2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX - Page 50 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-17-2016, 09:41 AM   #981
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:17 AM
I also don't know much about Julian Castro but I've seen him in a couple of interviews and speaking and he unfortunately comes across as dull/boring. I was actually quite surprised given that he is young, but his personality really doesn't come across great.

I also don't think that VPs deliver swing states and I think there have been some studies done now to support that. So in my eyes Kaine/Brown bring absolutely nothing to the table and I want neither of them anywhere in line to be the next President. Say what you will of Bernie Bros and how it's preferable to get incremental change, but these two as presidents would be going backwards. Just awful. I'd be really disappointed if she makes a pick like them, not only because I don't like them but because she doesn't need them at all.

Warren is competent, well spoken, intelligent. I worry that some people would get hung up on the "two women" running together (because centuries of 2 men is different somehow) and I am also not sure how well Hillary would do potentially being overshadowed by a more likeable running mate. Warren has an excellent way of breaking down the issues so that they can be understood by your average person so while she is of a similar intellectual elite background as Hillary she comes across as much more folksy. That may not swing people like us here but heaven knows we've all been hearing for years now that the public wants a President they can have a beer with.
__________________

anitram is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 09:44 AM   #982
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York / Dallas / Austin
Posts: 14,076
Local Time: 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Tell me about him. I know very little. How would she answer the question, "is Julian Castro qualified to be POTUS?"
I honestly don't know a ton about him; my post wasn't completely serious. But he is really popular among Texas Democrats, who see him as a leader of a movement that will eventually result in a blue (or at least purple) Texas.
__________________

digitize is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 09:51 AM   #983
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I also don't know much about Julian Castro but I've seen him in a couple of interviews and speaking and he unfortunately comes across as dull/boring. I was actually quite surprised given that he is young, but his personality really doesn't come across great.

I also don't think that VPs deliver swing states and I think there have been some studies done now to support that. So in my eyes Kaine/Brown bring absolutely nothing to the table and I want neither of them anywhere in line to be the next President. Say what you will of Bernie Bros and how it's preferable to get incremental change, but these two as presidents would be going backwards. Just awful. I'd be really disappointed if she makes a pick like them, not only because I don't like them but because she doesn't need them at all.

Warren is competent, well spoken, intelligent. I worry that some people would get hung up on the "two women" running together (because centuries of 2 men is different somehow) and I am also not sure how well Hillary would do potentially being overshadowed by a more likeable running mate. Warren has an excellent way of breaking down the issues so that they can be understood by your average person so while she is of a similar intellectual elite background as Hillary she comes across as much more folksy. That may not swing people like us here but heaven knows we've all been hearing for years now that the public wants a President they can have a beer with.
I don't know about those studies, but i do think the help is minimal. I would think a true swing state could be moved at least a percentage point, which could make the difference. But in comparison to what Warren would bring, i think its not even a contest.
womanfish is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 09:52 AM   #984
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
I honestly don't know a ton about him; my post wasn't completely serious. But he is really popular among Texas Democrats, who see him as a leader of a movement that will eventually result in a blue (or at least purple) Texas.
I think we've just pinpointed another problem with Castro.

3 people, here on a forum about politics say, "they don't know much about him"
That is not what Clinton needs. She needs some excitement and passion from a known entity.
womanfish is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 09:59 AM   #985
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
I think we've just pinpointed another problem with Castro.



3 people, here on a forum about politics say, "they don't know much about him"

That is not what Clinton needs. She needs some excitement and passion from a known entity.


And the way Trump has been actively pissing on Latinos, I'm not sure they're going to need much encouragement to show up in November and vote against him.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 10:03 AM   #986
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
And the way Trump has been actively pissing on Latinos, I'm not sure they're going to need much encouragement to show up in November and vote against him.
Yeah Castro's name was the first one that came up, nearly a year ago. This was when the common consensus was the Rubio or Bush would be the GOP nominee...

