The IMO Most Important Election

[IMPress Polly]

The main election contest I'm watching next month is the one for the governorship of Florida. In contrast to other statewide races we're seeing this year, Florida's gubernatorial contest will pit a genuine progressive against a true blue ideological Trump-alike, thus serving as our clearest indicator of whether it is possible for a genuinely left wing candidate to defeat a far right opponent, such as say President Trump, at this juncture of American history. Right now the progressive Democrat, Andrew Gillum, enjoys a small lead in the polls against the hardcore Trump-alike Ron DeSantis. If Gillum indeed emerges victorious, that outcome will be notable, I think, in building a case as to whether the Democrats need to pick a standard-issue, pro-corporate centrist candidate like they always do (as Joe Biden) to go up against Donald Trump in 2020 or whether it is just as viable, if not more so, for the Democrats to choose someone in the progressive mold like a Gillibrand (my preference), a Warren, a Booker, or of course a Sanders.

While the resistance has produced a populist wave of nominees on the Democratic side -- a wave that consists disproportionately of hitherto non-politicians with jobs like teacher, pilot, etc. etc. -- it has been driven principally by a kind of suburban populism, not so much the youthful, urban- and campus-based populism that we in this country refer to as progressivism. In as far as progressives have been nominated, it's been mainly to represent individual House districts or for more local offices. Democratic nominations for state-level contests, such as those for governorships or U.S. Senate seats, have, in contrast, largely gone to the more neoliberal candidates. Andrew Gillum's successful nomination to for the position of Florida Governor is an exception to this rule. And it is even more rare for such candidates to wind up pitted against true ideological Trump-alikes like DeSantis rather than generic neoconservative Republicans.

That's all. Just wanted to throw that out there as something to keep an especially close eye on next month for the reasons cited.

[Chris]

What I see in the blue wave is new faces with old agendas. I think overconfidence will result in another red tide. The left will then ramp up the violence in frustration.

[Captdon]

Trump is President and the republicans are going to keep the Senate. They have a chance to keep the House. I doubt this is that important.

In the House- since 1862 the party in the WH has lost seats 70 times out of 77 elections. Just tossing that out there.

[Don29palms]

The fact that anyone can take any of the socialist demonrat nominees seriously shows the insanity in this country.

[Captain Obvious]

The fact that anyone can take any of the socialist demonrat nominees seriously shows the insanity in this country.

Find a new term... please, it's embarrassing.

[Chris]

How you going to beat this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc930LVn1NQ


:)

[Hoosier8]

Gilliam supports Sanders Medicare for all that estimates ‘on the conservative side’ a doubling of income taxes to pay for it.

[Don29palms]

Find a new term... please, it's embarrassing.

If you don't like it ignore me.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
How you going to beat this?

That case is so cynical that I feel it defeats itself. It is not as though Mr. Trump hasn't personally advocated and defended violence against people who oppose his agenda, including as recently as two days ago (https://www.today.com/video/trump-praises-montana-congressman-who-assaulted-reporter-1348078659639?v=railb&). There's no moral authority there and everyone with a functioning brain knows it.

More compellingly, the issues we see topping voter priorities in the polls are, for the most part, ones that Republicans don't currently poll well on: health care, immigration, gun violence, tax policy...the person of Donald Trump. In Florida, there is the issue of red tide in the water (consequential of run-off from factory farming in the middle of the state) that also polls as a priority issue among the voters there. The economy is the exception to that rule, but isn't likely to singularly override all those other things in the minds of most voters.

There is also the issue of the unnecessarily ballooning national deficit to account for, mostly as a result, at this point, of the new tax cuts for the wealthy combined with increases mainly in military spending introduced under the current administration. Debt growth, in fact, is the primary driver of our economy at this point, and that isn't sustainable. Also, the opioid epidemic has gone largely unaddressed and only continued to worsen under the current president. And the tariffs are largely unpopular. And rape culture is unpopular. And most people tend to believe the Mueller probe more than they do Trump's version of the 2016 events. And most people dislike Trump's lax environmental policies. So yeah, Trump and his governing Republican Party have a few issues to account for on.

[Captain Obvious]

Gilliam supports Sanders Medicare for all that estimates ‘on the conservative side’ a doubling of income taxes to pay for it.

I thought the super wealthy paid all of the income taxes.

[Chris]

That case is so cynical that I feel it defeats itself. It is not as though Mr. Trump hasn't advocated and defended violence against people who oppose his agenda, including as recently as two days ago (https://www.today.com/video/trump-praises-montana-congressman-who-assaulted-reporter-1348078659639?v=railb&). There's no moral authority there and everyone with a functioning brain knows it.

