The Politics Thread

[DRW50]

 

I'm hoping Joe will have enough strength to get through, and then also picks the right VP. I'm not sure a VP has ever been as important as they will be this election. I liked Tim Kaine, and I think if he had been properly utilized by Hillary's campaign he would have been an asset, but they just can't pick a white man again. Unfortunately that means a ridiculously heavy burden is placed on the shoulders of a candidate who will already be facing so much scrutiny. 

 

I really hope he will pick a black female VP, not for the sake of balance or diversity, although that's always a factor, but because in many cases they have been leading the fight and have had the most clarity in addressing what's going on in the country today. 

[Khan]

 

ICAM.  As others have said, this election is a referendum on Trump.  For the sake of our country (and my sanity), we HAVE to vote the man out of office.  To do that, Biden (or whoever) will need to form the largest coalition of voters possible.  One surefire way to do that would be to choose a POC as their running mate.

 

Is that line of thinking too cynical?  Perhaps.  But, this is war, ladies and gentlemen; and in war, all is fair.

[Khan]

So, the NYT has hand-picked Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren to be their Democratic nominees of choice.

 

(Look out, ladies, it's a trap!)

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/19/opinion/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-nytimes-endorsement.html?fbclid=IwAR1hoNFiR-em2WHZpvLgnO5ONB7OAqskH6NqOBy-TYmgR9KRfm2nFjQ1bS4

Edited January 21, 2020 by Khan

[JaneAusten]

They also endorsed Hillary. Frankly what a cowardly tactic. I was listening to our local progressive station today talking about how f'd up the NY Times is and has been ever since the Iraq war mongering and actually before.

[Khan]

 

Exactly, and I believe their endorsement played into 2016's results, too.

 

Here's what I think: Warren has had a healthy following practically from day one (if not before).  Klobuchar hasn't always been mentioned among the front runners; however, recent polling (not to mention, her performance at the last Democratic debate) suggests that is about to change.

 

Of course, the NYT doesn't want to see Trump beaten, but they also don't want Klobuchar or Warren to end up as the nominee running against him.  They'd rather it be Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders, because they'd be more "entertaining" as they spar with The Donald in the run-up to Super Tuesday.  (Besides, if Klobuchar or Warren were to run against Trump, it'd just be a rerun of Trump/HRC -- and everyone HATES reruns).

 

At the same time, (I believe) the paper is aware of how much we, the general public, has come to distrust much of the MSM...including institutions such as the NYT.  They know large sections of this country are likely to reject Klobuchar and Warren merely because they have NYT's seal of approval.  Therefore, in a bit of reverse psychology, the NYT's editorial board has endorsed those two ladies -- which makes no sense, by the way, since they can't BOTH end up being the nominee -- in order to knock them out of the running altogether.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Khan

[JaneAusten]

Only from the perspective of how their political desk covered Hillary like they were overcompensating for their endorsement. Although now I say that I doubt it. The Times hated the Clintons long before Hillary ran.

 

I see what you are saying but honestly I don't think a large part of the country cares who the NYT endorses.

[DRW50]

 

I think NYT would be happy enough to have Warren as the nominee - they can just reuse their Hillary headlines. I think they are genuinely repulsed by Bernie, and are worried about Biden's fragility. 

 

When the votes came out, Warren had 8, Klobcuhar had 7, and Booker had 6. So they threw the two women together and wrote it as a not-so-subtle "please vote for one of them at least and not those other guys" endorsement. If Booker hadn't dropped out I think they would have done a three-way endorsement.

[sivad40]

And so the cover up begins. It's not that I expected Trump to be removed anyway but the depths that GOP will go to exonerated this bastard has no bottom.

Edited January 21, 2020 by sivad40

[Khan]

 

Agree.  It doesn't matter whether witnesses are called, or what those witnesses will say under oath.  The GOP holds the Senate, and the Senate is determined to acquit Trump on all charges.  Ergo, why block testimony or cover up anything?  There's not even the threat of losing their voter base, because they've shown how little they care about the facts.  So, again, why the cover up?

 

Sigh.  Watching the GOP be evil just for the sake of being evil gets exhausting sometimes.

 

 

One thing's for sure: they know backing Buttigieg is an exercise in futility, lol.

 

 

But, I contend, the NYT would like nothing more than to see Trump get re-elected.  Ergo, if anything, they're going to play up those factors -- if not while endorsing Klobuchar and Warren*, then certainly if/when either guy ends up being the nominee.

 

Of course, there's always Buttigieg surprising everybody, but I doubt it'll come to that, lol.

 

 

(*That is, if Klobuchar or Warren is who they really want -- and I still don't believe they do.)

Edited January 21, 2020 by Khan

[Khan]

 

Exactly.  They endorsed the woman for president, then turned around and stirred up so much s**t over her damn emails that more than enough voters didn't know WHAT the hell to think by the end.

 

The NYT played mind games with Hillary and her supporters, and -- mark my words -- they're about to do the same with Amy and Liz's.

[DRW50]

 

You may be right. I was trying to remember if their endorsers have ties to, say, Maggie Haberman, who is in the tank for Trump. 

 

I saw that Sanders had his cult members go out and attack Biden today for corruption, in op-eds and on MSNBC, and then he swooped in to say - oops, never mind, let's be above the fray. 

 

Very Trumpian. 

 

 

[Khan]

Honestly, I don't know what would happen if Bernie weren't allowed this time to be the nominee.  I feel like his "followers" would stage an all-out siege on Washington.

[Wendy]

Well, if Bernie is the nominee (UGH!), at least when he loses, maybe his little followers will FINALLY STFU. And we can blame them for when this country finishes its journey down the toilet. Cold comfort, I know.

[Chris B]

 

I'm so curious about this as well. I just can't see him getting it because he's so polarizing and hasn't seemed to expand on his base, just maintaining it. He says he won't do what he did last time and will back the nominee, but I find that *so* hard to believe. If he doesn't get the nomination I fully expect him to drag his campaign along until the convention and once again say it was rigged against him. If you thought his fans were bad last time, I feel they'll be worse this time.

[DRW50]

 

AOC, who, as she loves to remind us, had NO value or reason to breathe air before she joined Bernie's cult, decided to use MLK Day to tell everyone that Democrats and Republicans are just alike. So that's a pretty big tell what will happen - she and her fellow "revolutionaries" at the top will passive-aggressively "support" the nominee while really hoping Trump wins. Meanwhile, their sycophants will actively support either Trump, or whatever version of Jill will be bankrolled by Russia this year. 

 

Then, after Democrats lose the House, she will remind us that she was never really a Democrat anyway, and she will either go back behind the bar, or, like her dear leader, find the right people to grift off of. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by DRW50