had to google him, but srsly another fuckin freshman senator? And not even black or anything, borrrrrring lol nope.
Brown- Generic Inoffensive Boring Candidate/Movie President #74,920,949,402,294,752,301,923, nope.

Bernie - You do realize older people have been leaders of nations before and done well, right? And what 2016 baggage? The guy is the most popular politician right now, hands down, as well as the betting industries "safe money" candidate.[/quote]

If the Clinton contingent is still mad about 2016 and stays home, that's a problem.

Biden - Is barely a year younger than Bernie but I never hear people bring that up...

Emphasis mine:

Biden- like yay he's a pretty great dude, but getting pretty old. I'd get behind him though.

Warren - Being tied to the Bernie wing is more a boon than detriment right now since, again, he's the most popular politician in America.

I'd rather talk about Warren on her own merits, and get away from the "Bernie wing" vs. "Establishment" talk. She isn't Bernie's protege. I like Warren, though. She's one of the most honest, competent, and hardworking people in government.

[Genivaria]

Colorado Democrats make their stance on weed clear.

[Major-Tom]

Colorado Democrats make their stance on weed clear.

(Image)

Good. Jeff Sessions is a prick. He should try getting high, just sayin. Might do him some good, get that stick out of his keebler elf looking ass.

[Major-Tom]

My thoughts on the poll, I guess, since this is popular.

Bernie - An honest politician, a little left for me, but overall someone I admire very much. He may be too old in 2020, so we'll see, but some new faces wouldn't hurt. If he runs, I could see myself potentially supporting him.

Biden - Very likable dude, but again, the age is a factor, as is the fact that he ran in '88 and '08. We'll see if third time is a charm if he runs, after all, people (myself included) seem to respect him.

Warren - Hardworking, competent, and clear minded. One of my favorite US Senators out there. Her baggage rests within the fact that some voters (particularly men) find her condescending and "arrogant." I for one do not, I think she's respectable, but that is her baggage, which could make for a tighter 2020.

O'Malley - We'll see if O'Malley can run a good campaign in 2020. He was a pretty decent mayor and not a bad governor, I like the guy. If he can increase his appeal by 2019/2020, I may find myself supporting him.

Booker - Errr, I mean, he comes across as very fake and opportunistic to me. I dislike his personality. On individual policy, I find a lot to agree with and a lot to disagree with (see his more right leaning economic positions in some areas), but I don't hate him. Just would be hesitant to want him as our nominee.

Gillibrand - No thanks. She suffers from John Kerry syndrome. From one of the most conservative Democrats in the house to the most "liberal" Senator, she seems to have no problem saying what she thinks will make her popular. Those qualities are not good in a president, and her crusade against sexual assault seems to have many merits, but also has some hypocrisy. I'd vote for her over Trump in a heartbeat, but her chances of beating Trump in a general are lower than those of most other candidates.

Harris - Can't stand her positions on guns, civil liberties, and her flip flopping from attorney general to senator, but if she's the nominee, I'll support her.

Cuomo - Not a fan at all. Not a good governor neither.

Murphy - I am iffy on his crusade against gun rights, but he isn't bad. Just a little young and not ideal, but he has some merits overall.

Brown - I like Sherrod Brown. I also think that he would make a better VP candidate than a Presidential candidate at this point in time.

[USS Monitor]

Colorado Democrats make their stance on weed clear.

(Image)

Good. Jeff Sessions is a prick. He should try getting high, just sayin. Might do him some good, get that stick out of his keebler elf looking ass.

He is indeed a prick, and I say this as someone that isn't even into weed. It's just not a big problem that the federal government needs to butt into.

[Major-Tom]

Good. Jeff Sessions is a prick. He should try getting high, just sayin. Might do him some good, get that stick out of his keebler elf looking ass.

He is indeed a prick, and I say this as someone that isn't even into weed. It's just not a big problem that the federal government needs to butt into.

I have a live and let live philosophy. If someone wants to toke up in moderation, and it doesn't cause them much harm, then by all means, they can go head. Sessions has even been wanting to crack down on cbd, which isn't even psychoactive, it's not a drug, just an anti anxiety oil that reduces anxiety. That's how extreme he can be.

[Valrifell]

He is indeed a prick, and I say this as someone that isn't even into weed. It's just not a big problem that the federal government needs to butt into.