More compellingly, the issues we see topping voter priorities in the polls are, for the most part, ones that Republicans don't currently poll well on: health care, immigration, gun violence, tax policy...the person of Donald Trump. In Florida, there is the issue of red tide in the water (consequential of run-off from factory farming in the middle of the state) that also polls as a priority issue among the voters there. The economy is the exception to that rule, but isn't likely to singularly override all those other things in minds of most voters.

There is also the issue of the unnecessarily ballooning national deficit to account for, mostly as a result, at this point, of the new tax cuts for the wealthy combined with increases mainly in military spending introduced under the current administration. Debt growth, in fact, is the primary driver of our economy at this point, and that isn't sustainable. Also, the opioid epidemic has gone largely unaddressed and only continued to worsen under the current president. And the tariffs are largely unpopular. And rape culture is unpopular. And most people tend to believe the Mueller probe more than they do Trump's version of the 2016 events. And most people dislike Trump's lax environmental policies. So yeah, Trump and his governing Republican Party have a few issues to account for on.


Yet for most people it rings true these days, as the left becomes increasingly unhnged and the economy becomes better and better, that message resonates.

The issues you speak of are issues Demoncrats have lost on, the country is tired of those promises.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like or support Trump....or the Democrats.

[Captain Obvious]

In Japan it's the most important erection

[Hoosier8]

I thought the super wealthy paid all of the income taxes.

Largest amount. Sanders proposed a 20% increase on everyone.

[Green Arrow]

I can’t get super thrilled about it. It’s a midterm election. I always vote, but 70% of voters typically don’t.

[IMPress Polly]

I can’t get super thrilled about it. It’s a midterm election. I always vote, but 70% of voters typically don’t.

"Thrilled" might be an exaggeration of my sentiment, but I am interested.

Anyway, reportedly, early voting turnout appears to generally be much higher this year than in 2014 so far. We will see. I feel that the crop of candidates that the Democrats have chosen will not motivate younger voters to the polls so much as suburban homemakers, but the case of Andrew Gillum may be an exception to that rule, I feel.

[Green Arrow]

"Thrilled" might be an exaggeration of my sentiment, but I am interested.

Anyway, reportedly, early voting turnout appears to generally be much higher this year than in 2014 so far. We will see. I feel that the crop of candidates that the Democrats have chosen will not motivate younger voters to the polls so much as suburban homemakers, but the case of Andrew Gillum may be an exception to that rule, I feel.

Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE some of the options this cycle, like Gillum in Florida and Bredesen (Senate) in Tennessee. It’s just boring for me because so many people don’t vote and my own elections here in Louisiana are boring. Neither of our Senate seats are up for election this year and our House district is nothing to get excited about (and also pre-determined Republican).

[IMPress Polly]

Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE some of the options this cycle, like Gillum in Florida and Bredesen (Senate) in Tennessee. It’s just boring for me because so many people don’t vote and my own elections here in Louisiana are boring. Neither of our Senate seats are up for election this year and our House district is nothing to get excited about (and also pre-determined Republican).

I thought you lived in Tennessee?

[Green Arrow]

I thought you lived in Tennessee?

I moved to Louisiana in March 2017. Partially for a better job opportunity, partially because my wife wanted to be closer to her family after the Great Flood of 2016.

[IMPress Polly]

I moved to Louisiana in March 2017. Partially for a better job opportunity, partially because my wife wanted to be closer to her family after the Great Flood of 2016.

So you've narrowly evaded finding yourself trapped in the Taylor-Swift-endorses-Democrats controversy? :wink:

[Green Arrow]

So you've narrowly evaded finding yourself at the Taylor-Swift-endorses-Democrats controversy? :wink:

Lol, yep. Although I do wish I could still vote for Bredesen. Blackburn is a curse.

[IMPress Polly]

Lol, yep. Although I do wish I could still vote for Bredesen. Blackburn is a curse.

Well fret not of any boredom because you know how this goes: we'll scarcely be through the holiday season before the 2020 election season kicks off with the first candidacies being announced. For once, I am, on a certain level, looking forward to it. It can't get here fast enough for me this time around. Even though I think we can already predict the disappointing likely outcome, the process should at least be of definite interest. More so than usual anyway. What one-third of the Democratic Senators are considered potential contenders this time around? Plus Biden for sure and a couple of billionaires maybe? Hell, I've even seen Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York and Governor Jerry Brown of California named as possible contenders. Could be a crowded field this time around. It seems like everyone wants to go up against Trump. That should create some interest.

