JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

JUburton wrote:forgot him. edited to put him in tier 4 bc i don't know anything substantive about him and don't know how progressive he actually is. I am obviously willing to move any of these up or down and will gladly watch the debates come June.

not trying to shill for O'Rourke, but this response was so good, in my opinion. I know i have posted it before, but posting again in case you did not see it. I am not sure any other Dem candidate has this stance, but Beto is a conservative or something.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... _paso.html

This I knew and is good. But his overall voting record is fairly 'moderate'.

There are clearly limits to this but given how blue his district, he actually votes with Trump more than you would think: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/co ... o-orourke/

have to be careful with those things-- lots of the things they "agree" on you probably would too

Its a lot nuts, but there were Beto bumper stickers and yard signs in NVA. This is not a terribly liberal hot bed, in fact I think AOC would call us 'meh' and welcome us to leave. But as I said in my assessment, I afraid he gets pounded via manipulation. You could see it going something like this:

'Beto, good name by the way, can't even beat Ted Cruz. Not even Ted Cruz in the state where he lives. I beat Ted, crushed him really. I won by the largest margin ever. Never in the history of history ahs there been crowds so big. No collusion. None at all. And Beto, isn't even holding office, lost his last election. I ran once, and won. Not a loser like Beto. His own people don't think he's good enough." <The crowd goes wild chanting Build that Wall & Lock her up>

I think the base + jumps in on rhetoric.

CalvinBall wrote:

JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

JUburton wrote:forgot him. edited to put him in tier 4 bc i don't know anything substantive about him and don't know how progressive he actually is. I am obviously willing to move any of these up or down and will gladly watch the debates come June.

not trying to shill for O'Rourke, but this response was so good, in my opinion. I know i have posted it before, but posting again in case you did not see it. I am not sure any other Dem candidate has this stance, but Beto is a conservative or something.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... _paso.html

This I knew and is good. But his overall voting record is fairly 'moderate'.

There are clearly limits to this but given how blue his district, he actually votes with Trump more than you would think: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/co ... o-orourke/

have to be careful with those things-- lots of the things they "agree" on you probably would too

Understood and I think that there probably should be a baseline taken where you remove votes that gather like half of other party or more.

Yglesias has me covered.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ing-record

1. Harris
2. Gillibrand; Warren
3. Hickenlooper
4. everyone else
5. none.

Really don't get the appeal of Biden or Booker. Hickenlooper gets the pick because I like governors more than Senators.

I have come to the conclusion that the primary process is the best way to determine electability (which is consistent with political science, but pundits and party leaders don't listen to us) so that doesn't figure at all in my rankings. Elites have a pretty crappy track record in figuring out who really is "electable". The last candidate I think on either side who probably got the nomination because of electability and actually won the election was BIll Clinton, but that was against weak Democratic competition.

Consider 2016--does anyone think that had the Republican establishment gotten its way and nominated Jeb, he'd have won, even against Hillary? Or go back to 2008--the Democratic rank and file went ahead and supported a Black dude with a funny name--despite the fact that most pundits did not think the country was ready for an African American President.

CNN teaser that Trump is ready to veto the rebuke of his Emergency Declaration. So the withdraw discussion must have broken down, and it is the nuclear option.

JUburton wrote:Yglesias has me covered.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ing-record

he may be right, but that piece lacks any analysis. he says:

There’s a lot more to life than congressional voting records, so I wouldn’t take this as the final word on politicians’ true ideological souls.

then only talks about congressional voting record from a sky high view.

then he says:

In the grand scheme of things, the differences between these voting records are not enormous, and if you’re thinking about policy outcomes, the limiting factor is going to be what the most conservative Democratic Party senators can swallow, not whether the president is a bit more liberal than those senators (or a lot more liberal).

But the facts are the facts.

feel like he is admitting this doesnt mean much then just says BUT!!!

Found the Beto fanboy!

no. it is just the article you linked it not actually informative.

It's not a completely holistic view but a piece that has some data and analysis on the dude's only national voting record is actually, informative.

Romney will vote against the Emergency Declaration.

