(08-05-2018 04:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I could vote for a blue dog democrat against Trump. Do you see one out there? I don't. All I see is left of left.

I can remember when Joe Biden and Hillary were considered left-wing democrats. Now they are conservative or middle of the road democrats. There simply is no democrat, with the possible exception of Joe Manchin, who represents anything that I could vote for in terms of issue positions.

What does your hypothetical Blue Dog Democrat look like?

(08-05-2018 06:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 04:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I could vote for a blue dog democrat against Trump. Do you see one out there? I don't. All I see is left of left.

I can remember when Joe Biden and Hillary were considered left-wing democrats. Now they are conservative or middle of the road democrats. There simply is no democrat, with the possible exception of Joe Manchin, who represents anything that I could vote for in terms of issue positions.

What does your hypothetical Blue Dog Democrat look like?

I don't know about his BDD, but mine would be a moderate, a centrist, not an ideologue running on abolish ICE and tax the wealthy and a moderate has zero chance of being nominated in today's Democratic party, so it is a moot question. What kind of a republican would get your vote? Could you vote for Kasich against Kamala Harris?

In 2016, if it had been Manchin vs, Trump, I would likely have gone for Manchin. In 2020, I will likely go for Trump against whoever the Democratic Socialists put up, as the lesser evil.

(08-05-2018 06:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 04:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I could vote for a blue dog democrat against Trump. Do you see one out there? I don't. All I see is left of left.
I can remember when Joe Biden and Hillary were considered left-wing democrats. Now they are conservative or middle of the road democrats. There simply is no democrat, with the possible exception of Joe Manchin, who represents anything that I could vote for in terms of issue positions.

What does your hypothetical Blue Dog Democrat look like?

No modern democrat except possibly Joe Manchin.

I've posted my issue positions on most every issue. Someone close to those would get my vote. Not many democrats (or republicans, for that matter) are very close to most of those. I see the choice between democrats and republicans as between socialism/communism on the one hand and theocracy on the other. And I don't care for either.

You can say democrats are not socialists/communists all you want. They are way too damn close for my comfort. Or you can say that republicans aren't theocrats. Trump isn't, but the neocons are way too damn close for my comfort.

Stupid party versus evil party. In the past I have counted on republicans to save me from the socialist/communist democrats. They have pretty much failed.

(08-05-2018 04:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I asked why she was currently your first choice you said:

"I think it comes down to a few things. Her reputation is good among colleagues as smart, motivated, thoughtful, etc."


That implies that your second through nth choices do not score as well as her on those qualities.

I notice you have yet to say her ideas for the country are good. The only thing you have mentioned is that she is against family separations, as I am. I am thoughtful, motivated, and smart. Why not vote for me?

No, you're misreading/misunderstanding. First, like I said, it's early and most candidates have not actually declared. This was an early gut feeling, as I explicitly said, not an article I'm submitting for peer review.

Having a basic temperament/mindset/whatever to be president is a screener for me. I therefor listed it first.

As far as positions on issues, whether it's Sanders at one end or Cuomo at the other, I'm in vastly more agreement with them than Trump or even most non-Trump Republicans. Is there some situation where I might vote for say, Kasich, over a Dem? I'm sure there is, at least theoretically, but it's highly unlikely. As the campaign starts and people put out platforms, I'll probably have stronger opinions between them.

But before implementing policy, you have to win, or it's all moot. (And this is a "horse race" thread, after all.) So long as a candidate doesn't disqualify themselves with character or policy issues, I'm going to be pretty pragmatic and focus on winning. As I said, I think Harris might have the best chance of bridging the Clinton/Sanders rift and moving beyond it. If Dems can't do that, we'll probably have a second Trump term. Next is winning the EC. I suspect the Dem will win the popular vote again, probably by a larger margin. But if a candidate can't flip some states it's a moot point. That's where I think Biden-Harris might be a stronger ticket.


If I was the lady in the lake handing out a sword, I might come up with a different answer. (And I'd want to wait until after some campaigning and debates.) But I'm not.

Hopefully that explains it a little better.

(08-06-2018 09:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  As far as positions on issues, whether it's Sanders at one end or Cuomo at the other, I'm in vastly more agreement with them than Trump or even most non-Trump Republicans.

If Sanders and Cuomo are the the bookends of the democrat policy spectrum, then there is no democrat that I could possibly support. No way I could support Cuomo, and no way in hell Sanders. If that's the range of views, there truly are no blue dogs left.

