Why do we talk about candidates' policy positions?

[Recursion]

I'm genuinely curious on this one. Policy will be decided by the 60th Senator. Why aren't we examining Senate candidates this minutely? Presidents almost never make policy decisions.

[Demsrule86]

1. This is a good point...I think there is way too much policy in this primary...you should run on a

meme and a couple of issues that resonate...like health care...the ACA which help give us the midterms.

[emmaverybo]

5. I find the elaborate policy proposals and plans dizzying. Promoting and defending them obscures

our view of the candidates’ experience, qualifications, knowledge and insights in areas beyond the
policies. Though candidates try to link a particular proposal to a larger vision, or claim in aggregate
their disparate and detailed plans represent the key to say, economic or racial equality, this is simply untrue.

The majority of these ambitious plans will never be realized. Giving amnesty to all
student debt holders does not, for instance, create a magic economic growth bullet, or solve the problem of lack of economic opportunity for minority groups, or actually address the many issues
young people face as opportunity on many fronts narrows and competition for education, jobs, housing increases.

I do not hear how the plan happy candidates will address threats to existing social safety net programs—Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.

I want to scream Stop with your big and bold ideas for a minute and tell me why you, rather than your rivals, can defeat Trump. And tell me why you would make the best next leader of our nation, and the entire free world, how you have the best national and global qualifications as a commander in chief of a super-power even?

The plans feel like constant courting gestures meant to woo voting groups. Once the whole plan crazy thing started, now we have plans rather than people competing.

Ability to create policy is simply not the main duty a president must carry out. She need not be a
Think Tank spewing out innovative solutions in the form of this or that plan.

A two term president will need to prioritize what she will spend her political capital on, work with a big picture budget (meaning limitations), and deal with legislative realities. She will have neither the political will or financial means or time at her disposal to carry out a veritable wish list of plans plans and policies when even a few could take her entire two terms to implement.

Stop with the plans and tell me who you are, what you are about, and what distinct gifts you bring
aside from your stack of policy blueprints.

[wasupaloopa]

8. Well said

[Demsrule86]

2. K&R Thanks for posting.

[Garrett78]

3. Few want to acknowledge this, but all of our candidates would, more or less, govern the same way.

One would be just as limited as another in terms of getting progressive legislation passed. This is part of the reason Inslee wasn't ever going to gain traction. You can't run as a single-issue candidate. It's not like the other candidates are ignoring climate change or going to appoint a climate change denier to run the EPA.

Name recognition is a key driver at this juncture, followed by charisma. And charisma leads to greater media attention, which boosts name recognition.

Honestly, a big reason why I would prefer to see Harris become president is because of her race and sex. Not because I think she'd govern in a radically different way than another potential nominee. Breaking barriers is huge. We need to force more conversations about racism and sexism in this country, because those are demons that continue to plague us. If anyone is still unaware, I highly recommend checking out the 1619 Project from the NY Times.

[Recursion]

9. Right. They have the same rolodex

The most important thing Presidents do is appoint people. And I'm not even talking Cabinet secretaries; I'm talking the deputy assistant undersecretary for whatever who is the one who actually makes decisions day-to-day. And everybody in the Democratic party has the same rolodex at that level. It's really more a question of whose character you find best suited to the job.

[jberryhill]

4. I never get that about presidential elections

Name the last president whose campaigned-upon seven point plan to do that thing everyone wants done actually was enacted.

People argue about these things as if the president walks in with a suite of legislators who are going to make it happen, as if this were a parliamentary system.

[Lithos]

6. Politics is always local

Most of the time people think locally and emotionally.

you are asking people to think rationally and to think...

L-

[JI7]

7. according the the 2nd best rachel on Lawrence o'Donnell

based on what she said most voters actually aren't debating all the details and what she said showed why Biden was leading and why his wife's comments which are seen as negative by some will probably continue helping him.

[BeyondGeography]

10. It's more about giving voters a sense what you will fight for

Or if you will fight for them at all.

