dajo9 said:

---

I'm not supporting anyone but I think I'm anti Beto. I understand his Congressional record is very conservative.

---

Well he's from Texas and it's still Red so I'm not surprised. He's taken oil money too supposedly. I have a feeling he might get a VP shot but not the top...but way too early.

Joe Scarborough came off like he had not prepared one bit. Duh!

Mayor Pete, OMG, I give him an A+ here.
Gonna keep listening!

Intelligent young man! Honest. I can trust to learn what needs to be learned and make moral and ethical decisions!
Can he be tough enough to fend off attacks, lies, and smears? We shall see.

On second thought, it is sad sad commentary to confess I think there is no way America is ready to elect a gay president. I can hear the slurs and bigotry and fear from oh so many people I know.
That's just pathetic and sickening to hear them in my head.
The religious right will merely point to the Bible.
I'd say, blacks are further along in their march toward equality than gays, no?
Obama faced subconscious racism. I fear Pete will face even more.

But, wow, what a bright fresh mind. He dances thru the Q&A like Fred Astaire!

Listening to a cbsn interview, and he just said it's common sense to have the person who got the most votes be the one who is elected president.
That means, he is opposed to the electoral college process. Wow, I don't hear too many folks say that for fear of alienating all the middle states.

Another Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I'm not supporting anyone but I think I'm anti Beto. I understand his Congressional record is very conservative.

---

Well he's from Texas and it's still Red so I'm not surprised. He's taken oil money too supposedly. I have a feeling he might get a VP shot but not the top...but way too early.

---

His district was El Paso, safely blue, so he could have been more liberal than he was. Still, "conservative" is mostly by the standards of the current Democratic field. On an absolute American scale he's basically middle of the road liberal.

And his Senate race was far more progressive than Dems usually run in TX.

Congressman problem. El Paso is military, oil and Hispanics. That's all he's had to think about which is why it's hard to go from congressman to President

Anarchistbear said:

---

Congressman problem. El Paso is military, oil and Hispanics. That's all he's had to think about which is why it's hard to go from congressman to President

---

Our current president certainly thinks about a lot

Sure, he actually knows nothing. But his biggest advantage was not being tied to any of the "swamp" so he was the consummate outsider in an election where a lot of people were pissed with both parties and insiders. In truth the Apprentice and his tv persona gave him credibility as a decisive "man of action" and allowed him to start at the top and win against a flawed candidate -could you imagine if he'd have run for congesss? - he'd be another Steve King at best but never President. Too much to live down.

Americans always think someone on a white horse can rescue us from our disfunction-it's near impossible.

Is the Force With Beto?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/16/opinion/sunday/beto-orourke-2020.html

bearister said:

---

Is the Force With Beto?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/16/opinion/sunday/beto-orourke-2020.html

---

I want steak, not sizzle

If Biden doesn't win, it's because of crap like this fake slip announcement that he's running.
I think this was totally intended.
Just be honest, Joe.

Full clip at link
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/03/17/joe-biden-slip-running-president-nr-saenz-vpx.cnn

Partial clip embedded here for non-clickers:


He's trying to drag it out and create news and excitement.

Biden is a gaff machine. He can't help it, even in positive situations that favor him. Frankly he likes the sound of his own voice and really need to avoid those types. I like Joe, just not as POTUS. Let the next generation step up, instead of the past generation holding everyone back.

"Recent polling in a slew of states that carried President Trump to his thin win in 2016 show him starting 2020 in a deep hole.

What's new: Based on demographic changes, Republicans for the first time have authentic worries about Arizona, Georgia, Texas and other states they once took for granted.
Why it matters: Trump's margin for error this time is much smaller, because he's being squeezed from the north and the south.

From the north: Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are harder this time because Hillary Clinton, a turnoff for many working-class voters, won't be on the ballot.
From the south: Demographics are making North Carolina, Georgia, Texas and Arizona more competitive, and realistically in play.
That's part of the reason for the fascination with more centrist Democrats like Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke and Joe Biden: The states that Trump won, but could easily lose, are swingy not super-liberal.

