Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce

[HarthorneWingo]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? What are the perceived risks here?

Catering to conservatives who don't represent Democratic values isn't a productive long term strategy. I get that right now, the situation is unique so swing away. But it's literally the opposite of what Bitcofer preaches. In terms of Lincoln Project types, they can peel off donor money that could have gone to campaigns or actual left leaning groups who share our principles and aren't just aiming to grift and regain some steam they lost as members of the Bush administration.

MLK already warned us of the "liberal Democrat." I think I know how he'd feel about the "liberal Republican"

[HarthorneWingo]

Not sure which thread to post this on but since this one is bumpin' ...

Watch on YouTube

[HarthorneWingo]

Kasich's views human rights are fundamentally regressive and allowing him to take the stage is like throwing a pie in the face of Democratic principles and ideas.

Kasich is a man who worked hard to

1. bust unions

2. legislate away a woman's right to an abortion

3. fight against protections for the LGBTQ community

So, if you're a woman, a union worker, or a member of the LGBTQ community, Kasich is the last guy you want to see up on that stage.

[Pointgod]

Did people believe that the convention would be all AOC types speaking for 3 days straight then just Biden at the end?

To be fair I don’t think it’s going to wildly swing things or make a huge difference in people voting or not voting. I think it’s a mistake because the Biden administration should be focused on rebuilding the Democratic Party and the DNC should be focusing on Democrats. I mean I don’t think AOC types needs to speak either. Bloomberg spoke last year and it kind of fell flat.

I want to see more speakers like Bishop William Barber, some up and coming Democratic politicians, Liz, Bernie and of course the official announcement should come from Barack Hussein Obama!

[GONYK]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? What are the perceived risks here?

Catering to conservatives who don't represent Democratic values isn't a productive long term strategy. I get that right now, the situation is unique so swing away. But it's literally the opposite of what Bitcofer preaches. In terms of Lincoln Project types, they can peel off donor money that could have gone to campaigns or actual left leaning groups who share our principles and aren't just aiming to grift and regain some steam they lost as members of the Bush administration.

It's interesting that you bring up Bitecofer's analysis and the Lincoln Project, since she is on the board for the Lincoln Project and a strategist for them. She's also a huge admirer of Rick Wilson and doesn't hide it in the slightest.

I still haven't seen what the risk is here. It's a move that can potentially add voters, and doesn't really run a risk of taking any away. It's not like Kasich now gets to shape the platform or be a member of task forces. He won't even bring up policy.

He's just a familiar voice to a group of voters who would mortally wound Trump.

I don't think anyone is pretending that we're all the same party now, or that this is a long term alliance.

[GONYK]

Did people believe that the convention would be all AOC types speaking for 3 days straight then just Biden at the end?

To be fair I don’t think it’s going to wildly swing things or make a huge difference in people voting or not voting. I think it’s a mistake because the Biden administration should be focused on rebuilding the Democratic Party and the DNC should be focusing on Democrats. I mean I don’t think AOC types needs to speak either. Bloomberg spoke last year and it kind of fell flat.

I want to see more speakers like Bishop William Barber, some up and coming Democratic politicians, Liz, Bernie and of course the official announcement should come from Barack Hussein Obama!

This is my point exactly. If that is the biggest risk, that the speech falls flat, then no harm done. Every other hour will be devoted to promoting Democrats. I'd be shocked if at least 3 out of the 4 people you mentioned aren't speakers as well.

I do think there is some value to acknowledging voters who aren't Dems and just hate Trump.

[j4remi]

It's interesting that you bring up Bitecofer's analysis and the Lincoln Project, since she is on the board for the Lincoln Project and a strategist for them. She's also a huge admirer of Rick Wilson and doesn't hide it in the slightest.

I still haven't seen what the risk is here. It's a move that can potentially add voters, and doesn't really run a risk of taking any away. It's not like Kasich now gets to shape the platform or be a member of task forces. He won't even bring up policy.

He's just a familiar voice to a group of voters who would mortally wound Trump.

I don't think anyone is pretending that we're all the same party now, or that this is a long term alliance.

Bitcofer's involvement doesn't change a) her theory about how voters vote (ie: left votes left or stays home and vice versa for right) or b) the Bush administration members that are using it to regain footholds politically after they wielded political influence in a disastrous manner.