[Recursion]

11. I've never understood what "fight" means in this context

Are there underground boxing matches I'm unaware of?

[BeyondGeography]

12. So you don't know why we talk about policy and you don't understand what fighting for people means

And yet you support Warren. Ok. Fight is one of her most frequently used words on the stump FYI.

[Recursion]

13. So, can you tell me what "fight" means?

Are Presidents supposed to punch people? Scream at them?

[BeyondGeography]

14. Ask the author of "This Fight is our Fight"

[Recursion]

15. So, you can't, then. Got it.

I've noticed people shut down when confronted with this question. Must be uncomfortable.

To your question of why I like Warren, it's because she can go on TV and say "I voted for Ronald Reagan twice and this is not the Republican party I knew. I didn't leave the Republican party; it left me." And she will then soak up all the country club votes. The fact that I love her policies is nice, but won't really matter.

[BeyondGeography]

16. I support her because she's a most knowledgeable and competent fighter

And she fights for what’s right.

And if there’s one thing this party has sorely lacked since 1980 it’s fight.

[Recursion]

17. So, you can't say what "fight" means, but your diagnosis is that the party has lacked it?

OK, then.

[BeyondGeography]

18. Oh, and spine, you need a definition for that, too?

[Recursion]

19. So, is it that she appears angry on TV?

I mean, weird flex, but if that's what it takes for you to vote for somebody, OK.

[rampartc]

27. is that how you win fights with your spouse?

this is about priorities.

we talk about policy because there are details that need to be examined so that the best choices can be made. hopefully the winner will choose as advisors the people who can determine, and articulate, the best policy details.

[Recursion]

29. No, that's my point

I'd like to hear somebody who'd talking about "fight" or "spine" say WTF they actually mean, because as far as I can tell it's just magical thinking, like "if only Obama had gotten visibly angry, Republicans would have folded".

[betsuni]

20. It's like in reality tv cooking contest shows.

They're always saying how they have passion. They're not giving up, they're going to keep fighting. They have to bring their A game. They're not there to make friends. No one deserves this more than them. They don't want to go home.

That's my theory.

[Celerity]

21. I am always talking about the Senate, especially the big guns who are turning down running

Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2019, 07:13 AM - Edit history (6)

in most every one of the 12 possible flippable States.

Here is my completely up to date, most detailed post yet on the state of the races.

We need a plus 4 net to flip the Senate to a 51-49 Dem advantage (so no power sharing agreements needed at all) as it stands, and a plus 5 net if Paedo Moore is not the Rethug Alabama nominee (and even that bastard will be hard for Jones to beat in a POTUS year in Alabama) and we lose Doug Jones. We should absolute hold all our other seats. Jeanne Shaheen in NH is the only one that is probably not a 99% lock, with the Rethugs choosing between Don Bolduc, former U.S. Army brigadier general, Bill O'Brien, former Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, Kelly Ayotte, former U.S. Senator and former Attorney General of New Hampshire, Scott 'Pickup' Brown, U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa, former U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, and 2014 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from New Hampshire, and the lunatic Rump stooge (and Hope Hicks' ex BF/verbal abuser), Corey Lewandowski. Bolduc and Ayotte are probably their best shots there (with Bolduc worrying me the most), but I feel really good about our chances to hold it, due to Rump being between 11 and 17 points (depending on the poll) underwater overall in NH.


These are all the remotely possible races where we can flip, all 12 of them. Some are very much a stretch, and also we are having a lot of big names refuse to run, in fact, all the arguably best candidates in 10 of the 12 states have all refused, so far, to run.


These are the only 2 states ATM with our strongest possible candidates running:

Arizona (Mark Kelly has a great chance at beating McSally. This was (until Hickenlooper got smart) the only state so far that we had the best potential candidate already running.)

Colorado Hickenlooper now running makes it 90-95% that we flip this. Even if you do not think he is the best on policy, he still is the most electable. All I ask is that he knocks it off with the red-baiting (saying progressives are bringing back Stalin and Marx's policies), which is asinine and plays into the fucking Rethug's hands.