I have a live and let live philosophy. If someone wants to toke up in moderation, and it doesn't cause them much harm, then by all means, they can go head. Sessions has even been wanting to crack down on cbd, which isn't even psychoactive, it's not a drug, just an anti anxiety oil that reduces anxiety. That's how extreme he can be.

Realistically, anyway, weed is so common across the States that, usually, no matter where you are alls you have to do is ask around a bit to find some.

[Major-Tom]

I have a live and let live philosophy. If someone wants to toke up in moderation, and it doesn't cause them much harm, then by all means, they can go head. Sessions has even been wanting to crack down on cbd, which isn't even psychoactive, it's not a drug, just an anti anxiety oil that reduces anxiety. That's how extreme he can be.

Realistically, anyway, weed is so common across the States that, usually, no matter where you are alls you have to do is ask around a bit to find some.

Oh, 100%. I won't advocate passionately for activity that is illegal in most states because this is a forum with rules I'll respect, but weed is so easy to get access to and is honestly probably less harmful than alcohol all things considered (I love my beer, but I can concede that much anyways).

[USS Monitor]

Realistically, anyway, weed is so common across the States that, usually, no matter where you are alls you have to do is ask around a bit to find some.

Oh, 100%. I won't advocate passionately for activity that is illegal in most states because this is a forum with rules I'll respect, but weed is so easy to get access to and is honestly probably less harmful than alcohol all things considered (I love my beer, but I can concede that much anyways).

I like booze too, but yeah, weed isn't any more dangerous than booze.

[Major-Tom]

Also, happy to say that the Sinema campaign for Senate here in Arizona is already very organized. I think she would beat both McSally and Ward in the upcoming senate race here.

I used to be meh on Sinema, but I think she can do a very good job in the Senate at this point.

[Genivaria]

Good. Jeff Sessions is a prick. He should try getting high, just sayin. Might do him some good, get that stick out of his keebler elf looking ass.

He is indeed a prick, and I say this as someone that isn't even into weed. It's just not a big problem that the federal government needs to butt into.

My single biggest concern on the issue of marijuana isn't medicinal or recreational or whatever, my concern is the number of people being arrested and having their lives ruined for something that shouldn't be a crime.

[USS Monitor]

He is indeed a prick, and I say this as someone that isn't even into weed. It's just not a big problem that the federal government needs to butt into.

My single biggest concern on the issue of marijuana isn't medicinal or recreational or whatever, my concern is the number of people being arrested and having their lives ruined for something that shouldn't be a crime.

Yeah, and the overcrowding problem it creates in the prison system...

[Eibenland]

If the Clinton contingent is still mad about 2016 and stays home, that's a problem.

Personally, I wouldn't stay home, but I'm tired of people re-litigating 2016.

[Eibenland]

Why does in matter if they're "not even black or anything"? Are you voting based off of skin color now?

Makes him more boring, I guess. I dunno how serious Senkaku is about that as a reason for rejecting him.

But Harris is black and still boring? Senkaku used some interesting criteria.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Lowkey considering rooting for Sherrod Brown to run.

[Eibenland]

Lowkey considering rooting for Sherrod Brown to run.

Sherrod Brown is more protectionist than I would like, but I think I can get past that to support him.

[USS Monitor]

If the Clinton contingent is still mad about 2016 and stays home, that's a problem.

Personally, I wouldn't stay home, but I'm tired of people re-litigating 2016.

That's why Sanders isn't an ideal choice for 2020.

[Ngelmish]

My thoughts on the poll options-

Bernie- too old and too much 2016 baggage. No thanks.
Biden- like yay he's a pretty great dude, but getting pretty old. I'd get behind him though.
Warren- too tied to Bernie's wing and frankly just better in the Senate atm. Nah.
O'Malley- lol no
Booker- discount, off-brand Obama. Fake, boring freshman senator (ugh) like Harris. Nah.
Gillibrand- meh. Participated in the Franken takedown and has that kind of baggage. Maybe. At least she has some experience.
Harris- meh. as I said, fake, boring, freshman senator (ughhhh). No.
Cuomo- New York baggage winning the presidency? I guess I'd be fine with him, he's experienced, but like... meh.
Murphy- had to google him, but srsly another fuckin freshman senator? And not even black or anything, borrrrrring lol nope.
Brown- Generic Inoffensive Boring Candidate/Movie President #74,920,949,402,294,752,301,923, nope.