Is there a republican I can support? Wasn't last time, at least not by election day. If Trump is the nominee again, as I suspect he will be, I would vote for him if and only if Texas were in play. But if Texas is in play, he won't be winning.

(08-06-2018 09:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 04:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I asked why she was currently your first choice you said:

"I think it comes down to a few things. Her reputation is good among colleagues as smart, motivated, thoughtful, etc."


That implies that your second through nth choices do not score as well as her on those qualities.

I notice you have yet to say her ideas for the country are good. The only thing you have mentioned is that she is against family separations, as I am. I am thoughtful, motivated, and smart. Why not vote for me?

No, you're misreading/misunderstanding. First, like I said, it's early and most candidates have not actually declared. This was an early gut feeling, as I explicitly said, not an article I'm submitting for peer review.

Having a basic temperament/mindset/whatever to be president is a screener for me. I therefor listed it first.

As far as positions on issues, whether it's Sanders at one end or Cuomo at the other, I'm in vastly more agreement with them than Trump or even most non-Trump Republicans. Is there some situation where I might vote for say, Kasich, over a Dem? I'm sure there is, at least theoretically, but it's highly unlikely. As the campaign starts and people put out platforms, I'll probably have stronger opinions between them.

But before implementing policy, you have to win, or it's all moot. (And this is a "horse race" thread, after all.) So long as a candidate doesn't disqualify themselves with character or policy issues, I'm going to be pretty pragmatic and focus on winning. As I said, I think Harris might have the best chance of bridging the Clinton/Sanders rift and moving beyond it. If Dems can't do that, we'll probably have a second Trump term. Next is winning the EC. I suspect the Dem will win the popular vote again, probably by a larger margin. But if a candidate can't flip some states it's a moot point. That's where I think Biden-Harris might be a stronger ticket.


If I was the lady in the lake handing out a sword, I might come up with a different answer. (And I'd want to wait until after some campaigning and debates.) But I'm not.

Hopefully that explains it a little better.

yes, it does. BUT, I asked about Kasich vs. Harris, not Kasich vs, a Dem. Kasich is a moderate, and Harris is an exemplar of the far left. That is why I chose those two. I presume you would vote for any Democrat over any Republican, no matter how moderate, nice, and capable the republican is, as a matter of habit. Che' would get your vote, should he resurface and run.

Kasich was my choice from the git-go, and remained so until the nomination was closed. I prefer centrists. If the dems nominated a centrist, the Repubs an extremist, I would vote for the centrist. In a reversed situation, I think you would vote for the Democrat, without regard for the positions.

Granted, in today's political climate, neither party is going to nominate a centrist, but the GOP will come closer than the DNC.

We have extremists on both sides battling in Portland. If by some chance the nominees for the two parties were come from those two sides, I would vote third party. Would you?

The fact that you see Cuomo as the right wing is telling.

(08-03-2018 01:32 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Well, given that you think Obama is a communist, I suspect there won’t be any Dems you like this time around.
Anyway, I believe the only major official candidate so far is John Delaney, who is generally thought of as a moderate/centrist, and is a former CEO who founded two companies. I’m not going to claim I knew any of this before googling him.
Also, if you want a president who looks like Will Ferrell playing Captain Stubing from the Love Boat, Delaney’s your guy.
Looking at the talked about potential candidates, the ones that might have the most opposition from the left are probably Cuomo and Hickenlooper. Deval Patrick, Cory Booker, and maybe Biden will have some opposition to the left based on ties to Wall Street and venture capital. Gillibrand was a DLC type in the House, but she’s long since moved away from that.
I hear Kloubachar talked about as a centrist Midwesterner, but honestly don’t know too much about her.
Ditto for Bullock in Montana.
I guess when I say "the left" I'm talking about the Sanders/Warren wing.

Well, none of those strike me as even remotely close to centrists, much less right wingers. And I do think Obama is most likely heavy duty socialist, if not communist. Let me ask you, what major policy did he support that was not socialistic if not communistic? I kept getting the counter argument that if Obama were a socialist, Obamacare would have included a public option. Well, that's exactly what Obama wanted, except he wanted to go even further left, to full-blown single-payer, he just didn't have the votes in congress. And the blue dog democrats (not republicans) who forced that were gone in the next election cycle. Let me ask another question, when did Obama ever face a decision point where he went anywhere other than the furthest left option that was practically available to him? Again, making Obamacare single-payer was not practically available. No, we did not go straight to full-blown communism under Obama. But in our system, we wouldn't have done so if we had elected Lenin or Stalin or Castro or Chairman Mao. We went about as far in that direction in eight years as is possible within the constraints of our system. And in doing so, we clearly moved the "center" to the left, at least in the minds of some.

