Don't forget Israel https://electronicintifada.net/conte...alestine/25746

Yes, he was running statewide in Texas.

He is no longer doing so.

Why are you guys discussing someone not old enough to be president?

Dude's 46 Chillrob.

I didn't mean Beto. A few people have been talking about someone by initials AOC. Wasn't sure who that referred to, so googled it and found a woman who is 29.

My chief impression of 'representation' as something to worry about is its use as a shiny object to launder candidates who are objectively unpalatable to anything seriously termed 'the left'. And given that recent years have seen socialists, trans people, and socialist trans people winning elections, and I don't mean in CA or NY, I think most of your concerns are misplaced.

The real worry, to my mind, is centrist Dems deciding, in the face of e.g. Candidate Sanders, that they are, after all, the moderate Republicans the left has always called them. But if that happens, the blame will be on them, not on Sanders.

It seems like there is a percentage of the left that is hell bent on having white straight dude representation regardless of all else. I think that there is a real possibility that we **** it all up by either nominating someone that won't do well in a general election bc of alienating the average democrat and/or non political potential voter or nominating someone that is probably a safe choice but that ends up getting a lot of backlash b/c of identity politics or failing to align 100% with the rightmost of the populous.

Missed one thing.

And yeah, people openly say this supposedly because they think it's the way for dems to win.

Medicare for all is supported by about half the Republicans in the country. What issue is there where a Dem candidate can so easily be more in line with a huge percentage of GOP voters than their GOP opponent?

I couldn't find a poll specifically for M4A in Texas, but Medicare expansion, replace and not repeal, increase accessibility, and spend more on healthcare are all broadly popular there.

If Hillary runs, is she the favorite?

Absolutely not.

But her chances are greater than zero, so it would be a problem.

Her chances are not so far above zero as to constitute a problem. I really think the odds of Kasich being the GOP nominee are better than Hillary's of being the Dem nominee, and the former would take a pretty ridiculous fluke.

Clinton joining might be good for the cause?? She helps EVEN MORE turn it into "everyone vs. Bernie" (which, I think, is a big plus for Bernie in a field this large even without Clinton?) and just siphons from Biden/Beto/everyone else.

obv running

Here's one take: https://jacobinmag.com/2018/12/beto-...20-senate-race

The dems have nobody .its the end of the world as we know it .

Morons like that guy who wrote the anti-Beto piece are letting perfect be the enemy of good.

In "please not Joe Biden" news:


https://twitter.com/ebruenig/status/1074480896261144576


https://twitter.com/curaffairs/statu...81133370507264



Current Affairs: Joe Biden’s Record On Racial Integration Is Indefensible

The article goes on to provide very strong support for this claim with examples

Leftists such as myself are totally cool with settling for just "the good"; assuming another inspiring further left candidate does not come along, I will hold my nose and vote for Bernie.

It has nothing to do with perfect. It's one thing to stay home and not vote for Beto in the general b/c he's not progressive enough, or to want a more progressive candidate with a slim chance of winning the general to get the nomination over a Beto who has a huge advantage over the Rep nominee. But if you don't think Beto is progressive enough, why wouldn't you prefer a more progressive candidate emerge who is also favored in the general? Or are you already convinced two years ahead of the election and before campaigning has begun that Beto is the best candidate to beat Trump?

They would rather lose with Beto than win with a progressive. Quite a few of them, deep down, at the very core, are glad they lost with Clinton rather than winning with Bernie.

I mean of course. Are people arguing otherwise?

He clearly is. Nothing will happen in the next two years to change Beto's personality advantage over the rest of the field.

Whether or not you should support him in the primary is a different question. How he would govern should obviously play into that calculation.

it doesnt take complicated analysis to understand how these things would play out. states that are consistently a certain party would benefit the opposite party by being split up. so while texas being split in 5 would help the dems, cali being split in 5 would likewise help the repubs.

one of my recent predictions that thankfully has not come to fruition is that I expected the states in republican control at the state level, ie state house and state gov, that tend to go dem for pres, would pass some sort of law that would enact proportional electoral votes.

I think VA has flipped the gov since but it would be an example. it always goes dem but it had repub control of the house. if they could make it proportional, then the repubs would get a couple EC votes out of it rather than all of them going to the dems.

Well I wasn't quite sure to make of

Interesting tangent

A real proposal to split CA into 3 states that made the ballot (but then was struck from it by the courts) would have created two liberal states and one slightly blue swing state (southern CA). So, that might have helped Dems. On average you'd probably see something like 5 D/1 R from the new states in the Senate.