Well I wasn't aiming to convince you that Kasich is risky, idk if you read past the part you zeroed in on but I specifically closed out by saying Kasich's one of the few guys I think is actually a decent individual. That's why I shifted to speaking on the risks of the Lincoln Project taking donations from more worthwhile endeavors.

What do we tangibly have to point to that says it's not the same party? Beyond rhetoric we have the same power players that were wheeling and dealing in the 90's. That's not to say they won't be different, but is there an actual action that you think proves this is a new guard? Because they've kinda sucked at the Congressional level and Biden's got one actual bold proposal with the rest being incremental steps from the last platform (actually unless he moved on it, I'm pretty sure Hillary's Medicare expansion was bigger).

[aq_ua]

It's interesting that you bring up Bitecofer's analysis and the Lincoln Project, since she is on the board for the Lincoln Project and a strategist for them. She's also a huge admirer of Rick Wilson and doesn't hide it in the slightest.

I still haven't seen what the risk is here. It's a move that can potentially add voters, and doesn't really run a risk of taking any away. It's not like Kasich now gets to shape the platform or be a member of task forces. He won't even bring up policy.

He's just a familiar voice to a group of voters who would mortally wound Trump.

I don't think anyone is pretending that we're all the same party now, or that this is a long term alliance.

Bitcofer's involvement doesn't change a) her theory about how voters vote (ie: left votes left or stays home and vice versa for right) or b) the Bush administration members that are using it to regain footholds politically after they wielded political influence in a disastrous manner.

Well I wasn't aiming to convince you that Kasich is risky, idk if you read past the part you zeroed in on but I specifically closed out by saying Kasich's one of the few guys I think is actually a decent individual. That's why I shifted to speaking on the risks of the Lincoln Project taking donations from more worthwhile endeavors.

What do we tangibly have to point to that says it's not the same party? Beyond rhetoric we have the same power players that were wheeling and dealing in the 90's. That's not to say they won't be different, but is there an actual action that you think proves this is a new guard? Because they've kinda sucked at the Congressional level and Biden's got one actual bold proposal with the rest being incremental steps from the last platform (actually unless he moved on it, I'm pretty sure Hillary's Medicare expansion was bigger).

Personally, I think there's political capital to be gained by both sides. Even if Biden wins the White House, it will still take both sides of the aisle to pass policy to fix the major issues that have been neglected - sustainability, infrastructure, education, diplomatic policy. If a move like this sets the stage for even a modest improvement in bipartisanship, it's worth exploring at minimal risk. Once the scary boogeyman is gone, going back to political bickering as usual would be such a waste of an opportunity.

[Clyde_Style]

Kasich would not cost Biden a single vote, but he may gain him some votes.

It does not set any kind of negative precedent for the party to invite a Republican to speak. Everybody not named Jethro T. Confederate understands these are dark times on par with the Great Depression and World Wars and that this is a make or break election for constitutional democracy.

Therefore, crossing the aisle to align yourself with the Democrats unequivocably demonstrates a willingness among the remaining sane Republicans to put country before party. And that means voting for Joe Biden.

It is a truly patriotic gesture and that will resonate with some swing voters.

[j4remi]

Personally, I think there's political capital to be gained by both sides. Even if Biden wins the White House, it will still take both sides of the aisle to pass policy to fix the major issues that have been neglected - sustainability, infrastructure, education, diplomatic policy. If a move like this sets the stage for even a modest improvement in bipartisanship, it's worth exploring at minimal risk. Once the scary boogeyman is gone, going back to political bickering as usual would be such a waste of an opportunity.

I think it's mistaken to expect that once Trump is gone, we'll be able to work out new compromises. That's just not how the GOP has operated. Newt Gingrich introduced a new playbook and Mitch Mcconnell absolutely mastered it, and it's mostly just obstructionism. This is why I'm less concerned about the risk of bringing Kasich up, but that it points to a misstep strategically (not electorally but legislatively after being elected).

For example check out the Crime Bill that Joe Biden originally wanted to pass and then look at what it becomes after he gives the Republicans what they demand in order to pass it. And if they can't attach changes that really weaken or damage the legislation passing, they go full obstructionist.

