Beto O’Rourke 2020 campaign megathread

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Attacks on Democratic candidates are totally unfair and help Trump!!! ... Unless they're attacks on a Democrat (or someone I get to technically say isn't a "real Democrat") that I don't like, in which case, great! Why are they so special? I thought you all wanted scrutiny!

I don't expect people to understand something as elitist as "nuance", but it is possible to scrutinize candidates without believing that they're worse than the devil.

The only posters I can see incapable of grasping this are GoTfan, PittsburghSteel and Invisible Obama.

I could say the same for the Harris and O'Rourke fanatics,  but I'm not allowed to criticise them because that means I'm a closet Trumpist.

Jesus Christ, have you ever participated in a debate in your life?

Your response to every single actual counterargument you face is "wah I'm not allowed to criticise other candidates". Maybe if you had something substantial to say instead of complaining that your initial salvos weren't accepted at face value, you would convince other people. Sitting on your hands and crying in every single post about how you're being silenced is pathetic and suggests you don't even know how to debate even if you wanted to.

For the record, nobody has said that you aren't allowed to complain about other candidates. You just happen to not be any good at it when you do it.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Attacks on Democratic candidates are totally unfair and help Trump!!! ... Unless they're attacks on a Democrat (or someone I get to technically say isn't a "real Democrat") that I don't like, in which case, great! Why are they so special? I thought you all wanted scrutiny!

I don't expect people to understand something as elitist as "nuance", but it is possible to scrutinize candidates without believing that they're worse than the devil.

The only posters I can see incapable of grasping this are GoTfan, PittsburghSteel and Invisible Obama.

I could say the same for the Harris and O'Rourke fanatics,  but I'm not allowed to criticise them because that means I'm a closet Trumpist.

Jesus Christ, have you ever participated in a debate in your life?

Your response to every single actual counterargument you face is "wah I'm not allowed to criticise other candidates". Maybe if you had something substantial to say instead of complaining that your initial salvos weren't accepted at face value, you would convince other people. Sitting on your hands and crying in every single post about how you're being silenced is pathetic and suggests you don't even know how to debate even if you wanted to.

For the record, nobody has said that you aren't allowed to complain about other candidates. You just happen to not be any good at it when you do it.

Harris refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin when he was foreclosing on elderly people. She also has an extremely sketchy record on criminal justice. O'Rourke meanwhile has a Chamber of Commerce rating of 47%. A Democrat with that high a CoC rating should not be worshipped as the Democratic saviour. The fact that both of them are shows just how lost the Democratic Party is as an institution.

Look at that, you posted something and weren't immediately struck by a lightning bolt. Looks like your fear of being silenced by some invisible force the second you made an (admittedly skeletal) argument was completely unjustified.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Attacks on Democratic candidates are totally unfair and help Trump!!! ... Unless they're attacks on a Democrat (or someone I get to technically say isn't a "real Democrat") that I don't like, in which case, great! Why are they so special? I thought you all wanted scrutiny!

I don't expect people to understand something as elitist as "nuance", but it is possible to scrutinize candidates without believing that they're worse than the devil.

The only posters I can see incapable of grasping this are GoTfan, PittsburghSteel and Invisible Obama.

I could say the same for the Harris and O'Rourke fanatics,  but I'm not allowed to criticise them because that means I'm a closet Trumpist.

Jesus Christ, have you ever participated in a debate in your life?

Your response to every single actual counterargument you face is "wah I'm not allowed to criticise other candidates". Maybe if you had something substantial to say instead of complaining that your initial salvos weren't accepted at face value, you would convince other people. Sitting on your hands and crying in every single post about how you're being silenced is pathetic and suggests you don't even know how to debate even if you wanted to.

For the record, nobody has said that you aren't allowed to complain about other candidates. You just happen to not be any good at it when you do it.

Harris refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin when he was foreclosing on elderly people. She also has an extremely sketchy record on criminal justice. O'Rourke meanwhile has a Chamber of Commerce rating of 47%. A Democrat with that high a CoC rating should not be worshipped as the Democratic saviour. The fact that both of them are shows just how lost the Democratic Party is as an institution.

Look at that, you posted something and weren't immediately struck by a lightning bolt. Looks like your fear of being silenced by some invisible force the second you made an (admittedly skeletal) argument was completely unjustified.

Well that makes it a first, considering I'd usually be told to shut up and get back in line.

A counterargument does not equal "shut up and get back in line" which was the point of my post.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Attacks on Democratic candidates are totally unfair and help Trump!!! ... Unless they're attacks on a Democrat (or someone I get to technically say isn't a "real Democrat") that I don't like, in which case, great! Why are they so special? I thought you all wanted scrutiny!