[Don29palms]

Why are people so eager to turn this country into Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea or Russia? Hopefully people will wake up and see the lunacy of the demonrat party.

[IMPress Polly]

Why are people so eager to turn this country into Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea or Russia? Hopefully people will wake up and see the lunacy of the demonrat party.

I don't think you've been paying very close attention, Don.

[Chris]

I don't think you've been paying very close attention, Don.

Actually, when I brought the socialist economist Heilbroner into the libertarian discussion it was taken from an article I was reading criticizing the left's same-old same-old this time it's going to work politics.

Civil Liberties and Socialism Don’t Mix (http://reason.com/archives/2018/10/18/civil-liberties-and-socialism-dont-mix)


In 1981, the socialist economist and best-selling author Robert Heilbroner took to the pages of the democratic socialist magazine, Dissent, to answer what would seem like a rather academic question, "What is Socialism?" His answer was a raw, honest, and devastating critique of democratic socialism from a man wrestling with his faith. In his essay, Heilbroner—reminiscent of a similar definitional debate today among progressives and socialists—explained that socialism is not a more generous welfare state along Nordic lines. Instead, it is something entirely different, an economic and cultural configuration that suppresses if not eliminates the market economy and the alienating and selfish culture it produces.

[skipping Heilbroner's criticism of socialism as a command econony]

Most of today's democratic socialists, however, don't have the same doubts or circumspection of Heilbroner. The resurgent Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) argue that under democratic socialism "individual civil and political rights…which are routinely violated, would be strengthened, and public resources would be devoted to the development of a genuinely free press and a democratically-administered mass media." Lefty Brooklyn College professor Corey Robin—in a howler of a puff piece for The New York Times on "The New Socialists" such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders—argues that "what the socialist seeks is freedom."

This rhetoric, however, is profoundly ignorant of history and the internal logic of socialist ideology, as Heilbroner diagnosed it, or it's artifice. There is only one kind of democracy that socialists can create, and that is an illiberal one, where the "majority"—I suspect some kind of vanguard in reality—engages, yet once again, in massive experiments in social engineering in an attempt purge people of their nasty habits.

Democratic socialists will no doubt sneer at such an argument, but how could it be otherwise when the self-proclaimed goal of democratic socialists, according to DSA member and Jacobin staff writer Meagan Day, is to "end capitalism." To engage in such a project, however, can lead nowhere else but tyranny....


So Don29palms is on target in his criticism.

[Don29palms]

I don't think you've been paying very close attention, Don.
I have been paying very close attention to the idiocy going on. Since socialism is suppose to be so great then why don't people move to a socialist country instead of staying in the US and trying to destroy it?

[Chris]

I have been paying very close attention to the idiocy going on. Since socialism is suppose to be so great then why don't people move to a socialist country instead of staying in the US and trying to destroy it?

Because everywhere socialism is tried it fails. Venezuela just the latest.

[Mini Me]

Gilliam supports Sanders Medicare for all that estimates ‘on the conservative side’ a doubling of income taxes to pay for it.

Well, that's never going to fly! So forget about it.

[Captdon]

The fact that anyone can take any of the socialist demonrat nominees seriously shows the insanity in this country.

A lot of freeloaders to appeal to.

[Mini Me]

Why are people so eager to turn this country into Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea or Russia? Hopefully people will wake up and see the lunacy of the demonrat party.
C'mon! Get real!

[Mini Me]

Freinds, don't let friends vote Rethuglican!

https://i.postimg.cc/NFgRr7vr/DE0-Moev-Vw-AAVHk3.jpg

[Captdon]

That case is so cynical that I feel it defeats itself. It is not as though Mr. Trump hasn't personally advocated and defended violence against people who oppose his agenda, including as recently as two days ago (https://www.today.com/video/trump-praises-montana-congressman-who-assaulted-reporter-1348078659639?v=railb&). There's no moral authority there and everyone with a functioning brain knows it.

More compellingly, the issues we see topping voter priorities in the polls are, for the most part, ones that Republicans don't currently poll well on: health care, immigration, gun violence, tax policy...the person of Donald Trump. In Florida, there is the issue of red tide in the water (consequential of run-off from factory farming in the middle of the state) that also polls as a priority issue among the voters there. The economy is the exception to that rule, but isn't likely to singularly override all those other things in the minds of most voters.

