Madmax

Who will be Democrat nominee in 2020?

Recommended Posts

Cortez?, Hillary?, Biden?, Obama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harris will probably throw her hat in the ring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Madmax said:

Cortez?, Hillary?, Biden?, Obama?

Someone from this list would be my guess:

On 1/10/2019 at 9:15 PM, dogballs Tom said:
Quote

The bill's co-sponsors include Chuck Schumer (NY), Dick Durbin (IL), Patty Murray (WA.), Jack Reed (RI), Tom Carper (DE), Bob Menendez (NJ.), Ben Cardin (MD), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY.), Brian Schatz (HI), Mazie Hirono (HI), Elizabeth Warren (MA), Ed Markey (MA), Cory Booker (NJ), Chris Van Hollen (MD), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Kamala Harris (CA), Bob Casey (PA), Bernie Sanders (VT), Tina Smith (MN), Ron Wyden (OR.), Maggie Hassan (NH), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Jeff Merkley (OR) and Mark Warner (VA). 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Madmax said:

Cortez?, Hillary?, Biden?, Obama?

AOC not eligible, she's 29...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, notallthere said:

AOC not eligible, she's 29...

 

Correct, minimum age requirement is 35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Madmax said:

Cortez?, Hillary?, Biden?, Obama?

I just thought I would point out that Obama is not eligible having served 2 terms.  Cortez is too young.  Now if you meant Michelle Obama (who would be awesome but who has also made it very clear she doesn't want the job under any circumstances) then you need to be a bit more clear. What is your interest beyond trying to distract from the Trumpster fires?

My question: You have been on SA since 2004. How have you managed to remain so ignorant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julian Castro, former HUD Secretary and former Mayor of San Antonio, today announced that he is running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like a Biden and X ticket. Biden runs as a one-term president to get things back to normal and vows not to run for re-election. This gives X 4 years OJT. It also gives the R’s 4 years to recover from the current state of affairs.  

 

I feel many R’s would support Biden and X. Other option is one of the D’s who is a combat veteran to run on his military career and, once again, a return to normalcy.  

BUT— all this hinges on Chuck and Nancy acting like adult politicians versus asses.  If they continue thier bullshit the R’a will not cross over to support their candidate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Snore said:

I like a Biden and X ticket. Biden runs as a one-term president to get things back to normal and vows not to run for re-election. This gives X 4 years OJT. It also gives the R’s 4 years to recover from the current state of affairs.  

 

I feel many R’s would support Biden and X. Other option is one of the D’s who is a combat veteran to run on his military career and, once again, a return to normalcy.  

BUT— all this hinges on Chuck and Nancy acting like adult politicians versus asses.  If they continue thier bullshit the R’a will not cross over to support their candidate. 

Biden would be horrible and suffer that same sort of thing that Hillary did--  he would not get people out to vote.  His treatment of Anita Hill and other really bad choices will probably assure that he will not make it out of the primary, so that's good news. 

 He voted for the Patriot Act, he voted for the Iraq War.  He is   Hillary democrat -- tepid and not exciting and will not motivate actual liberals (rather than just Dems) to vote for him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

Biden would be horrible and suffer that same sort of thing that Hillary did--  he would not get people out to vote.  His treatment of Anita Hill and other really bad choices will probably assure that he will not make it out of the primary, so that's good news. 

 He voted for the Patriot Act, he voted for the Iraq War.  He is   Hillary democrat -- tepid and not exciting and will not motivate actual liberals (rather than just Dems) to vote for him. 

But does the country really want or need someone that far from the middle?  The far left will see him as better than Donnie. Intelligent R’s will view him the same way  

 

As as far as Anita Hill?  He can say, “I was wrong.  Like all Americans my views have evolved.  Is anyone the same as they were in 1991?  Can anyone truly say they hold the same views they had 20 years ago?”  If he said that his wounds would ring true for any honest person

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Snore said:

But does the country really want or need someone that far from the middle?  The far left will see him as better than Donnie. Intelligent R’s will view him the same way  

 

As as far as Anita Hill?  He can say, “I was wrong.  Like all Americans my views have evolved.  Is anyone the same as they were in 1991?  Can anyone truly say they hold the same views they had 20 years ago?”  If he said that his wounds would ring true for any honest person

The only reason progressives had to vote for Hillary was that she was not Trump. It was not enough. The Democrats need new blood not these old fools that voted for the Patriot Act and voted to invade Iraq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is always entertaining when Republicans start describing someone vs the middle. 

edit: at this point the Ds could run the real Bozo the Clown and beat Trump.  It's that bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

edit: at this point the Ds could run the real Bozo the Clown and beat Trump.

Well, it worked for the Republicans last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherrod Brown will contend . . 

Hey Reichistas - STFU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Snore said:

Intelligent R’s will view him the same way

At least according to polls most R's think Trump is fine. ATM -- possibly subject to change if absolute proof of horrific criminal activity comes to light -- I doubt he'll even face a serious primary challenge. I wouldn't count on Biden getting votes from anyone who identifies as Republican. 

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere  
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst 
Are full of passionate intensity."

I dunno, what about Kamala Harris?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, weightless said:

what about Kamala Harris?

Prosecutors leave abundant paper trails, some of which are easier to explain than others.
 

Quote

 

As I wrote last year, the California Attorney General's office under Harris defended egregious prosecutor misconduct in several cases:

As California Attorney General, Harris' office continued to display indifference toward concerns of misconduct. In March 2015, the California A.G. appealed the dismissal of a child molestation case after a Kern County prosecutor falsified an interview transcript to add an incriminating confession.