I find it absolutely amazing how far left the "center" has moved, at least in the eyes of leftists. Hell you take the platform that JFK ran on, and it would probably be considered far right wing today. Give us a few more years of current trends, and democrats will be calling Sanders/Warren centrists.

I don't fault democrats for this. They push hard to the left, but that's who they are and what they are supposed to do. My problem is that republicans have simply failed to provide credible alternatives. Democrats want single-payer, they can't get that through congress, so they give us the clusterflock that is Obamacare, and republicans can't come up with anything as an alternative, despite Bismarck sitting there and Heritage giving them a nudge in that direction. Go down the list, it happens over and over again. We get socialism/communism lite from democrats, because that's as far as they can push the needle, and republicans counter with democrat-lite or nothing. If republicans don't start coming up with ideas, democrats are going to turn us into Venezuela. Slowly but surely.

I'd actually prefer somebody like Ocasio-Cortez to any of the democrat "centrists" you list. It's like the frog in the boiling water, make it too hot too fast (Obama) and the frog jumps out (Trump). But heat it up gradually (your "centrists") and the frog gets comfortable and boils.

For JAAO and Lad, but others feel free to comment as well. Let me be very clear about my beliefs about the two parties.

I think democrats are at heart socialists/communists, who are motivated to implement a socialist/communist agenda as quickly as possible. The only difference I see between extremists like Bernie or Warren and those you may consider "moderates" is how fast they want to get there. The goal is to become Venezuela, sooner or later. Bernie pretty much indicated as much, for him at least.

I see republicans as incompetent idiots, who can't come up with an alternative to the socialist/communist workers' paradise, so they just try to slow things down by becoming democrat-lite.

What I'm looking for is for someone to come along and provide alternatives to the socialist/communist democrat ideas. Bismarck instead of single-payer or single-provider. Consumption taxes instead of driving the investments of the "rich" offshore with confiscatory income taxes. A guaranteed basic income instead of the hodgepodge of focused and "means tested" (thank republicans for that one) welfare plantation. People who work should live better than people who don't work (but all should live). Treat your friends better than you treat your enemies. And never fight a war that you don't intend to win.* Those sorts of things, which I don't see coming from either side.

If your "centrist" Cuomo came up with that platform, I would vote for him. But you and I both know he's not going to do that, and not going to come anywhere close. Nor, sadly, is any other democrat, or for that matter any republican.

* By the way, the guy I first heard say the, "people who work should live better than people who don't work, treat your friends better than you treat your enemies, and never fight a war that you don't intent to win," mantra was a certifiable loon. Anybody remember who he was? All I can remember is thinking, "This guy is absolutely crazy, but he is making more sense than any other politician. How crazy are they?"

(08-06-2018 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 09:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 04:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I asked why she was currently your first choice you said:

"I think it comes down to a few things. Her reputation is good among colleagues as smart, motivated, thoughtful, etc."


That implies that your second through nth choices do not score as well as her on those qualities.

I notice you have yet to say her ideas for the country are good. The only thing you have mentioned is that she is against family separations, as I am. I am thoughtful, motivated, and smart. Why not vote for me?

No, you're misreading/misunderstanding. First, like I said, it's early and most candidates have not actually declared. This was an early gut feeling, as I explicitly said, not an article I'm submitting for peer review.

Having a basic temperament/mindset/whatever to be president is a screener for me. I therefor listed it first.

As far as positions on issues, whether it's Sanders at one end or Cuomo at the other, I'm in vastly more agreement with them than Trump or even most non-Trump Republicans. Is there some situation where I might vote for say, Kasich, over a Dem? I'm sure there is, at least theoretically, but it's highly unlikely. As the campaign starts and people put out platforms, I'll probably have stronger opinions between them.

But before implementing policy, you have to win, or it's all moot. (And this is a "horse race" thread, after all.) So long as a candidate doesn't disqualify themselves with character or policy issues, I'm going to be pretty pragmatic and focus on winning. As I said, I think Harris might have the best chance of bridging the Clinton/Sanders rift and moving beyond it. If Dems can't do that, we'll probably have a second Trump term. Next is winning the EC. I suspect the Dem will win the popular vote again, probably by a larger margin. But if a candidate can't flip some states it's a moot point. That's where I think Biden-Harris might be a stronger ticket.


If I was the lady in the lake handing out a sword, I might come up with a different answer. (And I'd want to wait until after some campaigning and debates.) But I'm not.