Electorally, I think there is minimum to no risk. It's the after the fact part that concerns me. We're co-signing Republican strategists from the Bush era and bringing Republican Presidential candidates on stage; and I also don't think it will do much meaningfully to the election either. Trump's numbers were looking godawful well before any of this stuff.

[Clyde_Style]

https://medium.com/@JoeBiden/my-statement-on-foreign-interference-in-u-s-elections-8b42b4444eb6

Biden just told Putin: tamper with these elections at your own risk. You do it and I'm going to shut you down pal. Joe's not taking any prisoners. Vlad has a choice now: tamper and get hammered with sanctions or back the F up and maybe live to see another day. Great move Joe

That is why, today, I am putting the Kremlin and other foreign governments on notice. If elected president, I will treat foreign interference in our election as an adversarial act that significantly affects the relationship between the United States and the interfering nation’s government. I will direct the U.S. Intelligence Community to report publicly and in a timely manner on any efforts by foreign governments that have interfered, or attempted to interfere, with U.S. elections. I will direct my administration to leverage all appropriate instruments of national power and make full use of my executive authority to impose substantial and lasting costs on state perpetrators. These costs could include financial-sector sanctions, asset freezes, cyber responses, and the exposure of corruption. A range of other actions could also be taken, depending on the nature of the attack. I will direct our response at a time and in a manner of our choosing.

I have no desire to escalate tensions with Russia or any other country. I would prefer to focus the full energies of my administration on bringing the international community together to fight COVID-19 and the economic pain it has caused, and to tackle other pressing issues of international concern. But if any foreign power recklessly chooses to interfere in our democracy, I will not hesitate to respond as president to impose substantial and lasting costs.

[robillionaire]

Kasich would not cost Biden a single vote, but he may gain him some votes.

It does not set any kind of negative precedent for the party to invite a Republican to speak. Everybody not named Jethro T. Confederate understands these are dark times on par with the Great Depression and World Wars and that this is a make or break election for constitutional democracy.

Therefore, crossing the aisle to align yourself with the Democrats unequivocably demonstrates a willingness among the remaining sane Republicans to put country before party. And that means voting for Joe Biden.

It is a truly patriotic gesture and that will resonate with some swing voters.

They are trying to distance themselves because they think he is going to lose and they don't want to be dragged down with him because they know as long as their party is associated with the likes of trump in the future they will lose all power. It's not country before party and it's not a patriotic gesture. It's politics. They made their bed and I say let them lay in it. Let them have the stink of trump on them forever because that's what their party is all about and like it or not trump is the logical end result of what happens when they get their way

[HarthorneWingo]

It's interesting that you bring up Bitecofer's analysis and the Lincoln Project, since she is on the board for the Lincoln Project and a strategist for them. She's also a huge admirer of Rick Wilson and doesn't hide it in the slightest.

I still haven't seen what the risk is here. It's a move that can potentially add voters, and doesn't really run a risk of taking any away. It's not like Kasich now gets to shape the platform or be a member of task forces. He won't even bring up policy.

He's just a familiar voice to a group of voters who would mortally wound Trump.

I don't think anyone is pretending that we're all the same party now, or that this is a long term alliance.

Bitcofer's involvement doesn't change a) her theory about how voters vote (ie: left votes left or stays home and vice versa for right) or b) the Bush administration members that are using it to regain footholds politically after they wielded political influence in a disastrous manner.

Well I wasn't aiming to convince you that Kasich is risky, idk if you read past the part you zeroed in on but I specifically closed out by saying Kasich's one of the few guys I think is actually a decent individual. That's why I shifted to speaking on the risks of the Lincoln Project taking donations from more worthwhile endeavors.

What do we tangibly have to point to that says it's not the same party? Beyond rhetoric we have the same power players that were wheeling and dealing in the 90's. That's not to say they won't be different, but is there an actual action that you think proves this is a new guard? Because they've kinda sucked at the Congressional level and Biden's got one actual bold proposal with the rest being incremental steps from the last platform (actually unless he moved on it, I'm pretty sure Hillary's Medicare expansion was bigger).

Personally, I think there's political capital to be gained by both sides. Even if Biden wins the White House, it will still take both sides of the aisle to pass policy to fix the major issues that have been neglected - sustainability, infrastructure, education, diplomatic policy. If a move like this sets the stage for even a modest improvement in bipartisanship, it's worth exploring at minimal risk. Once the scary boogeyman is gone, going back to political bickering as usual would be such a waste of an opportunity.