Now the ones who do NOT have our strongest candidates running as of yet:


Alaska (I hope Mark Begich, our ex US Senator there, runs versus Sullivan, he has said he was not, but now may change his mind.) If Begich ends up completely declining, then it will probably be between Ethan Berkowitz, the mayor of Anchorage, and Forrest Dunbar, Anchorage assemblyman and nominee for Alaska's at-large congressional district in 2014.

Maine (Susan Rice, who has said no quite emphatically, would have been the best to knock out the POS hypocrite Collins IMHO, but hopefully we can find another great one, it looks likely to be Sara Gideon atm, I think Gideon can take out Collins, just was more sure on Rice, but she is not going to run.)

Montana (The most glaring one, probably, grrrr as Bullock is basically the only one of ours who would have a great chance at beating Daines, I think Bullock would defeat him, but he has said dozens of times he will not run, I just heard him say it again today. Only redeemable way this works is if Biden makes him his VP pick, which I fully support, as that ticket is the hardest to attack for Rump and the Rethugs.) I think we MIGHT have a shot if Brian Schweitzer changes his mind and runs.

Tennessee (open Rethug seat, due to Alexander retiring, I so hope Tim McGraw (yes the superstar singer, who say for years he would run when he was 50, and he is 52 now) reconsiders his turndown, he would have the best shot from all I have seen, most of the other candidates we have are already one time losers, some just last year, or pretty unknown. The two I see who are the best should McGraw not change his mind are Jeff Yarbro and James Mackler)

Georgia (Stacey Abrams and Sally Yates would have had the best chances by far to beat Perdue, but each one has said no over and over, so it is going to be much harder I fear, even though Perdue is weak, and a shit campaigner. So far it looks like the best of the rest are Teresa Tomlinson and perhaps Jon Ossoff )

Kansas (open Rethug seat due to Roberts retiring, the right candidate for us has a shot, maybe Kathleen Sebelius, but she also just said no, and a big local paper says that really hurts our chances This is a carbon copy of Montana, just swap in Sebelius for Bullock, its a Red state and all the insiders say she is only Dem who can win.)

Iowa (Cindy Axne and Vilsack, probably our 2 best chances to beat Ernst, both have declined to run, but I have hope we can find another great candidate, Theresa Greenfield or Abby Finkenauer look to be the best of the rest, thsi is like Maine to me)

North Carolina (our two best candidates by far, Foxx and Stein, have both said no, grrr, I so hope one, especially Foxx, re-considers) Tillis is so ripe for the picking if we get one of those 2 to run, and still may have a shot if it is another, Cal Cunningham perhaps, or Erica Smith, but both will have a harder time that Stein or Foxx would have had. This one is so so irritating me.

now the two wishful thinking states:

Kentucky This is probably the 2nd toughest. Andy Beshear might have had a shot at dumping McTurtle, but he is running for Governor, Amy McGrath is who we are going to have to roll with, and it is not impossible, due to McConnell being truly hated even by some Rethugs, his overall approval numbers are worse than Rump by far, amongst the bottom in all the Senate. Overall a huge reach, but so hope Moscow Mitch goes DOWN. McGrath needs to make no more errors like the one she did right at kickoff (saying she would have voted yes for Kavanaugh for SCOTUS. The same thing crushed Bredeson in TN in 2018, so depressed our base turnout.)

Texas Cornyn in Texas is the toughest reach, IMHO, even if Beto runs (which I doubt he will.) Cornyn is streets ahead of Cruz in terms of TX popularity. I like Amanda Edwards a lot, I hope she wins the Primary, but, I do not see a pathway to anyone beating Cornyn unless something massive breaks our way.


We would need to win FIVE of those 12 to flip it to 51-49 IF Jones goes down in Alabama, and only CO is even close to one that I would say is a pretty good chance to label a semi-lock, and some are just downright so so hard, even if the best candidates change their minds and run. My true target is 6 flips, so we are at 52-48, and thus negate Manchin and Sinema, who vote with the Rethugs 55% of the time, far more than any other Democratic Senators. I SO hope Hickenlooper does not become the 3rd member of that posse, lolol.