Hopefully that explains it a little better.

yes, it does. BUT, I asked about Kasich vs. Harris, not Kasich vs, a Dem. Kasich is a moderate, and Harris is an exemplar of the far left. That is why I chose those two. I presume you would vote for any Democrat over any Republican, no matter how moderate, nice, and capable the republican is, as a matter of habit. Che' would get your vote, should he resurface and run.

Kasich was my choice from the git-go, and remained so until the nomination was closed. I prefer centrists. If the dems nominated a centrist, the Repubs an extremist, I would vote for the centrist. In a reversed situation, I think you would vote for the Democrat, without regard for the positions.

Granted, in today's political climate, neither party is going to nominate a centrist, but the GOP will come closer than the DNC.

We have extremists on both sides battling in Portland. If by some chance the nominees for the two parties were come from those two sides, I would vote third party. Would you?

The fact that you see Cuomo as the right wing is telling.

Yes, you asked *Lad* that question. I was responding to your response to me. It’s coincidental that we both came up with Kasich. Though not surprising, he’s the obvious choice for a hypothetical more moderate Republican nominee. (I’m not sure how zombie Che came into this, but I firmly believe in judging people by the content of their character, not their status as living or undead.)

Anyway, Kasich as a “centrist” I’m not sure I buy, he was a Gingrich Republican in the 90s. But moderate conservative, who believes in governing pragmatically? Sure, and I respect that. And he does seem to have moderated significantly. I read an interview with him a while back about how his parents being killed in an accident caused him to do a lot of introspection and soul searching and examine his approach to politics. That’s the sort of thing I meant by “thoughtful” further up in the thread.

Harris as “exemplar of the far left” – sorry, that just strikes me as ridiculous. If she runs, she will be attacked for being too close to the corporate/Wall Street side of the party. Mainstream liberal, or just liberal, that’s a fair description. And to your question, yes I would vote for her over Kasich. I am a liberal (more accurately a social democrat) so why wouldn’t I?

Now if the Dems nominated a racist who ran a racist, xenophobic campaign, who lied pathologically, who bragged about sexually assaulting women, who made lustful comments about 11 year girls, who made sexual comments about his/her own child, who bragged about intentionally entering dressing rooms with girls as young as 14 to see them naked, who mocked the disabled, who mocked POWs, who mocked Gold Star families, who said our allies were “foes,” and so on… (Not that any major party would ever do such a thing!) Then hell yes, I’d vote for Kasich.

(08-05-2018 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 03:02 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Minorities, immigrants, and many women (look at Trump's numbers with women outside of non-college educated white women) feel like this administration is openly hostile to them simply because of who they are. That's a choice Trump and the Republicans have made.

That sounds more like a choice that those minorities, immigrants, and many women have made.

Even by your standards, that's a jawdropper...

(08-06-2018 09:41 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  The fact that you see Cuomo as the right wing is telling.

To be clear, I listed him off the top of my head as the more center-leaning member of the possible field of 2020 Dems, not "right wing". Bullock or Hickenlooper may have been better examples, but honestly I haven't looked too closely.

(08-15-2018 04:31 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 03:02 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Minorities, immigrants, and many women (look at Trump's numbers with women outside of non-college educated white women) feel like this administration is openly hostile to them simply because of who they are. That's a choice Trump and the Republicans have made.

That sounds more like a choice that those minorities, immigrants, and many women have made.

Even by your standards, that's a jawdropper...

And I'd return the favor. Even by your standards, your comment is a jaw dropper.

(08-15-2018 04:35 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 09:41 AM)Optimistic Owl Wrote:  The fact that you see Cuomo as the right wing is telling.

To be clear, I listed him off the top of my head as the more center-leaning member of the possible field of 2020 Dems, not "right wing". Bullock or Hickenlooper may have been better examples, but honestly I haven't looked too closely.

I think Cuomo probably is a right winger be democrat standards. That is why I could not vote for any democrat in the field. I couldn't vote for Cuomo, and I sure as hell couldn't vote for anyone left of Cuomo.

Whether I could vote for any republican is debatable. Fortunately, in Texas that doesn't really matter, so I can vote closer to my conscience and vote libertarian. And if it matters in Texas, it sure as hell won't matter nationally.

America was never that great- Cuomo

(08-16-2018 12:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  America was never that great- Cuomo

I understand what he was saying in the broader context, but if he does run, he just recorded one of Trump's main ads.