Among the holes in his 2016 map:

In Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote after a statewide poll in January that Trump "has a precarious path to victory," based on the facts that his job approval was just 44%, opposition was more intense than support, and Democrats were more unified than Republicans.
In Michigan, the Detroit Free Press reports that Trump faces "serious headwinds": "Less than half of likely voters believe he's doing a good job, according to some recent polls, and many, if not most, plan to vote for someone else."
"Pennsylvania meltdown triggers Republican alarms," Politico wrote after the midterms. "A GOP collapse threatens to torpedo Donald Trump's re-election prospects."
In last weekend's Iowa Poll, 67% of Republicans said they would definitely vote to re-elect Trump, while 27% said they would consider someone else or definitely vote for someone else. 40% want a GOP challenger." Axios

The Republican party.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

I'm sure Kelly09 probably signed up for Twitter today just to like this tweet.

"Wisconsin voters who supported Barack Obama in 2012 and Donald Trump in 2016 are sick of Trump, saying in a focus group that they're getting tired of his "lies" and how he treats people, Axios' Alexi McCammond reports from Appleton.

Why it matters: Trump barely won Wisconsin, where he got roughly 22,000 more votes than Hillary Clinton, and these swing voters were decisive. If he's losing them, it will be harder to win the state again with just his base supporters." Axios

tRump has promised a Q & A pressie following this format:

bearister said:

---

---

I'm not on twitter, because its horrible and I have no interest in being in that sphere, but I was surprised at the number of attack columns from the left regarding Beto on the day of his announcement. What surprised me about them is that there are legitimate arguments against Beto (he is too young, he is only known for losing an election, he has no definitive policy goals or objectives), but the criticisms circled around him being a relatively young, white male, as if that should be a disqualifying factor.

golden sloth said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

I'm not on twitter, because its horrible and I have no interest in being in that sphere, but I was surprised at the number of attack columns from the left regarding Beto on the day of his announcement. What surprised me about them is that there are legitimate arguments against Beto (he is too young, he is only known for losing an election, he has no definitive policy goals or objectives), but the criticisms circled around him being a relatively young, white male, as if that should be a disqualifying factor.

---

I suspect they knew he was a real threat to win, so started getting the knives out right away. If you're not a real contender they leave you alone.

Beto O'Rourke Raised $6.1 Million Online in First 24 Hours of Campaign

golden sloth said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

I'm not on twitter, because its horrible and I have no interest in being in that sphere, but I was surprised at the number of attack columns from the left regarding Beto on the day of his announcement. What surprised me about them is that there are legitimate arguments against Beto (he is too young, he is only known for losing an election, he has no definitive policy goals or objectives), but the criticisms circled around him being a relatively young, white male, as if that should be a disqualifying factor.

---

When the current POTUS is fat, stupid, corrupt, traitorous and psychologically unfit, it is going to take some real creativity to come up with disqualifying factors.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

I'm sure Kelly09 probably signed up for Twitter today just to like this tweet.

---

He should like it-it's Kennedyesque.

Is there a Dem candidate who opposes funding Al-Qaeda?
How about other candidates . . . GoP, Indie, Green, etc . . . others who oppose funding Al-Qaeda?

golden sloth said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

I'm not on twitter, because its horrible and I have no interest in being in that sphere, but I was surprised at the number of attack columns from the left regarding Beto on the day of his announcement. What surprised me about them is that there are legitimate arguments against Beto (he is too young, he is only known for losing an election, he has no definitive policy goals or objectives), but the criticisms circled around him being a relatively young, white male, as if that should be a disqualifying factor.

---

Beto's critics don't object to him being a white male. They object to white male privilege.

This sums it up:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/beto-orourke-president-sexist-double-standards_n_5c8aa5cbe4b0db7da9f0c7e7

"Man, I'm just born to be in it."

That rubs people the wrong way. There's a certain kind of privilege that you have to have to go from nobody to loser to presidential candidate in less than a year.

There's this feeling -- whether you like it or not -- that there is a double standard for white males. Women and minorities will be overly scrutinized, while if you're white and male you can get away with a lot of things and it'll be excused. Heck, look at our current president.

But if you think being white and male doesn't get you special treatment, I can't help you. But all you have to see is the Republican party hearings. So many dummies become congressmen because of their gender and color of their school.

There's also the issue of him being a centrist. His policies might be popular for red Texas. But liberals don't like it. He wants to reach across the aisle, like he did when he endorsed a Republican congressman last year. But liberals already saw how Obama's attempt at bipartisanship failed.

Also, if you're high-profile like Beto is you're going to get more scrutinized than, say, that Buttagig guy.

Again, it's not about being a white male -- or else left wingers would've disqualified Bernie Sanders last time around. It's about white male privilege.