Bernie - You do realize older people have been leaders of nations before and done well, right? And what 2016 baggage? The guy is the most popular politician right now, hands down, as well as the betting industries "safe money" candidate.
Biden - Is barely a year younger than Bernie but I never hear people bring that up...
Warren - Being tied to the Bernie wing is more a boon than detriment right now since, again, he's the most popular politician in America.
O'Malley - Agreed.
Booker - Also agreed.
Gillibrand - Yep.
Harris - Don't really like her either.
Cuomo - Would have been fine in like 2004, not so much for 2020.
Murphy - Same feelings from what I've seen, barring the whole blank thing you put at the end there.
Brown - He's fairly progressive and, again, was my #3 pick. But he does seem rather bland compared to Warren or Sanders (even Biden or Cuomo).

"Lol no" is still not an honest reason for someone who likes to posture as caring about policy. Supporting Sanders for being "the most popular" is mercenary hackery at its finest. Your obsession with citing popularity on the one hand, criticizing perceived blandness on the other is closer to Trump's style of politics than anyone suggested here.

[Collatis]

Also, I know someone who said if it was Cuomo vs Trump, they'd vote for nobody. He seems like a pretty bleh pick.

I'd stomach a vote for Cuomo, but I can't stand him at all. He's easily my least favorite candidate of those in the poll.

[Senkaku]

My thoughts on the poll options-

Bernie- too old and too much 2016 baggage. No thanks.
Biden- like yay he's a pretty great dude, but getting pretty old. I'd get behind him though.
Warren- too tied to Bernie's wing and frankly just better in the Senate atm. Nah.
O'Malley- lol no
Booker- discount, off-brand Obama. Fake, boring freshman senator (ugh) like Harris. Nah.
Gillibrand- meh. Participated in the Franken takedown and has that kind of baggage. Maybe. At least she has some experience.
Harris- meh. as I said, fake, boring, freshman senator (ughhhh). No.
Cuomo- New York baggage winning the presidency? I guess I'd be fine with him, he's experienced, but like... meh.
Murphy- had to google him, but srsly another fuckin freshman senator? And not even black or anything, borrrrrring lol nope.
Brown- Generic Inoffensive Boring Candidate/Movie President #74,920,949,402,294,752,301,923, nope.

Why does in matter if they're "not even black or anything"? Are you voting based off of skin color now?

Nah, just even more reasons why he's boring and not a good candidate. At least Harris and Booker can be like, "hey we're minorities we've struggled in life or whatever" and all that shit.

Also, I know someone who said if it was Cuomo vs Trump, they'd vote for nobody. He seems like a pretty bleh pick.

Yeah, like I said, I'd just be very lukewarm if he were the candidate, but I would be ok with it.

-snip-

As for being on the radar, Donald Trump is and was on the radar. Should he be president? That's not a serious objection to O'Malley (see Senkaku's more concise and more honest "lol no"), it's an absurd capitulation to a media narrative that O'Malley should be ignored because reasons. You didn't accept that narrative in the case of Sanders, you shouldn't now. Policy, not personality. Deeds, not words.

He was an also-ran who barely made a blip. He may have been a very nice governor or whatever, but he's going nowhere and it's silly to try and keep boosting him as a candidate who people aren't going to laugh off.

I'd rather talk about Warren on her own merits, and get away from the "Bernie wing" vs. "Establishment" talk. She isn't Bernie's protege.

Yeah, I'd like to talk about people and issues in a vacuum too, but that's not how the world works and that won't magically change before 2020. I know she isn't Bernie's protege, but she is associated with his wing of the party and brand of politics.

I like Warren, though. She's one of the most honest, competent, and hardworking people in government.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm not convinced she'll sell at a national level. The GOP have done a good job of pigeonholing her as some sort of leftist loon.

Makes him more boring, I guess. I dunno how serious Senkaku is about that as a reason for rejecting him.

But Harris is black and still boring? Senkaku used some interesting criteria.

Yeah, but at least she has the minority card to play and probably some level of personal connection to issues facing POC. I was just using it to illustrate that Murphy is extra-boring and extra-generic. He's a freshman senator like Harris and Booker, but with even fewer interesting attributes.

If the Clinton contingent is still mad about 2016 and stays home, that's a problem.