Now, Trump has disapproval of 89% of latinos and 94% of African Americans.

wow.
womanfish is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 10:06 AM   #987
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
I don't know about those studies, but i do think the help is minimal. I would think a true swing state could be moved at least a percentage point, which could make the difference. But in comparison to what Warren would bring, i think its not even a contest.
Not a huge fan of Politico but it's an interesting article:

Why VPs Matter Less Than You Think - POLITICO Magazine
anitram is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 10:14 AM   #988
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Hewson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your own private Idaho
Posts: 32,031
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
I think we've just pinpointed another problem with Castro.

3 people, here on a forum about politics say, "they don't know much about him"
That is not what Clinton needs. She needs some excitement and passion from a known entity.
Plus how many folks will think he's related to Fidel?
Hewson is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 10:19 AM   #989
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewson View Post
Plus how many folks will think he's related to Fidel?
oh god. So true. You have to account for stupidity. A lot of it.
womanfish is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 10:40 AM   #990
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
trojanchick99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Feliz, CA (between Hollywood and Downtown LA)
Posts: 8,352
Local Time: 07:17 AM
He and his twin brother spoke at the 2012 DNC. His brother Joaquin is a member of the House.

I agree he is likely too young, but he's got a bright future in the party.

And damn, a Booker/Castro future ticket would be easy on the eyes.



Warren would be my pick. She's qualified and it would royally piss off Trump's base of misogynists.
trojanchick99 is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 10:43 AM   #991
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,956
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Enough. Ignore him if you can't help but insult him at every turn.
it seems a little messed up to me that it’s acceptable for “poster A” to actively wish death upon someone, but if someone calls “poster A” a jerk for doing so that’s over the line. #priorities

anyways, “poster A” doesn’t deserve any more of my attention. moving on.
DaveC is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 11:00 AM   #992
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,142
Local Time: 09:17 AM
My money's on Booker
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 06-17-2016, 11:08 AM   #993
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
My money's on Booker
what are your thoughts on that? say Warren vs. Booker...
womanfish is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 12:44 PM   #994
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
My money's on Booker

Booker has a very outgoing likeable personality. Once saved a family from a house fire. So he's got that going for him.

African-American turnout will probably drop a couple points with Obama not on the ticket. Adding Booker could reenergize those numbers. In a close race the turnout could make the difference in swing states.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 01:33 PM   #995
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:17 AM
If Booker is the VP, he's automatically the nominee in 2024. Incumbency plus being black (one fourth of the primary vote) would make him a shoe-in. That's a massive set back for those on the far left as Booker has had no problem cozying up to Wall Street and is arguably to the right of most of the party.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 01:44 PM   #996
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 06:17 AM
why are you a racist?

#bookerslifematters
deep is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 01:44 PM   #997
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post

Now, Trump has disapproval of 89% of latinos and 94% of African Americans.
The latter part doesn't really matter. Blacks voted for Obama like 91-9, so this would hardly be any different. The Latino factor is pretty discouraging for him though as he would conceivably do far worse than even Romney, but as I had mentioned before from a FiveThirtyEight post, Latinos and Asians don't really matter when it comes to the Electoral College. The former group is heavily concentrated in blue/red states and the latter in blue states. Neither has that much of a presence to really be the factor in moving a swing state more than they already have in the recent past.

Now, Latinos will play a factor in helping win states like Colorado and Florida, mind you, but their turnout and support of Clinton will probably be barely any different from what they did for Obama in 2012 in those states.

Honestly, Cory Booker is probably the pick that best helps Clinton with a given coalition because its effects would last years. Black women vote more than anybody else and now they'd have a big reason to continue turning out in droves since Booker would conceivably be President as late as January of 2033 (jesus). His pick not only keeps a sizable chunk of the Democratic electorate in the fold, but also means that Clinton's chosen successor will have almost no problem becoming the nominee eight years from now.

