KCRag Forum

brewcrew1000 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:48 am If Beto loses does he have a chance to run as president in 2020? He seems like the best compromise between establishment democrats and Bernie democrats. I just don't see any other strong candidate by the left that can unite them. He seems to have enthusiasm nationwide even though he probably won't win in a month

Why would the DNC back a loser? That's the word on why they sent Kander packing.

Don't forget, if you live in Jackson County Missouri you can absentee vote at the Jackson County election headquarters in Independence between 8:30 and 5:30 any weekday, at 8:30 and 12:30 on Saturday. 215 N. Liberty, Independence, MO 64050. https://www.jcebmo.org/voter-informatio ... ee-voting/

Wait, the election board is on Liberty St in Independence. That has to have been on purpose.

It would only get more ironic if a PAC opened up on that street named Freedom, Inc and their purpose was to register people to vote.

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:48 am

brewcrew1000 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:48 am If Beto loses does he have a chance to run as president in 2020? He seems like the best compromise between establishment democrats and Bernie democrats. I just don't see any other strong candidate by the left that can unite them. He seems to have enthusiasm nationwide even though he probably won't win in a month

Why would the DNC back a loser? That's the word on why they sent Kander packing.

Because he is the only chance I see at getting the Democrats to win in 2020, he can unite the party and get the youth (Bernie) vote out. Nobody is going to show up if its some old out touch establishment democrat, it will be the same thing as having Hillary. If Beto ran for Senate in any Blue leaning state he would win easily. Beto having a slight chance in Texas is a glimmer of hope for the party in my opinion and should be embraced but if the Democrats go a different route and pick a Chuck Schumar establishment type then they have no chance of winning in 2020. Its all about uniting the party into one and a person like Beto does that.

brewcrew1000 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:08 am

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:48 am

brewcrew1000 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:48 am If Beto loses does he have a chance to run as president in 2020? He seems like the best compromise between establishment democrats and Bernie democrats. I just don't see any other strong candidate by the left that can unite them. He seems to have enthusiasm nationwide even though he probably won't win in a month

Why would the DNC back a loser? That's the word on why they sent Kander packing.

Because he is the only chance I see at getting the Democrats to win in 2020, he can unite the party and get the youth (Bernie) vote out. Nobody is going to show up if its some old out touch establishment democrat, it will be the same thing as having Hillary. If Beto ran for Senate in any Blue leaning state he would win easily. Beto having a slight chance in Texas is a glimmer of hope for the party in my opinion and should be embraced but if the Democrats go a different route and pick a Chuck Schumar establishment type then they have no chance of winning in 2020. Its all about uniting the party into one and a person like Beto does that.

I get the attraction to O'Rourke. But, there are hundreds of Dems out there with similar qualifications and characteristics as Beto. He is not some unicorn. I'd prefer someone with a bit more political experience/savvy, but he's fine too. I just say this so we don't limit ourselves (as Dems, I'm speaking). There's a decent chance we haven't even heard the name of the person that will eventually be the nominee - or at least heard it mentioned as a potential candidate. I'm fine letting the process play out - as we have seen a lot of people jump into politics that haven't before. Should be exciting.

Also the reason HIllary lost to Trump wasn't because she was old and establishment, it was because she was Hillary Clinton.

grovester wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:22 am Also the reason HIllary lost to Trump wasn't because she was old and establishment, it was because she was Hillary Clinton.

That said, I think old and establishment would be a mistake vs. Trump in 2020. You have to get some of the middle grounders excited about a new direction.

bobbyhawks wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 6:10 pm

grovester wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:22 am Also the reason HIllary lost to Trump wasn't because she was old and establishment, it was because she was Hillary Clinton.

That said, I think old and establishment would be a mistake vs. Trump in 2020. You have to get some of the middle grounders excited about a new direction.

Exactly if its Corey Booker in 2020 I will just write in a candidate again

Keep in mind that most people who are registered Democrats in our country are still establishment Democrats. Don't overestimate the population of progressive Democrats. They tend to congregate in a few coastal states that are already safe Democratic strongholds in the electoral college. What elects a president in this country is the electoral college, and the states a Democrat needs to win are not necessarily progressive/liberal bastions.

One has to also take into account independents, and they are not always liberal or progressive. In many states, a Democrat can only win that state's electoral votes by pulling in a certain percentage of the moderate independent voters.

