JOE MANCHIN 2020!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He is our best bet, tbh. If we ain't getting Bernie, then he is second best. His losses among Bernie or bust peeps will be massively overshadowed by his amazing performance among blue collar workers and I could easily see him getting 350+EV's.


P.S-Please dont post in this thread, ProgressiveCanadian.

Bernie bros actually would vote for him. He's a white guy from a rural state.

I don't know if Manchin is the Dems best bet, but he's a serious candidate.

And, yes, white male voters ought to see a Democratic Party not look at them as if they're the root of all evil in America. 

What Democrat has said that?

(I'm obviously talking about in terms of prominent Democratic leaders and politicians, not some random person on Twitter.)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Lol Paula Jean Swearengin primarying Joe Manchin. Dumbest thing Justice Dems could possibly do is waste time, money, energy, and resources, on losing in a red state.

Well as I've said before, Manchin is basically a Republican.

Uh huh. If there was a Republican in his seat Obamacare repeal would've passed the Senate.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

But seriously why does anyone think that Manchin is so much more valuable than any other Democrat who could be POTUS that we should give up a hard to hold Senate seat?

I like the cognitive dissonance in this thread of "Berniecrats are dumb, primarying Manchin would give the GOP a free Senate seat! Manchin for POTUS!!!".

Well I agree with the first sentence and think the second is absurd. So what am I?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why do people talk about SJWs like they're electorally relevant on this site? All they do is post rants on Tumblr and put out whiny newsletters at stupid private colleges. And they make a statistically irrelevant portion of the electorate and voters, what percentage of Democratic primary voters do you believe cares at all about "cultural appropriation" or has made a huge fuss about pronouns or how people who won't have sex with trans people are transphobic? It honestly reminds me of anti-Sharia law rallies.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

We need a fiscally moderate, socially liberal globalist, who can win....the Philadelphia suburbs.

Already ran that candidate last year.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

We need a fiscally moderate, socially liberal globalist, who can win....the Philadelphia suburbs.

Already ran that candidate last year.

And if that canidate were run again, without email/Comey/Russia/better campaign stops, they'd win WI, MI, PA, NC, GA, AZ, FL.

Is email/Comey/Russia/better campaign stops the reason Democrats have only 15 governorships, 6 triumvirates, total control of only 12 state legislatures?

It's funny how we keep being told we need to run more centrist trash because only they can win yet they're losing all over the place on state level

A,d his preferred electoral strategy would make retaking state legislatures virtually impossible. Turnout in Philadelphia is completely irrelevant to who wins the Pennsylvania House.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BLM aren't disputing the statistics that non-police homicide is the number one cause of death for young black males. The difference is that no one endorses gang violence. Your, my, NJ's salaries (or future salary once he gets out of college) aren't going to hire more gang members and give them pensions. The gang members aren't killing people in the name of the public. Similar to cancer, heart disease, and other violent criminals, violent gang members are properly seen as a threat to mainstream society. When a gang member is caught in a killing, they don't get union representation in addition to legal; and they aren't sent back out to rejoin the gang. Rather they are arrested, charged, and very often sentenced to long terms. Treat illegally violent cops the same way and I guarantee things would settle down quick. What BLM is saying is that just because you are charged with enforcing the law, it doesn't make you above the law.

As far as why this issue generates so much anger, it's because when young boys are murdered by the cops and the government either doesn't charge them, or keeps them on the force, or tries to cover it up, the implication is that your own government doesn't consider the lives of your own children worth protecting. Hence, the rather plaintive slogan "Black Lives Matter." You've said you have a son, Fuzzy. How would you feel if our United States government acted as if his life was nothing? Would you be pleased?

I have three (3) sons, two of whom are adults, one (1) of whom has, indeed, had trouble with the law, and has served some jail time.  I care about all of their lives.  I have real reason to believe that during one arrest, police officers used undue force, and I don't say this lightly.  I should also say that I told my son to immediately go to an ER and document his injuries, and he didn't do so.  He was also quite intoxicated at the time of that arrest, so who knows what happened.  I live in the real world, however. 

That being said, every time an officer shoots and kills a suspect who turns out to be unarmed is not a murder, nor is is always a crime, nor is it always unjustified.

What BLM is, in fact (if not explicitly) asserting is a subject's right to resist a lawful detention or arrest.  Police have the RIGHT to detain persons for any number of lawful reasons, the most common being to issue a traffic citation.  They have the right to detain an individual who is fleeing a crime scene where suspicious activity has occurred, and where police have reason to believe that a person has information on that activity.  They have a right to arrest a subject about whom they have probable cause (a pretty low standard) to believe that a subject committed a crime.  This is hardly an unreasonable concept; police are entitled and empowered to take certain actions to investigate possible crime and they are entitled to give lawful directions to persons,which persons are required to follow, for the sake of ensuring their own safety while investigating a possible crime.

What never seems to be pointed out is that Michael Brown (in Ferguson, MO), an active suspect in a strong-arm robbery of a frail woman at a convenience store at the time of his death, refused to follow the lawful commands of a police officer, and, indeed, presented a threat to that officer's life and safety.  That he didn't have a gun does not make this murder; he was actively resisting the officer with physical force, and his claim of having his hands up saying "Don't shoot!" has been more than adequately debunked as an organized effort of folks making false statements (a crime, btw) about what happened in Ferguson. 

What never seems to be pointed out is that Eric Garner (in Staten Island, NY) was actively resisting a lawful arrest.  Yes, it was a minor misdemeanor, and, yes, the law he was arrested on was, IMO, a "revenue enhancer" (don't sell untaxed cigs), but the arrest of Mr. Garner was lawful.  The choke hold applied to these officers was against NYPD policy, and for that, officers face civil liability and career ramifications, up to and including termination, but it is not an "illegal" choke hold, and it would not have been applied had Mr. Garner not resisted a lawful arrest.  Mr. Garner was a morbidly obese diabetic with hypertension and asthma and over 30 arrests on his record who came down with a case of "I'm not going to jail today!".  What if every criminal suspect took that tack?  How dangerous would law enforcement, as a profession, be then?  How safe would the average citizen be?

I care very much about the rights of the accused.  Folks have the right not to be subjected to force when they are passive and compliant, and they don't have a right to use extra force just because a subject is mouthy and disrespectful.  Putting up with disrespectful jerks is part of their job.  Persons in jail or prison should not be subjected to "punishments" at the whim of officers; confinement is the punishment, in and of itself.  But police have a right to be safe in their persons and a duty to apprehend suspected criminal lawbreakers, at whatever level of resistance they put forth.  To call every incident of a police officer shooting a suspect a "murder" is flat out ignorance; it's just not the case, and to insist that it is, or something close to that is, represents a denial of facts.  SJWs have some valid issues, and those issues (treatment of prisoners, prison privatization, oppressive lenghts of sentencing, racial disparities in sentencing) merit serious discussion.  Calling every police shooting of a suspect a "murder" is just ridiculous, but there are many folks who seek to be uninterested with facts.  Perhaps Joe Manchin, or SOMEBODY, can help bring the Democratic Party to its senses on this matter.

What about Freddie Gray and Philando Castille?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Manchin winning Utah, lol.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I wonder how the primaries will look when Manchin decides to make a run.

If it's a one-on-one race, probably this.

Too nice to Manchin.

Louisiana, Utah, and Wyoming could go either way.

Why would Utah even be remotely competitive?

The sort of people who are actually Democrats in Utah are about as friendly to Manchin as California Democrats.