There is also the issue of the unnecessarily ballooning national deficit to account for, mostly as a result, at this point, of the new tax cuts for the wealthy combined with increases mainly in military spending introduced under the current administration. Debt growth, in fact, is the primary driver of our economy at this point, and that isn't sustainable. Also, the opioid epidemic has gone largely unaddressed and only continued to worsen under the current president. And the tariffs are largely unpopular. And rape culture is unpopular. And most people tend to believe the Mueller probe more than they do Trump's version of the 2016 events. And most people dislike Trump's lax environmental policies. So yeah, Trump and his governing Republican Party have a few issues to account for on.

Polly, you are going to have a hard time explaining the Republicans remaining in control of the Senate at the very least. The Democrats are no longer talking about a Blue Wave. If they don't take the House they are done for a generation.

The rest may be important to you but aren't issues to the average voter. The voter wants healthcare reform, immigration reform and the economy. The democrats can't win on the economy, obviously.

That leaves them with immigration which they have no answer and healthcare. Only healthcare can be a winner for them.

Most people do not believe Mueller has anything. That's not even being talked about much anymore.

I don't know why you think tariffs are an issue with Trump winning on every front.

The "rape culture" is imaginary. No one accepts rape as alright. No one.Only hardcore feminists are talking about it.

[Captdon]

I don't think you've been paying very close attention, Don.

A lot of people want to be President. It has nothing to do with Trump. Not one of them can beat him. If Hillary couldn't why would you think anyone else can?

[Captdon]

Well, that's never going to fly! So forget about it.


Doubling the income tax still falls 1.5 trillion short. They will have to double the Social Security and Medicare taxes as well.

Trump will beat them with their own issue. Tell people to "add up the federal deductions, double them, subtract form their pay and see how you like that."

[Green Arrow]

A lot of people want to be President. It has nothing to do with Trump. Not one of them can beat him. If Hillary couldn't why would you think anyone else can?

Besides the fact that she was one of the worst candidates in U.S. history?

[Captain Obvious]

Besides the fact that she was one of the worst candidates in U.S. history?
Who is a good mainstream democratic candidate?

[Chris]

Who is a good mainstream democratic candidate?

Biden?

[Captain Obvious]

Biden?

Agreed, I would have considered voting for him but I was wondering what GA thought.

[Green Arrow]

Who is a good mainstream democratic candidate?

Depends on how you define "mainstream." I think Gillibrand can be a good mainstream candidate, so can Booker. I get a lot of 2008 Obama vibes from Booker. I think Biden could be a good mainstream candidate but I don't think he'll be as effective against Trump as he would against a generic Republican. I had considered Warren a good candidate before her DNA test misfire, that was poorly handled and makes me question how she would handle other issues in a national campaign. I like Bernie and Tulsi Gabbard, but I wouldn't consider them mainstream Democratic candidates.

[Captain Obvious]

Depends on how you define "mainstream." I think Gillibrand can be a good mainstream candidate, so can Booker. I get a lot of 2008 Obama vibes from Booker. I think Biden could be a good mainstream candidate but I don't think he'll be as effective against Trump as he would against a generic Republican. I had considered Warren a good candidate before her DNA test misfire, that was poorly handled and makes me question how she would handle other issues in a national campaign. I like Bernie and Tulsi Gabbard, but I wouldn't consider them mainstream Democratic candidates.

You don't think Bernie is mainstream - at least from a popularity standpoint?

How does Biden not do well against Trump? Just curious.

[Green Arrow]

You don't think Bernie is mainstream - at least from a popularity standpoint?
Well, that's why I asked how you defined mainstream. From a popularity standpoint sure, Bernie is mainstream. I was looking at it from a political standpoint, he's not part of the establishment in any meaningful capacity.

How does Biden not do well against Trump? Just curious.
Trump's campaign was mostly a giant middle finger to Obama, I don't see Obama's former VP being a super viable candidate because he's too close to Obama. Then again, Biden would have some appeal with moderate Republicans who don't like Trump (appeal Hillary did not have) as well as independents (who again found Hillary to be a harder sell). I dunno, the more I think about it the more I think he could have a decent shot.

[Captain Obvious]

Well, that's why I asked how you defined mainstream. From a popularity standpoint sure, Bernie is mainstream. I was looking at it from a political standpoint, he's not part of the establishment in any meaningful capacity.

Trump's campaign was mostly a giant middle finger to Obama, I don't see Obama's former VP being a super viable candidate because he's too close to Obama. Then again, Biden would have some appeal with moderate Republicans who don't like Trump (appeal Hillary did not have) as well as independents (who again found Hillary to be a harder sell). I dunno, the more I think about it the more I think he could have a decent shot.
ok

Moderates have short memories thought IMO

[Raffishragabash]

Most people do not believe Mueller has anything...