I do find it odd how Trump was able to say things like "you think we haven't killed people" and other criticisms of the US and get a free pass, but any Dem saying that would be crucified, or for that matter normally any Republican.... (And actually it's one area where I would kinda sorta defend Trump - I think our need to mythologize our history so that America is always Super Awesome! even when we were doing pretty horrible things is a weakness.)

(08-15-2018 05:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 04:31 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 03:02 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Minorities, immigrants, and many women (look at Trump's numbers with women outside of non-college educated white women) feel like this administration is openly hostile to them simply because of who they are. That's a choice Trump and the Republicans have made.

That sounds more like a choice that those minorities, immigrants, and many women have made.

Even by your standards, that's a jawdropper...

And I'd return the favor. Even by your standards, your comment is a jaw dropper.

You realize that just since your original comment, Trump has attacked more prominent African-Americans as "dumb" and not "smart" or a "dog," one of his aids is on tape admitting that the n-word tape exists, and the White House won't guarantee that we won't be hearing a tape with the President of the United States using the n-word. And one of his former executives has again relayed stories of Trump talking about "the blacks" and Puerto Ricans as lazy and untrustworthy because it's "in their nature".

But it's all on the minorities for choosing to be offended.

Good god. I don't know if you really believe that or are just trolling, but I think you're going on ignore.

(08-17-2018 07:28 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 05:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 04:31 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 03:02 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Minorities, immigrants, and many women (look at Trump's numbers with women outside of non-college educated white women) feel like this administration is openly hostile to them simply because of who they are. That's a choice Trump and the Republicans have made.

That sounds more like a choice that those minorities, immigrants, and many women have made.

Even by your standards, that's a jawdropper...

And I'd return the favor. Even by your standards, your comment is a jaw dropper.

You realize that just since your original comment, Trump has attacked more prominent African-Americans as "dumb" and not "smart" or a "dog," one of his aids is on tape admitting that the n-word tape exists, and the White House won't guarantee that we won't be hearing a tape with the President of the United States using the n-word. And one of his former executives has again relayed stories of Trump talking about "the blacks" and Puerto Ricans as lazy and untrustworthy because it's "in their nature".
But it's all on the minorities for choosing to be offended.
Good god. I don't know if you really believe that or are just trolling, but I think you're going on ignore.

I'm sorry, but I don't jump to the conclusion that every negative thing said about someone who happens to be a person of color is racially motivated.

And as far as the n-word tape, that is nothing more than an allegation at this point, and one that has been refuted by others. There are now numerous allegations that Hillary has used the n-word on many occasions. I don't think Hillary is a racist, and I don't think that language, if true, makes her one. What I think about Trump and Hillary is that they are both powerful people who are used to getting their way, and when they don't it pisses them off mightily.

If any n-word tape materializes, for either Trump or Hillary, I will certainly believe that they used the n-word. I believe they both probably did now, off what I know now. Does that make either one of them a racist? Not by itself, I'm going to look at the totality of what I know about both of them.

What you are choosing to ignore is that people of color who have worked for Donald Trump for years, and therefore would know him better than most anyone else, have said that he is not a racist. Could that be because they have been compensated in some way for saying that? That is absolutely possible, but I've seen no reason to believe that it actually is. I simply put more stock in that than I do in rumors and allegations.

Are you telling me that you have never, ever, not once in your life, used "dumb" or "not smart" or "stupid" or "dog" or even the n-word to describe anyone? Then, at least in that regard, you are a saint and not human. But if you have, and I suspect that you have, then that does not make you a racist, nor do I consider you one.

I guess JAAO's point is that there are no AA's who are not smart, so clearly any statement to that effect is racist.

I have been told I am not smart. It's right below in one of the football threads.

I have been been called "dog" before, including some black people saying it. (What's up, dog?) I didn't realize it was racist. I also have been called dogged, but maybe that is different.

I have also been told I respond to dog whistles. (By some of the people posting here.}

I guess us deplorables aren't smart enough to know when we are offended. Would some progressive tell when I am? I don't want to be a bitter clinger.

I could be wrong, but interesting that no one has mentioned Rep. John Delaney from Maryland's sixth district (western Maryland and a smattering of DC suburbs), considering he is one of only a few (if not the only person) who has declared themselves a presidential candidate for 2020.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-...e58fe2fcd4

If we want to add a clown show side ring --- anyone want to toss out ideas on who the Libertarian candidate will be?

I actually watched the Libertarian nominating convention on CSPAN in 2016 --- one of the most cringeworthy yet at the same time humorous events I have witnessed in 20 years.....

Or, does anyone think that an alternative Republican will toss in against the orange-one?