"Beto O'Rourke lost, but he's running for president. Bernie Sanders lost, but he's running for president," Twitter user Emilia wrote. "But Hillary Clinton shouldn't even show her face in the world of politics again. Sexism and double standards, my friends."

Twitter user Amelia doesn't seem to remember that Hilary lost the 2008 primary campaign to Obama ( like Bernie lost to her in 2016) and came back eight years later as The Anointed One.

Stacy Abrams lost in GA last time around, but I've heard rumors that she may throw her hat in the ring, too.

People find the weirdest things to get riled up about. It doesn't help that supposedly respectable journalism then reports on random tweets like they're news.

I know this is probably an unpopular sentiment:

Today is March 18, 2019.

I'm not in favor of any candidate I had never heard of on March 18, 2018.

There's at least some scrutiny that comes with being in the national eye for a couple years.

Because being president is the most scrutinized job in the country.

okaydo said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

I'm not on twitter, because its horrible and I have no interest in being in that sphere, but I was surprised at the number of attack columns from the left regarding Beto on the day of his announcement. What surprised me about them is that there are legitimate arguments against Beto (he is too young, he is only known for losing an election, he has no definitive policy goals or objectives), but the criticisms circled around him being a relatively young, white male, as if that should be a disqualifying factor.

---

Beto's critics don't object to him being a white male. They object to white male privilege.

This sums it up:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/beto-orourke-president-sexist-double-standards_n_5c8aa5cbe4b0db7da9f0c7e7

"Man, I'm just born to be in it."

That rubs people the wrong way. There's a certain kind of privilege that you have to have to go from nobody to loser to presidential candidate in less than a year.

There's this feeling -- whether you like it or not -- that there is a double standard for white males. Women and minorities will be overly scrutinized, while if you're white and male you can get away with a lot of things and it'll be excused. Heck, look at our current president.

But if you think being white and male doesn't get you special treatment, I can't help you. But all you have to see is the Republican party hearings. So many dummies become congressmen because of their gender and color of their school.

There's also the issue of him being a centrist. His policies might be popular for red Texas. But liberals don't like it. He wants to reach across the aisle, like he did when he endorsed a Republican congressman last year. But liberals already saw how Obama's attempt at bipartisanship failed.

Also, if you're high-profile like Beto is you're going to get more scrutinized than, say, that Buttagig guy.

Again, it's not about being a white male -- or else left wingers would've disqualified Bernie Sanders last time around. It's about white male privilege.

---

I get the centrist reason for attacking him, but I don't understand how his decision to run is an exercise in privilege. Tulsi Gabbard has equivalent experience, Pete Buttigieg has less experience at the national level, Andrew Yang has no experience, are these people exercising privilege? If the whole argument is based on his saying "Man, I'm just born to be in it." and then just conjecturing out. I don't see what prevents any of Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg or anyone else from saying that.

BearsWiin said:

---

"Beto O'Rourke lost, but he's running for president. Bernie Sanders lost, but he's running for president," Twitter user Emilia wrote. "But Hillary Clinton shouldn't even show her face in the world of politics again. Sexism and double standards, my friends."

Twitter user Amelia doesn't seem to remember that Hilary lost the 2008 primary campaign to Obama ( like Bernie lost to her in 2016) and came back eight years later as The Anointed One.

Stacy Abrams lost in GA last time around, but I've heard rumors that she may throw her hat in the ring, too.

People find the weirdest things to get riled up about. It doesn't help that supposedly respectable journalism then reports on random tweets like they're news.

---

Newspapers used to do what was called "man on the street" articles, where they talk to a few people and get a reading about how people feel about a subject.

Heck, The New York Times does it all the time. They'll talk to one person who likes frying eggs on their shoe. Then find a couple more people. And wallah, a story on the trend of people frying eggs on shoes.


People on Twitter are still people, and they have opinions. And if their opinions encapsulate the thoughts of a lot of people then, yes, that's journalism.

(There are cases, however, where somebody will take one random person's tweet about something that nobody is else is saying and blow it up as representative of a lot of people.)

BearsWiin said:

---

It doesn't help that supposedly respectable journalism then reports on random tweets like they're news.

---

This is a major pet peeve of mine. The news should never report on a tweet unless it is from some official or organization, giving random people a soapbox will only result in extreme perspectives drowning everything else out.

okaydo said:

---

I know this is probably an unpopular sentiment:

Today is March 18, 2019.