I tried hard sir but I continually failed to see how this is based, in logic, when you compare it to Trump's wingmen on the day before Mueller was appointed for this job.

From what I remember on the day before Mueller was appointed, there were zero felonies shown on CNN and zero plea bargains and zero Prison Sentences awaiting. Yes and there was nada nil nothing re: cooperating with investigators. That is not the case today, so logically, if the Dems win the House then Trump gets impeached in the House.

[Don29palms]

I tried hard sir but I continually failed to see how this is based, in logic, when you compare it to Trump's wingmen on the day before Mueller was appointed for this job.

From what I remember on the day before Mueller was appointed, there were zero felonies shown on CNN and zero plea bargains and zero Prison Sentences awaiting. Yes and there was nada nil nothing re: cooperating with investigators. That is not the case today, so logically, if the Dems win the House then Trump gets impeached in the House.
Impeach Trump for what?

[Captain Obvious]

Impeach Trump for what?
Sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford

[Raffishragabash]

Impeach Trump for what?
Well, think about the evolution of partisan politics at the turn of the century...


A GOP House impeached Bill Clinton for lying about committing adultery. So surely a Dem House will figure out something, equally as ridiculous, to impeach Trump for.

[Ethereal]

Gillum wants to ban "assault weapons".

If he's elected in Florida, that will indeed be a harbinger of things to come, and not in a good way.

Personally, I find it amazing that "progressives" want to empower the state to strip common people of the only effective means of defending themselves from the depredations of the elite.

A well-armed population is the only sure defense of democracy and human rights. If you don't believe me, then pick up a history book and count the number of times a disarmed population was subject to oppression and exploitation at the hands of the powerful. Then count the number of times that an armed population was subject to the same treatment. Report your findings directly to Ethereal!

:smiley:

[Captdon]

Besides the fact that she was one of the worst candidates in U.S. history?

The next one will run even farther to the left. This is not a leftist country. None of them is going to win.

[Captdon]

Well, that's why I asked how you defined mainstream. From a popularity standpoint sure, Bernie is mainstream. I was looking at it from a political standpoint, he's not part of the establishment in any meaningful capacity.

Trump's campaign was mostly a giant middle finger to Obama, I don't see Obama's former VP being a super viable candidate because he's too close to Obama. Then again, Biden would have some appeal with moderate Republicans who don't like Trump (appeal Hillary did not have) as well as independents (who again found Hillary to be a harder sell). I dunno, the more I think about it the more I think he could have a decent shot.

You do know that Trump now has the support of 90% of Republicans. They may not like him but they do like what he has done.

Biden still has the problem if plagairizing from years ago. He also is known as Creepy Joe around children. He also is Clinton Lite.

Booker screwed himself with the Spatacus crap. He is too belligerent. He alawys talks in anger. Trump pulled that off but Booker can't. He looks too much like he means it.

Kamela Harris would have a shot but I don't see trump losing. He is still popular in the states he won and that's the whole enchilada right there. Independent aren't enamored with him but a lot of people didn't vote because they thought he couldn't win. They know better now.

[Captdon]

I tried hard sir but I continually failed to see how this is based, in logic, when you compare it to Trump's wingmen on the day before Mueller was appointed for this job.

From what I remember on the day before Mueller was appointed, there were zero felonies shown on CNN and zero plea bargains and zero Prison Sentences awaiting. Yes and there was nada nil nothing re: cooperating with investigators. That is not the case today, so logically, if the Dems win the House then Trump gets impeached in the House.

So, what if it does? He won't be removed by the Senate so what difference does that make?

Mueller will not be charging Trump for any crime or he would have already have notified Congress.

Look for 6 more years of Trump.

[Don29palms]

You do know that Trump now has the support of 90% of Republicans. They may not like him but they do like what he has done.

Biden still has the problem if plagairizing from years ago. He also is known as Creepy Joe around children. He also is Clinton Lite.

Booker screwed himself with the Spatacus crap. He is too belligerent. He alawys talks in anger. Trump pulled that off but Booker can't. He looks too much like he means it.

Kamela Harris would have a shot but I don't see trump losing. He is still popular in the states he won and that's the whole enchilada right there. Independent aren't enamored with him but a lot of people didn't vote because they thought he couldn't win. They know better now.

Anyone thinking about Harris better look at the shithole Kalifornia has become and decide if they want the rest of the country to fall apart the same way. Kal8fornia is a perfect example of demonrat lunacy.

