Yeah. No way the dude runs at that age. There'd certainly be just as much looking over the vice-president than the president in that case.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
Yeah. No way the dude runs at that age. There'd certainly be just as much looking over the vice-president than the president in that case.
BlastProcessing
Member
There is a pretty huge spectrum between expressing opinions publicly and being a spokesperson for the party.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Meh as long as he's still sharp I don't know how big of a deal it should be.
Note I said should, voters obsess over dumber things.
Meh I think Pence is pretty insulated from impeachment. Though sure, it could drag him hard in an actual election.
I think next cycle people will want a bit more experience. Were he mayor of NYC or maybe LA he could make an argument; I like him but he needs to move up the ladder a bit more first.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
When you have Clinton's profile? Honestly, not really. Any statement she makes will make the news in a relatively significant way. She can't help but dominate discourse if she decides to participate. And that's bad for the party.
If you love her, let her go.
Outside of being vocal, nothing? I actually don't have a problem with the podcast circuit most Democrats seem to be on right now.
I'm just pointing out that there isn't some big plan in motion right now that Hillary Clinton is spoiling by merely doing an interview. I mean, we want to talk about an echo chamber? Lets talk about how ridiculous the Hillary hate has gotten. It's like people are actively searching her out just so they can complain about her.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Biden could be 95 and he'd still be healthier than Trump.
It's not "like", they are actually doing that.
No, it's not.
Bernie could be like any of the Democratic senators minding their business and tending to their constituencies. But instead he chooses to "debate" Cruz and Kasich on CNN and openly criticize D candidates who don't conform to his rigid idea of progressiveness. That is not his job.
Or the fact that she can only get attention because every other Democrat is going to keep their heads low to avoid being a real target into 2020, which is what they should be doing if they want to run then. Standing up now is just asking for Trump and Fox News to go straight for the bullseye to avoid how badly Russia and their tanking agenda is hurting them, for some good old fashion 'stop the Dems from winning' cheerleading.
BlastProcessing
Member
If someone else wants to step up and lead the post mortem conversation, they are more than welcome to do so. Clinton has a role to play here in the transition to the future of the party. Her new organization is structured to do just that.
Mr.Shrugglesã
Banned
Uh, he's the outreach person for the dems.
Who are you even addressing?
Watching the coverage of Clinton's interview and the reactions, I'm having a hard time understanding why it bothers people so much. Her opinion is hers, she's not running for office, not an elected official, and I'm pretty sure the DNC and DCCC aren't calling her for instructions of what to do next. So I'm not seeing where the harm is short of Twitter/social media pushback and the usual "party hasn't learned a thing" narrative.
Touche!
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
Mr.Shrugglesツ;238742097 said:
He is doing bad job at it.
BlastProcessing
Member
Mr.Shrugglesツ;238742097 said:
It would help if the outreach person for the Dems was actually a member of the Democratic Party. He is filling a vacuum and I don't blame him for doing so (he has always been a very crafty politician when it comes to consolidating attention and power), but the party's first objective should be making his ass irrelevant.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Biden will likely be a kingmaker. 2020 should be someone who can work two terms.
Uh oh....is he doing badly in early voting?
Yes, push out the most popular politician around and make him irrelevant. Smart.
Nah, this is about Bernie shitting on him and having to get the screws put to him to fix it.
Personal popularity doesn't translate to building a party or organization that can function without that celebrity. See: Obama, Barack.
Would be a considerable downgrade from Clinton and you'd be hard pressed to convince me he could pull off 2 terms.
They can't make him irrelevant. That's the entire reason they gave him the "outreach" position to begin with. They're very clearly giving him token signs of power and hoping he plays along when 2020 comes around.
So you would want to push out Obama too? Having public faces that people like is not mutually exclusive to having a strong electoral organization. Can and should do both.
edit: and it shouldn't just be Bernie. The more the merrier. And it's ok if they disagree some.
he's run and won statewide twice as Lt Governor.
Frankly, 78 is simply too old. I don't even care about the individual, that's just too old for the presidency, period.
I'm not sure how he escapes all the Flynn stuff. Pence was head of the transition when Flynn was looked at, and we know some people (like Rep. Cummings) were sending questions and warnings about Flynn's activities during that period.
Wait, so you would want to make Obama irrelevant if he wasn't already...? You guys are nutso.
Popularity and likability are assets, not liabilities. Popularity and likability are not enough on their own, but they certainly help.
Perez actively ran against Obama's tenure as party leader in his campaign for the chair!
They are good things, but they do not translate into party support downballot! Think of it as a resource curse- once the resource dries up (Obama stops running) suddenly you have massive issues relative to the other party who had to learn to fight without it!
Elitism Is Liberalism's Biggest Problem (Ids a real problem but also doesn't really offer a strong way to counter it so I'm left a bit frustrated)
The Daily 202: The GOP's invisible agenda (Unsurprisingly, Republicans in special elections aren't running on their agenda but more on "fuck Democrats!")
A fair counterpoint. I was just relaying what I had heard from other places
Any coverage of Hilary has been "bitch eating crackers" meme personified for ages now :/
Yeah that's why I'm not super concerned about "who is the leader of the Democratic party?" questions. I just want them to say the right things, vote the right way and put work into building up local parties/work to win local elections.
The Daily 202: The GOP's invisible agenda (Unsurprisingly, Republicans in special elections aren't running on their agenda but more on "fuck Democrats!")
A fair counterpoint. I was just relaying what I had heard from other places
Any coverage of Hilary has been "bitch eating crackers" meme personified for ages now :/
Yeah that's why I'm not super concerned about "who is the leader of the Democratic party?" questions. I just want them to say the right things, vote the right way and put work into building up local parties/work to win local elections.