I'm not in favor of any candidate I had never heard of on March 18, 2018.

There's at least some scrutiny that comes with being in the national eye for a couple years.

Because being president is the most scrutinized job in the country.

---

So you probably didn't vote for Bill Clinton or Obama. Not many knew of them that far before the election.

Beto's a fan fiction candidate. A tabula rasa who can be what we want him to be. And we do want him to be great because we're great.. right?

I spent the weekend listening to several candidates over the weekend, and I have to tell you, the more I hear from Pete Buttigieg the more I like what he has to say.

golden sloth said:

---

okaydo said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

bearister said:

---

---

I'm not on twitter, because its horrible and I have no interest in being in that sphere, but I was surprised at the number of attack columns from the left regarding Beto on the day of his announcement. What surprised me about them is that there are legitimate arguments against Beto (he is too young, he is only known for losing an election, he has no definitive policy goals or objectives), but the criticisms circled around him being a relatively young, white male, as if that should be a disqualifying factor.

---

Beto's critics don't object to him being a white male. They object to white male privilege.

This sums it up:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/beto-orourke-president-sexist-double-standards_n_5c8aa5cbe4b0db7da9f0c7e7

"Man, I'm just born to be in it."

That rubs people the wrong way. There's a certain kind of privilege that you have to have to go from nobody to loser to presidential candidate in less than a year.

There's this feeling -- whether you like it or not -- that there is a double standard for white males. Women and minorities will be overly scrutinized, while if you're white and male you can get away with a lot of things and it'll be excused. Heck, look at our current president.

But if you think being white and male doesn't get you special treatment, I can't help you. But all you have to see is the Republican party hearings. So many dummies become congressmen because of their gender and color of their school.

There's also the issue of him being a centrist. His policies might be popular for red Texas. But liberals don't like it. He wants to reach across the aisle, like he did when he endorsed a Republican congressman last year. But liberals already saw how Obama's attempt at bipartisanship failed.

Also, if you're high-profile like Beto is you're going to get more scrutinized than, say, that Buttagig guy.

Again, it's not about being a white male -- or else left wingers would've disqualified Bernie Sanders last time around. It's about white male privilege.

---

I get the centrist reason for attacking him, but I don't understand how his decision to run is an exercise in privilege. Tulsi Gabbard has equivalent experience, Pete Buttigieg has less experience at the national level, Andrew Yang has no experience, are these people exercising privilege? If the whole argument is based on his saying "Man, I'm just born to be in it." and then just conjecturing out. I don't see what prevents any of Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg or anyone else from saying that.

---

Beto is a big-name guy. You can't really compare him to Tulsi, Buttigieg or Yang.

There are different expectations for Beto than from those people most of us have never heard of.

So when Beto announces a candidacy that is more about his personality and that he likes punk rock than actual substance, in which he expresses uncertainty about actually running, well, it's going to draw criticism.

If Beto had come out guns a-blazing like, say, Obama in Illinois' capital, I'd bet the reaction would be totally different.

But it is viewed as exercise in privilege in that he could do that.

bearister said:

---

okaydo said:

---

I know this is probably an unpopular sentiment:

Today is March 18, 2019.

I'm not in favor of any candidate I had never heard of on March 18, 2018.

There's at least some scrutiny that comes with being in the national eye for a couple years.

Because being president is the most scrutinized job in the country.

---

So you probably didn't vote for Bill Clinton or Obama. Not many knew of them that far before the election.

---

Bill Clinton was on Johnny Carson in 1988.




Obama of course was famous from the 2004 convention speech, which landed him on several talk shows.

I'm talking about people who had no national profile whatsoever. Like practically zero.

I mean, Pete Buttigeig, Beto O'Rourke and Andrew Yang were virtual unknowns in the year 2017.

But before you bring up Jimmy Carter's name, I'm talking about our current media age, where there are so many people of political prominence that you would know compared to 40 years ago.

golden sloth said:

---

BearsWiin said:

---

It doesn't help that supposedly respectable journalism then reports on random tweets like they're news.

---

This is a major pet peeve of mine. The news should never report on a tweet unless it is from some official or organization, giving random people a soapbox will only result in extreme perspectives drowning everything else out.

---

Not to mention that Twitter user Amelia's rant was factually inaccurate. It's lazy and sloppy lowest common denominator journalism to give Twitter crap like that any validation.