I don't expect people to understand something as elitist as "nuance", but it is possible to scrutinize candidates without believing that they're worse than the devil.

The only posters I can see incapable of grasping this are GoTfan, PittsburghSteel and Invisible Obama.

I could say the same for the Harris and O'Rourke fanatics,  but I'm not allowed to criticise them because that means I'm a closet Trumpist.

Jesus Christ, have you ever participated in a debate in your life?

Your response to every single actual counterargument you face is "wah I'm not allowed to criticise other candidates". Maybe if you had something substantial to say instead of complaining that your initial salvos weren't accepted at face value, you would convince other people. Sitting on your hands and crying in every single post about how you're being silenced is pathetic and suggests you don't even know how to debate even if you wanted to.

For the record, nobody has said that you aren't allowed to complain about other candidates. You just happen to not be any good at it when you do it.

Harris refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin when he was foreclosing on elderly people. She also has an extremely sketchy record on criminal justice. O'Rourke meanwhile has a Chamber of Commerce rating of 47%. A Democrat with that high a CoC rating should not be worshipped as the Democratic saviour. The fact that both of them are shows just how lost the Democratic Party is as an institution.

Look at that, you posted something and weren't immediately struck by a lightning bolt. Looks like your fear of being silenced by some invisible force the second you made an (admittedly skeletal) argument was completely unjustified.

Well that makes it a first, considering I'd usually be told to shut up and get back in line.

A counterargument does not equal "shut up and get back in line" which was the point of my post.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/21/18150359/beto-orourke-voting-record

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/20/beto-orourke-congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main

538 also expected him to side with Trump 18% of the time. He has sided with him 30% of the time.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/beto-orourke/

There's also the fact that he ended up getting less votes than the least popular statewide Republican.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/despite-tight-race-ted-cruz-beto-orourke-got-less-votes-least-popular-statewide-republican/

Lmao what is the point of this post? Do you have any critical thinking skills? I'm not arguing anything about Beto's voting record and those links don't say anything about how Beto dissenters should "shut up and get back in line".

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Yes, my guy, generally when somebody says "what is the point of this post" they are in fact "missing the point". In fact, I missed the point of your post so badly that I had to ask you directly what it was  (and you didn't answer).

I'm not going to argue over whether or not Beto has a more conservative voting record than the median House D because that's pretty demonstrably true. As BRTD said, we can argue about how relevant that is, or how much of that is attributable to a context that won't be present in 2020, but nobody is going to rebut the fact. Personally right now I'm more of a Sanders supporter than Beto supporter (and nobody has ever told me to get back in line, in fact).

What I was trying to argue was that you're an awful debator who apparently interprets anything that isn't a full-throated endorsement of your opening argument as someone telling you to "shut up". You haven't done anything to prove me wrong.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

The John Edwards 2008 of 2020.

I don't understand all of these people who think they have a chance at winning the Presidency when they failed at winning lower office in their own states (e.g. Beto O'Rourke, Marianne Williamson, Jason Kander, Andrew Gillum).

How can anybody with a brainstem actually think this?

Beto cut 7 points out of Trump's margin in a state where Trump's margins were already pretty small and there wasn't as much room for marginal improvement as there were in other states like GA, NC, OH, etc.

Even if you took an extremely generous view and said Beto would only have uniform swing of 1.5 points over Hillary then he'd not only regain PA/WI/MI but also pick up Florida. Obviously that's a simplistic view of how politics works but if you got into a more complicated analysis there are things that work both for and against him in setting expectations (mostly for).

"Beto is a bad candidate because he couldn't even win in Texas!" is like a stupid-detector.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

https://twitter.com/MadamClinton/status/1105986524510912513

I’m sure Bernie is quivering in his shoes at the guy who polls at 5%

Just like Hillary was quivering in her shoes at the guy who polled at 8% in March 2015.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

snip

I thought Kamala stans were not going after anybody running but Bernie. The fact that there have been more than a half dozen other white men jump in and none of them were accused of white male entitlement shows that they are threatened and trying to tear this man down for no reason. He has every right to state his case to voters. If someone prefers to vote for a woman or candidate of color that is their absolute right to do so but the lame smears are not going to make his supporters coalesce around your girl.

The gender politics around Beto though are worth acknowledging. Any female candidate who left her family to do a solo cross-country trip and write blog posts about it would get crucified. Beto's a strong candidate but he absolutely benefits from some male privilege.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Keep in mind that as soon as he posts policy proposals, no matter what they are, the people calling Beto an empty suit will call him either a corporatist sellout or a fake progressive.

