Oh no.

 

 

^ damn it all.

Reading this last night just made me feel so sad, I didn't even want to post this news development.  I really need 2020 to be a far better, kinder, healthier year.  Please! 

EPA’s board of scientific advisers, dominated by Trump appointees, warn regulatory rollbacks clash with established science https://t.co/zLlNJ3yeUb

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) December 31, 2019

On the same day Bernie AND Trump had to crow about how much money they suckered out of people in the last quarter of 2019, this happens.  (Don't get me wrong, the field needed to be weeded as we head into the Iowa Caucus.  Nevertheless, it's sad that his campaign never gained any traction.)

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/julian-castro-drops-out-of-presidential-race/2020/01/02/4ec14398-0659-11ea-ac12-3325d49eacaa_story.html

Edited January 2, 20205 yr by Khan

Cory Booker will be next.  Then it will be a genuine POC candidate 'royal flush'.  Yay, diversity! 

Castro's campaign and supporters seemed to spend more time telling other candidates and supporters how wrong they were than on ideas to help get Castro votes. There was also so much time spent with the media essentially telling voters they were bad or wrong if they didn't support him. He had some good ideas, but a campaign which revolves so much around social media wokeness and around posturing is never going to take flight. 

3 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Castro's campaign and supporters seemed to spend more time telling other candidates and supporters how wrong they were than on ideas to help get Castro votes. There was also so much time spent with the media essentially telling voters they were bad or wrong if they didn't support him. He had some good ideas, but a campaign which revolves so much around social media wokeness and around posturing is never going to take flight. 

 

The people should have had a chance to decide, not money.  

 

Castro wasn't my choice but the process that doesn't even allow a decent cross-section of the public to vote on who goes and who stays deserves just as much of the side-eye as the candidate's perceived flaws.  You cannot tell me that this process is a defensible one when you have Gabbard still in, as well as a highly flawed billionaire candidate who feels he can feel free to jump in at any time and be viable in the process.  Nope.

5 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

The people should have had a chance to decide, not money.  

 

Castro wasn't my choice but the process that doesn't even allow a decent cross-section of the public to vote on who goes and who stays deserves just as much of the side-eye as the candidate's perceived flaws.  You cannot tell me that this process is a defensible one when you have Gabbard still in, as well as a highly flawed billionaire candidate who feels he can feel free to jump in at any time and be viable in the process.  Nope.

 

 

I'm sorry Castro didn't have more chances, and I can see why it would annoy him, or his supporters, that another unviable candidate like Pete Buttigieg is still in and has done better in polls. But I've read articles for years about what a fantastic candidate he would be, how he would surely be President someday (or his brother). He and his brother had their share of powerful connections, and years and years of free media about how wonderful he was. I saw him on the debate stage giving voters the explicit choice to move on from Joe Biden, comments that got heavy media coverage and in some cases, heavy support. Voters had the chance to support him, they just chose not to do so. That's more of a chance than some in the race got. 

What voters are we talking about? Primaries haven't even started. 

3 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

What voters are we talking about? Primaries haven't even started. 

 

The voters whose polling responses tend to drive the pre-primary race and get more access to debates or higher fundraising. He never really budged in those. 

2 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

 

The voters whose polling responses tend to drive the pre-primary race and get more access to debates or higher fundraising. He never really budged in those. 

 

Yay diversity!  

The system of voting in this country has become so warped that donations and polling in states that don't resemble the rest of the country has effectively replaced voting in determining the nominee.

 

People keep mentioning Obama as if that's a panacea for the fact that this is the same system that gave us Bush and Trump.  One can say that had Bush not f*cked up so thoroughly most of these voters wouldn't have even considered Obama in the first place. 

 

It's unlikely that the process will much matter anyway. By the time the primaries get to me the nominee will already have been decided. I am just not into defending a process where a select group of people in phone polls and their purse strings decide, rather than voters at the actual polls.  Whoever the nominee ends up being, I'll do my civic duty but I'm not going to pretend that the process is anything but ruled by money. 

4 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

Yay diversity!  

The system of voting in this country has become so warped that donations and polling in states that don't resemble the rest of the country has effectively replaced voting in determining the nominee.

 

People keep mentioning Obama as if that's a panacea for the fact that this is the same system that gave us Bush and Trump.  One can say that had Bush not f*cked up so thoroughly most of these voters wouldn't have even considered Obama in the first place. 

 

It's unlikely that the process will much matter anyway. By the time the primaries get to me the nominee will already have been decided. I am just not into defending a process where a select group of people in phone polls and their purse strings decide, rather than voters at the actual polls.  Whoever the nominee ends up being, I'll do my civic duty but I'm not going to pretend that the process is anything but ruled by money. 

 

I'm not defending the process, I don't think the process can be defended - it's an incomprehensible slog that has done nothing but benefit Trump's numbers and lead the party to twist itself into knots, all while terrible, terrible candidates continue to plug along to what feels like a November loss. I just think Castro and his campaign made a lot of mistakes that go beyond what money or support other campaigns have, so for me his dropping out isn't entirely a case of diversity being steamrolled. Some of his mistakes, especially in the debate with Biden, would have ended most campaigns in many cycles (similar comments did end Eric Swallwell's campaign many months ago).

Edited January 2, 20205 yr by DRW50

Tulsi Gabbard raised $3.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2019 https://t.co/j5Ks10XzjN pic.twitter.com/QR1gtLJQDx

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) January 2, 2020

7 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

The people should have had a chance to decide, not money.  

 

Castro wasn't my choice but the process that doesn't even allow a decent cross-section of the public to vote on who goes and who stays deserves just as much of the side-eye as the candidate's perceived flaws.  You cannot tell me that this process is a defensible one when you have Gabbard still in, as well as a highly flawed billionaire candidate who feels he can feel free to jump in at any time and be viable in the process.  Nope.

Which one do you mean?

 

I can't. 😂  Not that's it's really funny, it's just the absurdity of it all.