BlastProcessing
Member
That's not what I said. I said to make him irrelevant. You do that by doing a better job with his own message than he does. He is an Independent who has ideas that are popular but he won't join the party. So you need to take his ideas into the party. If Sander's popularity only generates from a cult of personality then he isn;t useful to the party either way. If it's his ideas that are connecting with people, than you takes those in.
I am basically talking about a Microsftian Embrace, Extend, Extinguish sort of strategy.
I would say that iwe are still in the Embrace step.
Not sure where you're getting this "party leader" stuff from. I responded to someone suggesting we should make the most popular politician "irrelevant." I wish other dems would follow Sanders' lead and do more of this public-facing dialog. You guys live in this bizarro land where you think Sanders is still sabotaging the dem party but the sort of stuff he's doing is great for the party and we could use more of it.
I'm aware (hence "not enough on their own"), but that's only a problem if they let it be. Obama being popular didn't stop the party from better organizing -- they just got lazy. We should be aspiring for both popular well liked figureheads and strong electoral organization -- anything less is self sabotage.
At some point you're going to have to accept that Bernie on occasion will draw a line in the sand between him and Democrats while being in a Democrat outreach tour or whatever it's called. That can and has left party members with a sour taste. That's Bernie's right and he can do his thing, but with it comes criticism and desire to not put him on a plane above the rest.
shinra-bansho
Member
What did that dastardly bitch eating crackers do today.
Macho Madness
Member
At the same time, people like honesty (or at least the presentation of honesty in Trump's case) and criticizing people from your side is honest. Not everyone on the same side agrees all the time and pretending that's the case comes across as phony because it is.
Aaron Strife
Banned
The main hang-up is that we'd need GOP votes to impeach anyone. Even if Democrats succeed in removing Trump from office, I don't see the GOP letting them remove Pence and thus leading to the Democratic Speaker as president.
If Pence looks blatantly guilty I suppose I could see an arrangement where Pence gets to appoint a GOP VP before leaving, thus keeping the presidency in Republican hands. Someone like Powell (yes, he's basically a hawkish Democrat now) or Kasich (ugh).
TestOfTide
Banned
Mr.Shrugglesツ;238742097 said:
No one that Bernie has stumped for has won yet. I'll be generous and give his 4 years to produce results and admit that some of the races managed to get close when they previous considered safe red, but Howard Dean proved his worth by getting results.
I'm not gonna call Bernie successful outreach guy until I see proof that he can convince rural white voters to vote for democrats.
whyamihere
Banned
Well, Bernie has far higher favorables than Hillary does. Especially among key voting blocks. From a pragmatic point, wouldn't you want him to be talking and Hillary not to, even if you're a Hillary fan?
Exist apparently.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
LOL wow, after hannity was all "OMG getting advertisers to pull from my show is umm, attacking my freedom of speech" and all claiming that the left wants to remove his freedom of speech, he is telling his viewers to boycott maddow + others. This of course confirms he is a hypocritical moron who doesn't understand that freedom of speech has nothing to do with him having a talk show.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/335785-conservative-groups-targeting-maddow-advertisers
Also funny is this group calls media matters using fascists tactics or whatever but they'll do the same thing they're doing. Again, hypocritical af.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/335785-conservative-groups-targeting-maddow-advertisers
Also funny is this group calls media matters using fascists tactics or whatever but they'll do the same thing they're doing. Again, hypocritical af.
I think some of you are obsessing over this purity test with his party label when it doesn't really matter. Personally, I think it's actually an asset:
A growing number of people can relate to his decision to stay independent. Dems need left-leaning independents -- excluding left-leaning independents from the process will only hurt dems. Dems embrace Sanders, left-leaning independents feel like they're part of the big tent -- feel listened to. Doesn't matter who's registered as a dem, what matters is votes and results. This obsession over party labels just feels like petty partisan nonsense to a lot of people. And if you really want to get Sanders and other left-leaning independents to adopt the dem label, you'll need to evolve the party to fit them. Personally I kind of lean toward a coalition approach -- don't worry about the labels so much.
Sanders seems to be doing this stuff on his own -- afaik, it's not the party setting up these TV debates, so who's putting him on a plane above the rest? Nothing stopping others from doing the same and I've already said I want to see more people doing it. I'm not as anxious about disagreements between Sanders and mainstream dems -- I think there's room for it in a larger coalition and it can actually be healthy. If some dems disagree with Sanders, they can step up and be louder without silencing Sanders while he's helping in his own way.
His viewers watch Maddow? Does he understand his audience?
BlastProcessing
Member
In the sort term, maybe. If we are talking about the long term future of the party, I'm not so sure. One of the roles that Clinton is serving right now is going out and saying difficult things. Since she is going to get attacked whatever she says, she is actually a pretty good person to get those thing out there.
Her attacking the DNCs performance is going to carry more weight than if Bernie did it and Bernie isn't going to touch the Russia stuff because his primary focus is still his own popularity and his own message. Let him focus on that and let Clinton go out and draw a bunch of shit for saying things that need to be said.
shinra-bansho
Member
I don't really see anything wrong with either of them talking. Neither is doing it that well though really.
Also I fully expect one day there will be literally be a story about Clinton eating crackers. And why it's terrible.
Also I fully expect one day there will be literally be a story about Clinton eating crackers. And why it's terrible.
Very true, but I hope you agree that there's a right and wrong way to go about doing that depending on the circumstances. From my view his approach has been more on the reckless side. I'll take a critique from Warren different than I would Bernie because I'm more likely to hear more substantive reason from one over the other.
Hillary's not actively doing public outreach! She's having anything she does blown up by people who are watching her for things to be outraged and upset by!
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
As I've said before, Sanders isn't going away. I fear that if he isn't offered a part on the ticket or in an administration, his supporters will once again screw over democrats during an election.
- Status