There's no point in trying to argue with these people as if they were having a good faith discussion about Beto's platform.

obligatory I would vote for Bernie over Beto disclaimer

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Well, the people saying he's an empty suit are obviously being disingenuous and are just butthurt that someone would dare pose a threat to Saint Bernard.

I like this poster ^^ #Preach

An empty suit like Beto Booker is going to get thrashed.

FTFY. Need some Preparation H for that butthurt?

Beto Trump might be is the most repulsive person running, though it's hard to beat Booker at that game.

Focus, alleged "progressive." Beto is not the enemy: Putin's puppet in the White House is.

Triggered BernieBros are just about as deplorable as the MAGAtards.

Yet again, left-wingers are immediately forbidden from criticising a candidate. Seems to be a pattern.

lmao nobody is saying you're forbidden or criticizing a candidate, they're just saying your criticisms are weightless because you would criticize the color of socks he wears if you could.

Boy-cries-wolf complaints stop being taken seriously if you criticize everything somebody does no matter what it is. There are several really serious reasons to be Beto-skeptical but it's hard to believe that you guys are would ever be satisfied by anything he did. It reeks of bad faith. So why bother with your dumb rationalizations?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

He’d definitely visit Wisconsin and Michigan in the general.

He already did.

Making a visit before the primaries have even started is not going to translate to a general election.

Do you honestly believe this?

"Sure, Beto was breathing air ten minutes ago, but that doesn't mean he'll be breathing air in an hour!!"

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I'm certainly not arguing for mushy, ineffective policy, but if the end result of the debate is that bills won't get adopted, then does it really matter? Like, if you took xing's comic and added another three panels where Bernie/Liz starts on the far left and then moves towards the center, the Republicans will just stand still/move backwards the same amount, and at the end of the comic the bill still isn't passed. So what difference does it make?

I definitely agree that the universe of bills that Republicans will reach across the aisle to compromise on is small. But what happens when they refuse to compromise is, 99% of the time, nothing gets passed at all (e.g., Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Simpson-Bowles). When you look at the cases where Obama-era legislation did get watered down and passed, it was because of compromise within the caucus, not compromise with Republicans.

I totally get what the Sanders camp is trying to argue here but there is no empirical evidence that it will actually lead to better outcomes.

eta: the real reason you should propose ambitious progressive policy is because the policy is good, well thought out, and will help people, not because of some weird game theory stuff

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

eta: the real reason you should propose ambitious progressive policy is because the policy is good, well thought out, and will help people, not because of some weird game theory stuff

I'd argue that there should be less fighting over who will go the distance with M4A et al. and more fighting over who will aggressively enforce anti-trust laws and go after corporate America with whatever tools they have. That is something a Democratic president can do, relatively speaking. Unless we have a big wave election that fills the Senate with anti-filibuster Democrats, it's hard to see the point of arguing over big policy that really has no chance. Even 50-51 Senators isn't really enough. You always need extra for that MoE that pops up on big bills that inevitably make red-state Democrats anxious af.

From my perspective, supporting candidates because they support massive radical transformations of America only makes sense if one thinks that this particular election might deliver enough new members of Congress who will support said transformative policies. Given the staggeringly huge level of polarized voting we've seen in 2016, 2017 and 2018, it's hard to see 2020 being that election, at least wrt to the Senate.

Yep, agree with the first paragraph, although I would add one thing: somebody who has demonstrable skills in crafting good legislative policy is much more likely to be able to craft good executive policy. (Yes I am talking exclusively about Warren, although she does have a few ideas that I think are dumb). But yes I'm less optimistic than the average Democrat about our ability to hold the Senate moving forward and it's pretty obvious that any serious movement to abolish the filibuster is years away. Most girdle-wringing on this board about what is in signature legislative proposals isn't really an argument about the legislation per se but a proxy argument about other things.

Not sure how much I agree with the second para. It's pretty unlikely that one election will usher in enough energy for transformative change but that's how ideas get mainstreamed. It's one of the reasons why despite being a pretty adamant Hillary bro I think the Sanders campaign in 2016 was a good thing on net. I think it's great that we're having high-profile candidates seriously talk about abolishing the EC, DC/PR statehood, court packing (even if I think the consequences of the court packing could be very bad) because certainly in a generation but maybe even sooner we will potentially have enough of the caucus in support of these things. Arguing about whether or not these things can/should be done in 2020 is kinda moot but like I said above most of the time the arguments aren't really about those things and are actually about other things.