For many people, anyone who is running a campaign touting free college, universal healthcare (which I support) scares the hell out of a lot voters--usually those who could afford college, and have always had health insurance through their job.

One should also not underestimate how lukewarm a lot of voters were about Hillary Clinton. There was a certain element of Clinton fatigue. I think there certainly were people who voted for Trump who would have voted for a Democrat instead had it been anyone other than Clinton.

A lot of people hated Hillary Clinton--even if they are hard-pressed to give a legitimate reason why. She puts a lot of people off. I've been a Democrat my entire adult life, and I would have preferred almost anyone to her getting the nomination. I worried that she couldn't win. It was a gut instinct based on years of hearing people have negative opinions of her--even among Democrats.

brewcrew1000 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:15 pm

bobbyhawks wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 6:10 pm

grovester wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:22 am Also the reason HIllary lost to Trump wasn't because she was old and establishment, it was because she was Hillary Clinton.

That said, I think old and establishment would be a mistake vs. Trump in 2020. You have to get some of the middle grounders excited about a new direction.

Exactly if its Corey Booker in 2020 I will just write in a candidate again

How'd that work out for you last time?

DaveKCMO wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:48 am

brewcrew1000 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:48 am If Beto loses does he have a chance to run as president in 2020? He seems like the best compromise between establishment democrats and Bernie democrats. I just don't see any other strong candidate by the left that can unite them. He seems to have enthusiasm nationwide even though he probably won't win in a month

Why would the DNC back a loser?

Ahem....

“Clinton staffers toyed with using 'because it's her turn' as a campaign rallying cry”
https://www.businessinsider.com/hilla ... -2017-4

Part of the problem is the primary process. A strong progressive (single payer, open borders, increased regulation, social programs, etc) will likely win the primary. But, that type of candidate won’t win the general election. The Democrats knew that last time so they cut Sanders legs out. It’s going to be a tough election if the progressive wing pushes for their candidate. That’s not where the majority of America is right now.

This is why there's a lot of people that like the idea of ranked voting.

It lets people have their preferred candidate as their top choice and when their vote is reallocated because they don't win, maybe their second choice will win. It's possible to come in second place in the first round and win

Nobody. Wants. Open. Borders.

WSPanic wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:29 am Nobody. Wants. Open. Borders.

Border control is like gun control. People who really want to come don't need an open border to do so.

WSPanic wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:29 am Nobody. Wants. Open. Borders.

Many of my progressive friends do. They want America open to anyone willing to travel here for the ’American Dream’, they talk about how everyone came from immigrants and we used to let everyone in, ‘it will help our economy’, Irish potato famine, ICE is evil, sanctuary cities, etc. The only people they would stop at the border are criminals and terrorists.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:02 am

WSPanic wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:29 am Nobody. Wants. Open. Borders.

Many of my progressive friends do. They want America open to anyone willing to travel here for the ’American Dream’, they talk about how everyone came from immigrants and we used to let everyone in, ‘it will help our economy’, Irish potato famine, ICE is evil, sanctuary cities, etc. The only people they would stop at the border are criminals and terrorists.

None of what you described is "Open Borders". We have never had open borders and never will. There are ZERO serious Dems (progressive or otherwise) that are advocating for "open borders".

ICE IS dangerous and has nothing to do with securing our borders. We actually have a Border Patrol that has existed for quite some time. ICE is a bunch of racist thugs ransacking our nation.

Potato Famine era immigrants had to go through a regulated border too. Just like immigrants today.

I have no idea what Sanctuary Cities have to with Open Borders - other than being Right Wing/Koch Brothers rhetoric. If there are really open borders, Sanctuary Cities are not necessary. So, your "friends" are obviously confused.

"Stopping people at the borders" is LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE OF OPEN BORDERS.

The fact that the Right wants to all-but-eliminate LEGAL immigration does not mean the left - or any of your friends - are advocating for an "Open Border".

WSPanic wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:14 am We have never had open borders and never will.

Border control was introduced around 1904. The agency was founded in 1924.

So if there was no formal patrol, what kind of control was there at the borders?

flyingember wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:16 pm

WSPanic wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:14 am We have never had open borders and never will.

Border control was introduced around 1904. The agency was founded in 1924.

So if there was no formal patrol, what kind of control was there at the borders?

If you want to win an argument based on pedantry, have at it. I'm not interested.

For the rest of us discussing 20th/21st century politics - any intelligent thoughts?

^ Do you believe in restricting people from entering this country besides those who are terrorists or criminals?