[Chris]

The next one will run even farther to the left. This is not a leftist country. None of them is going to win.

But for liberals to openly embrace socialism, can you imagine that? They do, of course, but not openly.

[Chris]

My earlier mention of Biden as a viable candidate against Trump was seriously joking.

[Raffishragabash]

So, what if it does? He won't be removed by the Senate...

So, who in here said Trump would be removed by The Senate? I certainly did not.

Nonetheless, the current Dem's Movement is all about making sure Trump does not get to enjoy his time as President. The Dems are focused on ruining his legacy. Tarnishing his executive branch image.

Just exactly like the GOP tried to do for President Clinton, when the House impeached him.


Mueller will not be charging Trump for any crime or he would have already have notified Congress.

You should try to read more, carefully, so you can then speak to what people actually posted yes since I never at no time said Mueller would be charging Trump with crimes. And is it very obvious that Mueller has found other ways to ruin Trump's bright days and strategic nights.


6 more years of Trump.
Would you be willing to bet on it, if challenged??

[Green Arrow]

But for liberals to openly embrace socialism, can you imagine that? They do, of course, but not openly.

I’ve yet to meet someone who was socialist and it did not openly embrace it.

[Mini Me]

Yet for most people it rings true these days, as the left becomes increasingly unhnged and the economy becomes better and better, that message resonates.

The issues you speak of are issues Demoncrats have lost on, the country is tired of those promises.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like or support Trump....or the Democrats.

Hmmmm. You refer to them as "demoncrats". Demonizing the opposition is always the first step for mass executions and genocide!

[DGUtley]

[B]Hmmmm. You refer to them as "demoncrats". Demonizing the opposition is always the first step for mass executions and genocide!

Pot - Kettle. Kettle - Pot.

[donttread]

The main election contest I'm watching next month is the one for the governorship of Florida. In contrast to other statewide races we're seeing this year, Florida's gubernatorial contest will pit a genuine progressive against a true blue ideological Trump-alike, thus serving as our clearest indicator of whether it is possible for a genuinely left wing candidate to defeat a far right opponent, such as say President Trump, at this juncture of American history. Right now the progressive Democrat, Andrew Gillum, enjoys a small lead in the polls against the hardcore Trump-alike Ron DeSantis. If Gillum indeed emerges victorious, that outcome will be notable, I think, in building a case as to whether the Democrats need to pick a standard-issue, pro-corporate centrist candidate like they always do (as Joe Biden) to go up against Donald Trump in 2020 or whether it is just as viable, if not more so, for the Democrats to choose someone in the progressive mold like a Gillibrand (my preference), a Warren, a Booker, or of course a Sanders.

While the resistance has produced a populist wave of nominees on the Democratic side -- a wave that consists disproportionately of hitherto non-politicians with jobs like teacher, pilot, etc. etc. -- it has been driven principally by a kind of suburban populism, not so much the youthful, urban- and campus-based populism that we in this country refer to as progressivism. In as far as progressives have been nominated, it's been mainly to represent individual House districts or for more local offices. Democratic nominations for state-level contests, such as those for governorships or U.S. Senate seats, have, in contrast, largely gone to the more neoliberal candidates. Andrew Gillum's successful nomination to for the position of Florida Governor is an exception to this rule. And it is even more rare for such candidates to wind up pitted against true ideological Trump-alikes like DeSantis rather than generic neoconservative Republicans.

That's all. Just wanted to throw that out there as something to keep an especially close eye on next month for the reasons cited.

Lots of old people in Florida and they tend to run conservative. Also "Desantis" sounds latino. If it is it'll be another plus in Florida. If I had to bet without further research I'd bet on him. Actually this is like sports in many ways. Including the fact that it is largely just entertainment.

[Chris]

Hmmmm. You refer to them as "demoncrats". Demonizing the opposition is always the first step for mass executions and genocide!


Where'd I refer to Dems as demons?

And my God, now I'm advocating executions and genocide!! Oh my, lions and tigers and bears!!

[Chris]

I’ve yet to meet someone who was socialist and it did not openly embrace it.


Lately, Democrats won't even admit to being liberal, no, they're all moderates now.

[Captdon]

So, who in here said Trump would be removed by The Senate? I certainly did not.

Nonetheless, the current Dem's Movement is all about making sure Trump does not get to enjoy his time as President. The Dems are focused on ruining his legacy. Tarnishing his executive branch image.

Just exactly like the GOP tried to do for President Clinton, when the House impeached him.