No it won't. We're going to take back the Senate as well so we'll have all three branches of government with no filibuster. They can watch from the sidelines and whine. And it's STILL not a good idea. Republicans have urinated on us for 40 years. Please stop with this nonsense. Who are theses voter who's going to be persuaded by Kasich that already aren't off the Trump train? lmao

How about the reverse effect on 45 and under democrats who Biden is trying to cull?

Christos breaks it down

Watch on YouTube

[GONYK]

It's interesting that you bring up Bitecofer's analysis and the Lincoln Project, since she is on the board for the Lincoln Project and a strategist for them. She's also a huge admirer of Rick Wilson and doesn't hide it in the slightest.

I still haven't seen what the risk is here. It's a move that can potentially add voters, and doesn't really run a risk of taking any away. It's not like Kasich now gets to shape the platform or be a member of task forces. He won't even bring up policy.

He's just a familiar voice to a group of voters who would mortally wound Trump.

I don't think anyone is pretending that we're all the same party now, or that this is a long term alliance.

Bitcofer's involvement doesn't change a) her theory about how voters vote (ie: left votes left or stays home and vice versa for right)

I think this is debatable. There has been clear statistical movement of people who identify as Republican leaving Trump and declaring themselves as Biden voters this time around. Rachel herself said that there are more persuadable R's right now than her model accounted for in February. Of course, it took a horrendously managed pandemic, racial riots in the streets, and a Trump resorting to outright facism to make it happen. Either way, there is an opportunity this time around to activate voters who wouldn't normally vote for you, and it comes at no political risk. Why pass that up?

or b) the Bush administration members that are using it to regain footholds politically after they wielded political influence in a disastrous manner.

Read on Twitter

?s=20

As far as these guys pasts, I don't care. They know how to win elections, and that is all that matters IMO.

Well I wasn't aiming to convince you that Kasich is risky, idk if you read past the part you zeroed in on but I specifically closed out by saying Kasich's one of the few guys I think is actually a decent individual.

Oh man, don't let Wingy hear you say that

That's why I shifted to speaking on the risks of the Lincoln Project taking donations from more worthwhile endeavors.

As long as they are fighting Trump, their endeavor is as worthwhile as anyone else.

What do we tangibly have to point to that says it's not the same party? Beyond rhetoric we have the same power players that were wheeling and dealing in the 90's. That's not to say they won't be different, but is there an actual action that you think proves this is a new guard? Because they've kinda sucked at the Congressional level and Biden's got one actual bold proposal with the rest being incremental steps from the last platform (actually unless he moved on it, I'm pretty sure Hillary's Medicare expansion was bigger).

When I say "the same party", I meant Kasich Republicans and Dems.

If you are saying that the Dems now are the same party they were 8 years ago, we could have a debate about that. It doesn't really matter though, because it's what Primary voters cast their ballots for. There is of course nuance to that, but a clear choice was made.

So wherever Joe ends up, that's where we'll be until the political math of the situation dictates otherwise. I think he's moved left from where he started though.

[aq_ua]

Personally, I think there's political capital to be gained by both sides. Even if Biden wins the White House, it will still take both sides of the aisle to pass policy to fix the major issues that have been neglected - sustainability, infrastructure, education, diplomatic policy. If a move like this sets the stage for even a modest improvement in bipartisanship, it's worth exploring at minimal risk. Once the scary boogeyman is gone, going back to political bickering as usual would be such a waste of an opportunity.

I think it's mistaken to expect that once Trump is gone, we'll be able to work out new compromises. That's just not how the GOP has operated. Newt Gingrich introduced a new playbook and Mitch Mcconnell absolutely mastered it, and it's mostly just obstructionism. This is why I'm less concerned about the risk of bringing Kasich up, but that it points to a misstep strategically (not electorally but legislatively after being elected).

For example check out the Crime Bill that Joe Biden originally wanted to pass and then look at what it becomes after he gives the Republicans what they demand in order to pass it. And if they can't attach changes that really weaken or damage the legislation passing, they go full obstructionist.

