The prize to many American lefties isn’t defeating Trump and the Trumplicans, the prize is burning down the Democratic Party and rebuilding it as a socialist one……which they’re certain will sweep to victory across the US.
Walz — Comer Opens Congressional Investigation of Walz trips to China
- Thread starter aGDevil2k
- Start date
- Replies: 888
- Views: 28K
To be honest I think that the safest pick ranking is as follows:
1. Kelly
2. Walz
3. Beshear
4. Shapiro
Another factor to consider (somewhat raised previously) is that the ticket needs to reach the lower middle class/poor that are buying the pseudo populist drivel from Trump and another lawyer on the ticket just doesn't provide that regular guy dynamic. In that regard, you could argue that this is also why Walz and Kelly are the better choices though Beshear does a great job at communicating. Kelly will shift on labor and he is an astronaut and yes something that simple will stay in the minds of voters.
lightbluenc
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 679
I was all in on Kelly, but have changed my mind to think Walz is the best of the bunch. He can simplify kitchen table issues into very easy to understand bites. He’s like everyone’s favorite teacher, uncle and neighbor all in one.
2ManyBlueCups
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 625
I don’t think Kelly is a good choice due to his association with the gun control movement. There are a lot of single-issue voters that would be extra motivated to vote red if gun control becomes an actual issue in the next couple of months. I understand that gun control is a major issue to many Democrats, but you don’t have to telegraph it. Win first, then work on it.
EhringhausSouth
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 270
Correct. I am going to write in Nikki Haley. I have decided I am going to vote for the candidate that I want to be the president.
Carolina Fever
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,823
Good luck with that.
Thats crazy. I assume its true. I dont know politics that well, just that i hate trump
I dont know one way or the other, no one disputed his post hence my word assume
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,639
Because it is. The question isn't whether there are leftists who have that as their goal, given that many have said exactly that. The only question is how big that subset is.
- Messages
- 3,414
Who made that claim?
HeelYeah2012
Honored Member
- Messages
- 847
Shapiro should be the choice for obvious reasons, but I do wonder if the Democrats will go through with putting a Jewish person on the ticket in this environment
- Messages
- 1,598
I understand. But being a former resident of Allegheny County, where both Pittsburgh and Braddock are located, Fetterman's somewhat, shall we say, "eccentric views" on certain issues are less of a surprise and get more of "well that took longer to spill out than I expected" reaction from me.
fsclark1
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 95
Another thing with Kelly is that he attended Netanyahu's speech to Congress and applauded him. That alone makes me really hope he's not the choice.
That makes me wonder if Fetterman's opposition to Shapiro is his way of trying to get Kelly on the ticket, since Fetterman seems to love him some Bibi.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,639
There was a poster on the other board named Ovshinsky. I'm guessing he either has shown up again under a different alias or will. He was a supposed lefty, but he always had more kind things to say about Trump than about Biden/HRC/democrat "neolibs" etc. He even said, unironically, that Dems need to take a page from Trump's playbook and reorient the party around an ideology called "national socialism." I don't think he was ignorant of that term. I think he was so full of rage at Dem moderates that he didn't really consider what he was proposing.
But anyway, he claimed to be anti-Trump but his substantive posts just didn't back that up.
I went to law school with some of these people. A couple taught at my law school. I remember when Trump was elected, I was talking about how deeply depressed I was. I asked one of them, "how do you plan to manage a Trump presidency," and she looked at me and said, "I'm to the left of the Democratic party." As if that makes it OK. I later found out that she had been supporting Trump over HRC because she was so angry at the Clinton "warmongering."
A poster on the other board who left us, for greener pastures, used to refer to the "Populist Convergence," by which he meant the seeming wrap-around in which ostensible lefties and ostensible righties were joining up to pursue illiberal policies, both hoping to destroy the system so they could rebuild from the ashes. That is definitely a thing on the left. It came out during the ill-fated Occupy Wall St. events.
And you could also read about the so-called Battle for Seattle, which was a term given to violent protesters who were wrecking the city of Seattle because there was a WTO meeting there. They felt that the WTO was some sort of oppressive organization that was crushing the possibility of a socialist revolution in the US, and blamed Dems for its creation (that part wasn't totally wrong -- while it was established far before I was in a position to be helping, I would have helped create it if I had been in a position to do so). They tried the same BS in DC a few years later, for an IMF meeting.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,639
I think it's more likely to be an old political rivalry.
- Messages
- 6,336
Whether it's fair or not is certainly up for debate, but essentially the only way that the Democratic Party can give itself a good chance to win the Electoral College is by running toward the center. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both did it twice and won, and now Kamala can signal that she plans on doing the same by adding someone like Josh Shapiro to the ticket. It's just good retail politics, especially when you are so reliant upon garnering support from disaffected conservatives/Republicans and from moderate swing voters in battleground states in order to win. Progressives have never, IMO, shown that they can be counted on to turnout in the kind of numbers required to win a national general election.
As I've said, though, I'll be thrilled with any of Shapiro, Walz, Kelly, or Beshear. I think that all four have an overwhelming number of positive attributes that far outweigh any negatives or weaknesses that each may have. I just happen to think that Shapiro may be the *best* candidate to draw a wider variety of constituencies that reside toward the ideological center.
As I've said, though, I'll be thrilled with any of Shapiro, Walz, Kelly, or Beshear. I think that all four have an overwhelming number of positive attributes that far outweigh any negatives or weaknesses that each may have. I just happen to think that Shapiro may be the *best* candidate to draw a wider variety of constituencies that reside toward the ideological center.