JUburton wrote:It's not a completely holistic view but a piece that has some data and analysis on the dude's only national voting record is actually, informative.

the 538 link is better. you can at least see what he voted on.

the vox article, again, is just the author saying he votes conservative compared to other dems, sort of. he admits it is a hollow argument with not much meat but then just says but its something!

Trump talking to the press. I had no idea what he was talking about, for a good two minutes (I did come in late), but it turns out it was Brexit. Why the confusion? Because he was talking about being right and Obama being wrong.

CalvinBall wrote:

JUburton wrote:It's not a completely holistic view but a piece that has some data and analysis on the dude's only national voting record is actually, informative.

the 538 link is better. you can at least see what he voted on.

the vox article, again, is just the author saying he votes conservative compared to other dems, sort of. he admits it is a hollow argument with not much meat but then just says but its something!

DW-Nominate is a fairly well known/used tool. It's not the raw data, no. It just seems like you're saying 'well voting record isn't everything so we shouldn't look at it' where as Yglesias is saying and I am saying that it is useful but also useful to take it in context and know that it should not be the only point of data you use.

CalvinBall wrote:Funny that Beto doesn't have enough experience but a guy who served as mayor for six years of the fourth largest city in Indiana that only still exists because of a large university-- he has the experience.

That's probably more experience than being a three term congressman, based on what each actually do. I would say that running a campaign is a bit like being a hear of a company z so I will give Beto that.

That being said, I am more interested in what candidates are proposing and talking about how they'd actually accomplish said proposals than I am about so-called experience. Whether that's a 77yr old politician or a 40yr old fresh face is irrelevant to me on a personal level.

Edit: I'd like to add that Beto has decided to make this race about him by running. Him running for Senate against Cornyn is so obviously the better option for whoever becomes the next Democratic presidentband the Senate and for the Texas Democratic party's future that he obviously thinks he's the dude. It takes that to win a race but it also takes humility to know it's not your time.

I also tire of bowing to legacy over substance. He's not running because he has some great policy prescription for us or has figured out how to pass anything, he's doing it on charisma.

I'm not like, anti-beto, just haven't seen a lot of policy out of him yet. Which I'm sure will change when he actually launches and has a website and all that.

JUburton wrote:I'm not like, anti-beto, just haven't seen a lot of policy out of him yet. Which I'm sure will change when he actually launches and has a website and all that.

I'm not anti-Beto as he seems nice enough, I'm just curious who a New Democrat like Beto would actually staff in his administration to that would actually implement the policy he may endorse on the campaign trail.

I am anti-Biden because I know who he would staff and what he'd do.

Consider 2016--does anyone think that had the Republican establishment gotten its way and nominated Jeb, he'd have won, even against Hillary

It was going to be close to matter who was either nominee and I have little doubt Bush would've been close and probably have defeated Clinton.

Would've been hard for any Democrat to win the third term.

JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

JUburton wrote:It's not a completely holistic view but a piece that has some data and analysis on the dude's only national voting record is actually, informative.

the 538 link is better. you can at least see what he voted on.

the vox article, again, is just the author saying he votes conservative compared to other dems, sort of. he admits it is a hollow argument with not much meat but then just says but its something!

DW-Nominate is a fairly well known/used tool. It's not the raw data, no. It just seems like you're saying 'well voting record isn't everything so we shouldn't look at it' where as Yglesias is saying and I am saying that it is useful but also useful to take it in context and know that it should not be the only point of data you use.

i am saying it is useful if dissected or just slightly going beyond the surface. just a percentage tells you so little, which he admits yet talks about. it just is a very hedge-y blurb. i wish yglesias would have gone in the weeds just a tad. given an example. i am sure those articles are out there somewhere.

pacino wrote:

JUburton wrote:I'm not like, anti-beto, just haven't seen a lot of policy out of him yet. Which I'm sure will change when he actually launches and has a website and all that.

I'm not anti-Beto as he seems nice enough, I'm just curious who a New Democrat like Beto would actually staff in his administration to that would actually implement the policy he may endorse on the campaign trail.

I am anti-Biden because I know who he would staff and what he'd do.

that is something to think about for sure.

do we know who the others would staff though? have you seen that kind of stuff? i am curious.

we are so early yet. i think making lists and all that, while fun, is not productive. we just dont know a ton about anything or anyone at this point.