You should try to read more, carefully, so you can then speak to what people actually posted yes since I never at no time said Mueller would be charging Trump with crimes. And is it very obvious that Mueller has found other ways to ruin Trump's bright days and strategic nights.


Would you be willing to bet on it, if challenged??

You said impeachment. I carried that to it's only legal conclusion. Impeachment without a conviction is an exercise in futility. Americans don't like losers and this will hurt the Dems.

The Dems can try to tarnish his achievements all they want. They have failed to touch him.

I read you perfectly. Deflection is easy to see. Trump has no concern about Mueller. He is in no danger from Mueller. I don't see a man worried about much of anything. I don't know what you see.

Mueller hasn't done a thing about Trump's bright days or strategic nights, whatever that means.

I won a lot of money on his election. There's no way to bet here and you are aware of that. I don't need your money anyway.

[Captdon]

I’ve yet to meet someone who was socialist and it did not openly embrace it.

You're not serious, are you?

[Green Arrow]

You're not serious, are you?

I typically am unless stated otherwise.

[Raffishragabash]

You said impeachment. I carried that to it's only legal conclusion.

No, I said Impeachment in the House. I never said Senate.

Nonetheless, it was still your Right to then hallucinate some incorrect legal conclusion ---if you stick to my actual assertion. I hope you enjoyed your exercise in futility :cool2:


Americans don't like losers and this will hurt the Dems.

You are incorrect, once again.

Clearly, America loves losers since that's what the GOP Presidential candidates were from 2008-2015, yet America kept loving those losers. That is how Trump became President in 2016.


The Dems can try to tarnish his achievements all they want. They have failed to touch him.
You are correct, they have not touched him.

But they sure have ripped his Peace of Mind, to shreds, and shackled his closest wingmen with felony convictions and Prison sentences plus they've helped women to now view him as an insane freak.

Just like every other President, once his time is up in The White House is when the Dems tarnishing his legacy, will privately hurt him the most. He'll never get the chance to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

But hey, feel free to act like that is not a very big deal.


I read you perfectly.

uh, no.

You lack the necessary neurological facilities, needed, in order to accurately read me.


Deflection is easy to see.

Yes, you do make your expert deflecting skills very easy for us to see them. There's no doubt about that ��


Trump has no concern about Mueller. He is in no danger from Mueller.

Again, I cannot control your hallucinations. And I have no desire to.


I don't see a man worried about much of anything.
I find this vvvvvvery easy to believe. Considering you are unaware of how you like to 'brag about' going thru life disregarding important realities.


There's no way to bet here and you are aware of that. I don't need your money anyway.

This is the Internet in 2018 so there are many ways to place wagers ---and you don't have to "need my money" in order to place a bet for showing confidence in your own claims which you made.

[Captdon]

I typically am unless stated otherwise.

Hillary Clinton comes to mind first. She believed in socialism without spelling it out. It was always- "Whatever we need to do." The solution to health insurance was single payer. That's socialism but she didn't call it that.

[Green Arrow]

Hillary Clinton comes to mind first. She believed in socialism without spelling it out. It was always- "Whatever we need to do." The solution to health insurance was single payer. That's socialism but she didn't call it that.

Hillary is not a socialist, she’s an opportunist. She advocated one or two socialist ideas and only when she thought they were politically viable.

[Captdon]

No, I said Impeachment in the House. I never said Senate.

Nonetheless, it was still your Right to then hallucinate some incorrect legal conclusion ---if you stick to my actual assertion. I hope you enjoyed your exercise in futility :cool2:



You are incorrect, once again.

Clearly, America loves losers since that's what the GOP Presidential candidates were from 2008-2015, yet America kept loving those losers. That is how Trump became President in 2016.


You are correct, they have not touched him.

But they sure have ripped his Peace of Mind, to shreds, and shackled his closest wingmen with felony convictions and Prison sentences plus they've helped women to now view him as an insane freak.

Just like every other President, once his time is up in The White House is when the Dems tarnishing his legacy, will privately hurt him the most. He'll never get the chance to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

But hey, feel free to act like that is not a very big deal.



uh, no.

You lack the necessary neurological facilities, needed, in order to accurately read me.



Yes, you do make your expert deflecting skills very easy for us to see them. There's no doubt about that ��



Again, I cannot control your hallucinations. And I have no desire to.


I find this vvvvvvery easy to believe. Considering you are unaware of how you like to 'brag about' going thru life disregarding important realities.



This is the Internet in 2018 so there are many ways to place wagers ---and you don't have to "need my money" in order to place a bet for showing confidence in your own claims which you made.