Personally, I wouldn't stay home, but I'm tired of people re-litigating 2016.

^ FUCKING RT ^

"Lol no" is still not an honest reason for someone who likes to posture as caring about policy. Supporting Sanders for being "the most popular" is mercenary hackery at its finest. Your obsession with citing popularity on the one hand, criticizing perceived blandness on the other is closer to Trump's style of politics than anyone suggested here.

We get it, anyone who doesn't like O'Malley or dares to point out that his chances of going anywhere are nil (thanks to his failure to make any sort of impact on the 2016 race, regardless of his previous achievements, which are almost totally unknown on a national level and seem likely to remain so) is a shallow mercenary hack obsessed with appearances who doesn't actually care about policy.

It's time to move on and find yaself a new man, Ngel.

[Senkaku]

Bernie - You do realize older people have been leaders of nations before and done well, right?

Yeah, that doesn't mean it isn't still a valid point?

And what 2016 baggage?

1-800-COME-ON-NOW

Biden - Is barely a year younger than Bernie but I never hear people bring that up...

>literally brings it up in my post
>"why does no one ever bring up that biden's old too"
???

Warren - Being tied to the Bernie wing is more a boon than detriment right now since, again, he's the most popular politician in America.

Maybe it's a boon in your little clique of the party? On a national level and across party lines, perceptions of Elizabeth Warren are less awesome. The attack ads pretty much write themselves- coastal elite Harvard liberal Pocahontas blah blah blah.

Cuomo - Would have been fine in like 2004, not so much for 2020.

I'm not saying he's my favorite, I'm just saying at least I have confidence that he'd be relatively experienced and probably would do an okay job in the White House.

[Ngelmish]

Why does in matter if they're "not even black or anything"? Are you voting based off of skin color now?

-snip-

As for being on the radar, Donald Trump is and was on the radar. Should he be president? That's not a serious objection to O'Malley (see Senkaku's more concise and more honest "lol no"), it's an absurd capitulation to a media narrative that O'Malley should be ignored because reasons. You didn't accept that narrative in the case of Sanders, you shouldn't now. Policy, not personality. Deeds, not words.

He was an also-ran who barely made a blip. He may have been a very nice governor or whatever, but he's going nowhere and it's silly to try and keep boosting him as a candidate who people aren't going to laugh off.

"Lol no" is still not an honest reason for someone who likes to posture as caring about policy. Supporting Sanders for being "the most popular" is mercenary hackery at its finest. Your obsession with citing popularity on the one hand, criticizing perceived blandness on the other is closer to Trump's style of politics than anyone suggested here.

We get it, anyone who doesn't like O'Malley or dares to point out that his chances of going anywhere are nil (thanks to his failure to make any sort of impact on the 2016 race, regardless of his previous achievements, which are almost totally unknown on a national level and seem likely to remain so) is a shallow mercenary hack obsessed with appearances who doesn't actually care about policy.

It's time to move on and find yaself a new man, Ngel.

If this was already 2020 and O'Malley had already run twice and already flamed out twice, I might agree with that assessment. The problem is that you're pretending that political success, popularity, name recognition etc. are all constant despite the fact that all of political history, including modern American political history demonstrates that that simply isn't the case. Your "likely to remain so" thing is an excuse to avoid with engaging whether or not, in a crowded field of genuinely bad prospects, O'Malley might actually be a good choice on the merits. You want his chances to be nil because flippant dismissal is easy. If your objection was more serious, like major ideological inconsistencies ala Telconi, that would be a genuine disagreement. Disagreements are different from hackery. This is about the fact that you apparently don't believe that a candidate running for president, and electing said person as president, should involve work. You want tangibly non nil chances of success, you're condemning to the ash heap of failed White House bids Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and John Kennedy. Aside from the fact that they, you know, won. Whereas major candidates who had realistic chances of winning by being more than a blip, Gerald Ford, Walter Mondale, George Bush, Bob Dole, Al Gore, John McCain and Hillary Clinton all lost. Blipness is not a static thing and in itself is not determinative. That sort of bad faith hand-waving is what I'm arguing against.If you won't engage on the substance, it's not my fault that your remaining point is shallow, lazy and myopic.

As for other candidates: I've offered my thoughts on them, including various ones who haven't been part of this poll. None of them are as good, and I'll vote for one of them when I have to. So finding alternate candidates isn't going to be hard for me.