Electorally, I think there is minimum to no risk. It's the after the fact part that concerns me. We're co-signing Republican strategists from the Bush era and bringing Republican Presidential candidates on stage; and I also don't think it will do much meaningfully to the election either. Trump's numbers were looking godawful well before any of this stuff.

Well, we're certainly not going to see any McConnells or Grahams attending the DNC. Kasich's days of being a meaningful player in GOP politics are pretty much over. What I think it does do is appeal to the more moderate GOP players remaining, which is all it might take to not only take majority in both houses but also provide the cover of bipartisanship. If the GOP suffers meaningful defeats in November (and this is still a BIG if), then the GOP is going to be facing an existential crisis and will have to adopt a different strategy to take back real estate among the mass voting blocks. With the Democrats inching further left, there will be room in the middle opening up for the GOP if they choose their candidates wisely.

[HarthorneWingo]

I'm completely heartbroken and devastated. Michael Brook has passed away.

Watch on YouTube

Read on Twitter

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/07/remembering-our-friend-and-comrade-michael-brooks

I can barely bring myself to write this, nor give my friend the tribute he deserves. Earlier today, I got the devastating news of the sudden illness and passing of Michael Brooks.

I first got to know Michael in 2013, when Jacobin was just getting on its feet and Michael was working at the Majority Report. The Majority Report’s host Sam Seder told me that he had first met Michael the year before. Michael had roots in New York City, but spent his formative years in Western Massachusetts and was returning to the city and looking for a job.

Sam needed a producer, met Michael for a drink, and was “immediately struck by his intelligence and his sense of humor and decided to hire him despite his ominous warning that he’s ‘not great with details.’”

That might not have been the best trait for a producer, but Sam found someone with a special talent for commentary and comedy. Before long, Michael became something of a co-host on the Majority Report, helming the broadcast most Thursdays.

It was confusing to me at first. I would be invited onto an outlet that at the time I regarded as progressive but in a liberal way, and have a host ask me about everything from Grenada’s New Jewel Movement to the decline of the South African Communist Party to why the Meidner Plan didn’t end up working in Sweden.

I don’t remember exactly how Michael politically identified at the time, but I do know that he was more intellectually curious than most socialists I’ve met. Michael was fascinated by the world and by the movements people built to change it. He was hungry to cultivate a milieu of people who were both politically committed and loved life.

We’d go out for drinks – at first for beers before we confessed to each other that we both actually never cared much for beer and preferred gin with lots of fruit in it – and chat for hours. At some point, I’d ask him to do some of the impressions his viewers loved like “right-wing Mandela” and “Nation of Islam Obama.” I also got some private ones, like his very good Indian accent (I spent time in 2019 and 2020 trying to teach him some subtle regional differences).

Michael wasn’t afraid of controversy – he was happy to give an outlet to guests who criticized the Left’s less productive pieties. But he wasn’t a shock jock either. Michael could “get away” with controversies because of how he mixed his comedy with earnestness. He truly cared about improving the lives of working people, fighting all forms of oppression, and about international solidarity. There was no contradiction between his criticisms of left-wing “race reductionism” and the fact he went out of his way to platform black and brown leftists new to the media scene.

Sam Seder captured Michael’s skills as a performer when he spoke to me earlier today:

I have worked with a lot of great broadcast hosts and some of the most talented comedians in the country, and what was unique about Michael was not just his intelligence and insight into politics, particularly foreign politics, but his ability to do genuinely brilliant political comedy. I need less than one hand to count how many people I’ve come across who had Michael’s skill in crafting a funny impression or character that was not only a vehicle for political satire but satirical in its essence. It was an amazing and genuinely unique talent that made coming into work each day for me fun.

In recent years, Michael’s politics shifted into a more confident socialism. He never lost his humanism, his spirituality, or abandoned his silent meditation retreats, which made him stand out in the sometimes soulless landscape of political discourse. But he married the warmth he brought from these endeavors with a sharp analysis that recognized the centrality of class and the need for organization. The interplay between these perspectives was behind his vision of the Left: one which could speak plainly to the aspirations of working people but never lose its grander ambitions to change the world.