Schumer and Cortez Masto have been so poor at recruiting the best candidates, it is one of the biggest stories of 2020 so far. I am going to give up on pulling the people who I think are strongest in ME, IA, (those two I can be happy with who we have) TX, and KY. We just have to roll with who we have there now. AZ and CO now have our best possible, so that leaves:

AK (Begich run!)
MT (Bullock run! or if he is VP, or if he refuses, Schweitzer run!)
TN (McGraw run!)
KS (Sebelius run!)
NC (Foxx and/or Stein run!)
GA (Abrams run! or Yates run! if Abrams is the VP or refuses still)

IF all those above change their minds and run, I can say, with at least 55% or more confidence, we will hit at least 6 flips, and maybe, IF Rump just gets crushed, win 10 of the 12, and if he goes down with (my biggest possible EC count giving us EVERY remotely possible EV) we may get all 12, plus keep Jones. If that happened we would have 59 seats, so one seat shy of a filibusterer proof majority, and one of the dead Red lock states is by far the best bet there to grab the magic number 60, that being Mike Rounds in SD going down, hopefully to ex Senator Tim Johnson's son, Brendan Johnson. The max possible EC victory count by the way, that paved the way for a 12 out of 12 sweep plus Jones holding and SD even maybe flipped, was our Dem POTUS nominee 472 - Rump 66. A girl can dream!

[Recursion]

22. I heard rumors about Pingree stepping up in maine

But that seems to have fizzled.

[Celerity]

23. ATM I think Gideon will be our nominee against Collins. Which Pingree btw?

Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2019, 06:34 AM - Edit history (1)

Hannah Pingree declined to run and endorsed Gideon. So has Steven King, and Seth Berry. Chellie Pingree, Hannah's mum, has not as of yet endorsed anyone. Nor has Susan Rice or Jared Golden or Angus King.

[Recursion]

28. Hannah was the buzz I heard a while back

But I'm not remotely plugged into the state rumor mill.

Though Chellie would be a good choice too if there's somebody to step in to that House seat.

[oasis]

24. Thanks Celerity, for your informative check list of our senate possibilities.

[Celerity]

25. yw!

[True Dough]

26. I wonder if Celerity could compose a treatise on any political topic?

She's like a walking encyclopedia. It's phenomenal, truly!

I rarely have a contradictory point to offer, but on this occasion I'll say the prospect of a Biden/Bullock ticket is never going to fly. Two white men won't (and shouldn't) be representing the Dems for POTUS and VP in 2020.

[Celerity]

30. I was tossing it out based off another poster's theory that running a female VP is too risky this

time due to endemic misogyny and sexism amongst the majority of all voters when it comes to the POTUS, evils that Rump will use at a blowtorch level. I suggested Deval Patrick or Cedric Richmond as PoC, non female options. Waiting to hear back from them.

my whole reply is here

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287248154#post28

I have my own limited theory, sort of in reverse, and not just limited to the POTUS, in regards to LGBTQ candidates at higher federal level. I think that lesbians and bi-females have a wee bit easier time than many gay male candidates due to a twist on the projection of feminine-based hate that acts upon the subconscious of bigots. We have, it seems, more LGBTQ females elected to the higher offices than openly (key word there) gay males. Even in A-A dominated Chicago, they elected Lori Lightfoot, an open lesbian, for instance, as mayor (granted not a federal office). Tammy Baldwin (lesbian) in Wisconsin and Kyrsten Sinema (bi-sexual) in AZ, are both Senators. The first openly LGBTQ elected head of state was a lesbian, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir of Iceland. Jared Polis, on the other hand, is a gay male and is now the Colorado Governor, so my theory is definitely not universal, by any means. I am probably just lesbian self-projecting, lolol.

[ancianita]

31. Thanks for this. This could be an OP, if you'd consider.

[Celerity]

32. will do