Again, it's frustrating because Booker is certainly not on the left of the party's spectrum and it would just be another case of name recognition/identity politics in the 2024 primaries, and lord knows some of those other Clinton VP picks are a huge step backwards for liberalism in this country.

A Warren selection would finally put this country in the direction that most of the party wants to head, but I really doubt Clinton wants to be disagreed with, overshadowed in the limelight and pull the party in a direction outside her comfort zone. She's not a risk taker.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 01:52 PM   #998
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
why are you a racist?

#bookerslifematters
I'm sure that will actually be levied about by Booker supporters eight years from now, many of them Clinton supporters in this very thread since they like to just go along with the party's selection. Honestly, there is no way he can remotely lose the primary barring some huge scandal:

1) Incumbency/experience...similar to Clinton 2008.

2) Black and great public speaker...similar to Obama 2008.

3) Shrinking white population over the next eight years.

Seriously, the guy would start with half the electorate locked up immediately (plus all the Superdelegates if they're still a thing). It'll be like 2000 when everybody just let Gore have it because they had no chance of beating him. Booker will face an insurgent liberal candidacy or two, but they'll fare far worse than Sanders (despite the country's leftward shift) since part of that coalition will just jump in Booker's corner given the incumbency factor, not to mention that Booker himself can continue to move his positions to the left if necessary over the next eight years.

People should seriously hope she picks Warren just to give us an open field and an actual choice in 2024. I mean, at least we've had 2 or 3 potential nominees the last few cycles, but we're now at the risk of having just 1. And nobody wants a party that just becomes tailored to fit one person...look what happened in 2000 with Gore and the lack of excitement that all caused.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 02:10 PM   #999
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 10:17 AM
We have a new progressive champion. And his name is Chris Murphy.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-17-2016, 02:32 PM   #1000
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,225
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
The latter part doesn't really matter. Blacks voted for Obama like 91-9, so this would hardly be any different. The Latino factor is pretty discouraging for him though as he would conceivably do far worse than even Romney, but as I had mentioned before from a FiveThirtyEight post, Latinos and Asians don't really matter when it comes to the Electoral College. The former group is heavily concentrated in blue/red states and the latter in blue states. Neither has that much of a presence to really be the factor in moving a swing state more than they already have in the recent past.

Now, Latinos will play a factor in helping win states like Colorado and Florida, mind you, but their turnout and support of Clinton will probably be barely any different from what they did for Obama in 2012 in those states.

Honestly, Cory Booker is probably the pick that best helps Clinton with a given coalition because its effects would last years. Black women vote more than anybody else and now they'd have a big reason to continue turning out in droves since Booker would conceivably be President as late as January of 2033 (jesus). His pick not only keeps a sizable chunk of the Democratic electorate in the fold, but also means that Clinton's chosen successor will have almost no problem becoming the nominee eight years from now.

Again, it's frustrating because Booker is certainly not on the left of the party's spectrum and it would just be another case of name recognition/identity politics in the 2024 primaries, and lord knows some of those other Clinton VP picks are a huge step backwards for liberalism in this country.

A Warren selection would finally put this country in the direction that most of the party wants to head, but I really doubt Clinton wants to be disagreed with, overshadowed in the limelight and pull the party in a direction outside her comfort zone. She's not a risk taker.
Yep, i think that right now, Clinton has some tough options to weigh.

What does she need most? I still argue that with the popularity of Sanders, and the amount of new progressive voters he created - She needs Warren to bring them into the fold. She does well with hispanics and AA's, and does ok with women. But needs the younger white women. And Warren could be a boost there as well.

While Booker is more middle of the road, and would boost AA turnout, I think that because Trump is the opponent, Clinton will get a good amount of moderate voters all on her own.

Does she play it safe and pick Brown or Kane thinking it will give her leverage in their swing states?

More interestingly is you bringing up the coming election years. Dems could have quite a line up. Booker, Castro, Warren, Jack Conway, Beau Biden, Kirstin Gilibrand, Gavin Newsom are all interesting plays.
__________________

womanfish is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×