Branching out from his work at The Majority Report, Michael started building The Michael Brooks Show (TMBS) in 2018. It quickly became an important voice on the Left, reaching almost 130,000 YouTube subscribers and hosting luminaries such as Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and Adolph Reed. TMBS was a radicalizing force for huge numbers of mostly young people who were rightly contemptuous of the political establishment but only beginning to discover alternatives. In this way, Michael, much more so than Jacobin, reached out to an audience that did not come from the traditional left – but who soon discovered they believed in its values.

Michael and I had started brainstorming a Jacobin YouTube channel together right after Trump’s election, though our plans only started to come to fruition early this year. At first, you could say there was a material incentive behind the partnership for him. Back in 2016, having a foot in another platform would give him some independence from the already-established Majority Report – much as he loved Sam and the show. However, by 2020, TMBS was growing at a breakneck speed and he was both financially secure for the first time and overburdened with work.

I asked him why he still wanted to go forward and his answer was simple: he wanted to help build institutions that would last. Michael believed in harnessing the abilities of large numbers of people, in developing them as protagonists for a greater project, rather than relying on a handful of talented individuals.

So this April we launched Weekends his show with his friend Ana Kasparian, and we were slated to launch a weekday broadcast called The Jacobin Show, which would be hosted by Michael but feature regular guests from the Jacobin team and beyond. He hoped to train his colleagues, and show regulars, into a stable that could take over from him within a year and a half. We also had plans to build a studio after the pandemic ended, too, offering a space for both TMBS and Jacobin broadcasts and for movement use.

This dream of a vibrant community nurturing left media was fundamental to Michael’s work. Not because he aspired to be an “influencer” with a large individual platform, but because he knew how important it was to build the kind of bonds that you can’t have political action without. It would be easy to attract passive consumers behind a “product,” far harder to help foster real change.

Victor Serge once said – in a line I recently discussed with Michael – that “the only meaning of life lies in conscious participation in the making of history.” Now that he’s gone, that sounds almost wooden. Michael sought to make the world rather than be made by it, that much is true, but I’ll remember more than his politics. I’ll remember someone who was deeply human; someone who made an impact in those parts of life which politics never quite solves. He was all these things, and he was also an ambitious winner, someone who wanted to take on our callous rulers, and help build a just world, one where accidents of birth don’t condemn millions to misery.

This loss still feels so surreal. I’ll forever miss Michael, for his incredible friendship and his Bill Clinton impression.

[GONYK]

Bitcofer's involvement doesn't change a) her theory about how voters vote (ie: left votes left or stays home and vice versa for right) or b) the Bush administration members that are using it to regain footholds politically after they wielded political influence in a disastrous manner.

Well I wasn't aiming to convince you that Kasich is risky, idk if you read past the part you zeroed in on but I specifically closed out by saying Kasich's one of the few guys I think is actually a decent individual. That's why I shifted to speaking on the risks of the Lincoln Project taking donations from more worthwhile endeavors.

What do we tangibly have to point to that says it's not the same party? Beyond rhetoric we have the same power players that were wheeling and dealing in the 90's. That's not to say they won't be different, but is there an actual action that you think proves this is a new guard? Because they've kinda sucked at the Congressional level and Biden's got one actual bold proposal with the rest being incremental steps from the last platform (actually unless he moved on it, I'm pretty sure Hillary's Medicare expansion was bigger).

Personally, I think there's political capital to be gained by both sides. Even if Biden wins the White House, it will still take both sides of the aisle to pass policy to fix the major issues that have been neglected - sustainability, infrastructure, education, diplomatic policy. If a move like this sets the stage for even a modest improvement in bipartisanship, it's worth exploring at minimal risk. Once the scary boogeyman is gone, going back to political bickering as usual would be such a waste of an opportunity.

No it won't. We're going to take back the Senate as well so we'll have all three branches of government with no filibuster. They can watch from the sidelines and whine. And it's STILL not a good idea. Republicans have urinated on us for 40 years. Please stop with this nonsense. Who are theses voter who's going to be persuaded by Kasich that already aren't off the Trump train? lmao

How about the reverse effect on 45 and under democrats who Biden is trying to cull?

Christos breaks it down

Watch on YouTube

The same demographic that couldn't be bothered to vote for the guy they actually said they cared about?

They have proven nothing but their unreliability. They didn't earn being catered to to the point that you exclude appeals to other potential voters.

[Clyde_Style]

Kasich would not cost Biden a single vote, but he may gain him some votes.