Conviction is the correct legal conclusion. It's the only conclusion if the goal is to rid us of Trump.

America did not love McCain or Romney. They were losers and neither was liked.

I have seen no evidence that Trump's peace of mind has been effected much less ripped to threads.

The people who have been found guilty or pleaded guilty were people Trump barely knew.

You don't know how women view him compared to 2016.

Mueller has nothing and Trump knows it. If Mueller had anything on Trump he would have reported it to the Congress to deal with.


I find this vvvvvvery easy to believe. Considering you are unaware of how you like to 'brag about' going thru life disregarding important realities.

This makes no sense.

I don't know what you thought you were doing or who you were posting to. This was easy to take apart it was a waste of effort.

Try to do better in the future.

[Captdon]

Hillary is not a socialist, she’s an opportunist. She advocated one or two socialist ideas and only when she thought they were politically viable.

I disagree. She was an opportunist but she was a socialist opportunist. She never saw a socialist idea that she didn't like.

The only two socialist ideas being pushed hard are free healthcare and free tuition. She was in favor of both.

All the other socialist idea are being run below the radar. This how it's done. Always was and always will be. You are, of course, feel to think whatever you want.

[Chris]

I disagree. She was an opportunist but she was a socialist opportunist. She never saw a socialist idea that she didn't like.

The only two socialist ideas being pushed hard are free healthcare and free tuition. She was in favor of both.

All the other socialist idea are being run below the radar. This how it's done. Always was and always will be. You are, of course, feel to think whatever you want.


It Takes a Village.

[Chris]

This is what I mean by new faces, same story: Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Have Big Plans for 2020: They Want to Spend More Money! (http://reason.com/blog/2018/10/23/democratic-presidential-hopefuls-have-bi)

[Captdon]

It Takes a Village.

Hilliarycare.

[silvereyes]

So, who in here said Trump would be removed by The Senate? I certainly did not.

Nonetheless, the current Dem's Movement is all about making sure Trump does not get to enjoy his time as President. The Dems are focused on ruining his legacy. Tarnishing his executive branch image.

Just exactly like the GOP tried to do for President Clinton, when the House impeached him.



You should try to read more, carefully, so you can then speak to what people actually posted yes since I never at no time said Mueller would be charging Trump with crimes. And is it very obvious that Mueller has found other ways to ruin Trump's bright days and strategic nights.


Would you be willing to bet on it, if challenged??

You mean kinda like the way pubs tried to make Obama's life hell? Plus, the horrible treatment of his wife? Like that?

[Raffishragabash]

You mean kinda like the way pubs tried to make Obama's life hell? Plus, the horrible treatment of his wife? Like that?
Exactly, like that.

[Chris]

So how's about we get back to the titular topic: This Isn't the Most Important Election of Your Lifetime. Not Even Close (http://reason.com/archives/2018/10/26/this-isnt-the-most-important-election-of):


If you believe that a midterm election in a time of relative peace and economic prosperity is the most important in history or even the most important in your fortunate lifetime, you either are oblivious to history or don't have a single nonpartisan synapse firing in your skull.

Yet it's now become standard for partisans to claim that every presidential election is the most important ever. Seeing as many people view the president as an emperor, perhaps they believe it. That's one thing. But now we have people foisting this insufferable cliche on us for House elections, which happen every two years in every single district.

The 2018 election is "the most important election of our lives," writes a hysterical David Corn at Mother Jones. Prognosticator Charlie Cook explains, "Everybody always says, 'Oh, the upcoming election's the most important since Moby-Dick was a guppy.' This one actually is really important." "The most important election of your life," tweets Donald Trump's spurned bestie Joe Scarborough. "The most important election any of us have voted in so far," declares Joe Biden, who notes that "everything" is at stake in 2018.

"The most important election of our lifetime," says Sen. Cory Booker. And Democratic National Chairman Tom Perez. And New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. And former President Barack Obama.

As anyone who's been paying attention already knows, this is utter nonsense, because 2016 had the most important election ever.

"I believe this may be the most important election of our lifetimes," Hillary Clinton told us. Mike Pence assured America much the same. "Why 2016 may actually be the most important election of our lifetime," a headline from The Hill read. Bloomberg Businessweek agreed. So did The Nation. "2016: The most important election since 1932," declared the esteemed Brookings Institution. "The Most Important Election of Our Lifetime," read a Franklin Graham headline. "This Really Might Be the Most Important Election Ever," The New Republic added.

It really might have been. Though it surely was not so important as the 2012 election...