It does not set any kind of negative precedent for the party to invite a Republican to speak. Everybody not named Jethro T. Confederate understands these are dark times on par with the Great Depression and World Wars and that this is a make or break election for constitutional democracy.

Therefore, crossing the aisle to align yourself with the Democrats unequivocably demonstrates a willingness among the remaining sane Republicans to put country before party. And that means voting for Joe Biden.

It is a truly patriotic gesture and that will resonate with some swing voters.

They are trying to distance themselves because they think he is going to lose and they don't want to be dragged down with him because they know as long as their party is associated with the likes of trump in the future they will lose all power. It's not country before party and it's not a patriotic gesture. It's politics. They made their bed and I say let them lay in it. Let them have the stink of trump on them forever because that's what their party is all about and like it or not trump is the logical end result of what happens when they get their way

Not every Republican is a Trump person. Kasich was considered to be a moderate one. He didn't make his bed with Trump.

[robillionaire]

Personally, I think there's political capital to be gained by both sides. Even if Biden wins the White House, it will still take both sides of the aisle to pass policy to fix the major issues that have been neglected - sustainability, infrastructure, education, diplomatic policy. If a move like this sets the stage for even a modest improvement in bipartisanship, it's worth exploring at minimal risk. Once the scary boogeyman is gone, going back to political bickering as usual would be such a waste of an opportunity.

I think it's mistaken to expect that once Trump is gone, we'll be able to work out new compromises. That's just not how the GOP has operated. Newt Gingrich introduced a new playbook and Mitch Mcconnell absolutely mastered it, and it's mostly just obstructionism. This is why I'm less concerned about the risk of bringing Kasich up, but that it points to a misstep strategically (not electorally but legislatively after being elected).

For example check out the Crime Bill that Joe Biden originally wanted to pass and then look at what it becomes after he gives the Republicans what they demand in order to pass it. And if they can't attach changes that really weaken or damage the legislation passing, they go full obstructionist.

Electorally, I think there is minimum to no risk. It's the after the fact part that concerns me. We're co-signing Republican strategists from the Bush era and bringing Republican Presidential candidates on stage; and I also don't think it will do much meaningfully to the election either. Trump's numbers were looking godawful well before any of this stuff.

Well, we're certainly not going to see any McConnells or Grahams attending the DNC. Kasich's days of being a meaningful player in GOP politics are pretty much over. What I think it does do is appeal to the more moderate GOP players remaining, which is all it might take to not only take majority in both houses but also provide the cover of bipartisanship. If the GOP suffers meaningful defeats in November (and this is still a BIG if), then the GOP is going to be facing an existential crisis and will have to adopt a different strategy to take back real estate among the mass voting blocks. With the Democrats inching further left, there will be room in the middle opening up for the GOP if they choose their candidates wisely.

that was what everyone said after obama won twice. that they were going to have to work on their latino outrach and yadda yadda. instead they just went full blown neo-fascist shifting the overton window so far to the right that it has caused the dems to become and align with neo-cons as a response and this is where we are now, teetering off a cliff in a far right political climate with not much hope on the horizon for the non-rich

[robillionaire]

Kasich would not cost Biden a single vote, but he may gain him some votes.

It does not set any kind of negative precedent for the party to invite a Republican to speak. Everybody not named Jethro T. Confederate understands these are dark times on par with the Great Depression and World Wars and that this is a make or break election for constitutional democracy.

Therefore, crossing the aisle to align yourself with the Democrats unequivocably demonstrates a willingness among the remaining sane Republicans to put country before party. And that means voting for Joe Biden.

It is a truly patriotic gesture and that will resonate with some swing voters.

They are trying to distance themselves because they think he is going to lose and they don't want to be dragged down with him because they know as long as their party is associated with the likes of trump in the future they will lose all power. It's not country before party and it's not a patriotic gesture. It's politics. They made their bed and I say let them lay in it. Let them have the stink of trump on them forever because that's what their party is all about and like it or not trump is the logical end result of what happens when they get their way

Not every Republican is a Trump person. Kasich was considerate to be a moderate one. He didn't make his bed with Trump.

He can switch parties then. That party must be relegated to the dustbin of history if humanity wants to have a hope for survival going forward. That is if they haven't already done enough damage by stacking the courts for generations. They were vile even before Trump.