Harris' office, citing state court precedent, tried to argue that the prosecutor's action "was certainly conscience shocking in the sense that it involved false testimony by a prosecutor in a formal criminal proceeding. But it did not involve 'brutal and … offensive' conduct employed to obtain a conviction." In other words, the defendant's false confession wasn't beaten out of him, and therefore didn't violate his constitutional rights. The appeals court disagreed and threw out the conviction.

In another 2015 case, Baca v. Adams, Harris' office opposed a post-conviction appeal by a defendant who was sentenced after the prosecutor in his case lied to the jury about whether an informant received compensation for his testimony. A state court found the prosecutor's testimony was "sheer fantasy," but declined to overturn the conviction.

In Baca, Harris' office only withdrew its opposition after an embarrassing (and filmed) hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a panel of three Ninth Circuit judges pointedly asked why such prosecutors weren't being charged with perjury and threatened to release an opinion naming names if Harris' office continued in its folly.

In 2015, Harris' office also appealed the removal of the entire Orange County District Attorney's office from a high-profile death penalty case after a bombshell report revealed a long-running and unconstitutional jailhouse snitch program.

In 2014, the California Attorney General's Office opposed releasing nonviolent California inmates—part of the state's compliance with a 2011 Supreme Court ruling that found its prison system was unconstitutionally overcrowded—arguing that "if forced to release these inmates early, prisons would lose an important labor pool." Harris said she was unaware of her office's work and was "shocked" to read about it in the newspaper.

Those weren't the only times that Harris' office appeared somewhat less than progressive.

 

Shocked, I tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, weightless said:

At least according to polls most R's think Trump is fine. ATM -- possibly subject to change if absolute proof of horrific criminal activity comes to light -- I doubt he'll even face a serious primary challenge. I wouldn't count on Biden getting votes from anyone who identifies as Republican. 

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere  
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst 
Are full of passionate intensity."

I dunno, what about Kamala Harris?

 

You must be crazy!  She compared ICE to the KKK and came out against a nominee because he belonged to the Knights of Columbus.   A fine senator..... if you are from Cali. But not electable to POTUS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tulsi Gabbard is the most antiwar Dem

During the 2016 presidential election, Gabbard stepped down from her post as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee so she could endorse Sanders, making her one of the few House Democrats to back the Vermont senator over Hillary Clinton during the primary. 

I think she could easily beat trump but a corrupt DNC is another matter. Either Creepy Joe or Pocahontas will be the establishment$ pick unless of course queen Hillary decides to run again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mickey Rat said:

Tulsi Gabbard

She is charismatic, smart, has some name recognition but not a long record. On the other hand she hasn't been entirely inoffensive, her political beliefs are eclectic and her religion may seem a bit outre to some. I'm terrible at these kinds of predictions but, FWIW, I don' think her brand will be popular enough to win nationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 7:02 PM, d'ranger said:

It is always entertaining when Republicans start describing someone vs the middle. 

edit: at this point the Ds could run the real Bozo the Clown and beat Trump.  It's that bad.

I think if they run Joe or Warren, Trump's second term is assured unless as pointed out, something drastic happens, but then the republicans come up with a more electable candidate.  Real shame as that is what looks like might happen at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bridhb said:
On 1/12/2019 at 7:02 PM, d'ranger said:

It is always entertaining when Republicans start describing someone vs the middle. 

edit: at this point the Ds could run the real Bozo the Clown and beat Trump.  It's that bad.

I think if they run Joe or Warren, Trump's second term is assured unless as pointed out, something drastic happens, but then the republicans come up with a more electable candidate.  Real shame as that is what looks like might happen at this point.

A year and a half ahead of the 1994 election, nobody outside Arkansas had ever heard of Bill Clinton. A year and a half ahead of the 2008 election, the economic disaster was just beginning to unfold and rather few people had heard of Barack Obama.

The eventual Democratic candidate(s) could be anybody in a large relatively obscure field, or somebody else; besides IMHO Warren and Biden are both too old. The Baby Boomers are done. The torch should be passed to a new generation.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

A year and a half ahead of the 1994 election, nobody outside Arkansas had ever heard of Bill Clinton. A year and a half ahead of the 2008 election, the economic disaster was just beginning to unfold and rather few people had heard of Barack Obama.

The eventual Democratic candidate(s) could be anybody in a large relatively obscure field, or somebody else; besides IMHO Warren and Biden are both too old. The Baby Boomers are done. The torch should be passed to a new generation.

-DSK

Being an old boomer myself, I agree.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 7:02 PM, d'ranger said:

at this point the Ds could run the real Bozo the Clown and beat Trump.  It's that bad.

cuomo.  and in a stunner, he makes kiss kiss with deblasio - who becomes his vp running mate

the us wins, and more importantly, with them gone ny wins bigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bridhb said:

Being an old boomer myself, I agree.

I'm pre-boomer and I agree. I know most Ds don't want to hear it but the dirty-dealing DNC needs to own this outcome. They should have all been replaced. I can well imagine the bullshit some of them are planning this time around to manipulate and get even. If that happens, Rump wins again over the oldsters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue Crab said:

I'm pre-boomer and I agree. I know most Ds don't want to hear it but the dirty-dealing DNC needs to own this outcome. They should have all been replaced. I can well imagine the bullshit some of them are planning this time around to manipulate and get even. If that happens, Rump wins again over the oldsters.

 

It had better not be another Wall Street syncophant, masquerading as someone who gives jack shit about people who work for a living. At least whatever nominee the GOP puts up will be relatively open about representing the .1%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 6:02 PM, d'ranger said:

It is always entertaining when Republicans start describing someone vs the middle. 

edit: at this point the Ds could run the real Bozo the Clown and beat Trump.  It's that bad.

Your last candidate couldn't,  but it was her turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" I know most Ds don't want to hear it but the dirty-dealing DNC needs to own this outcome."

You DO recall that Hillary got the most votes in both the primary elections AND the general, right? This result has nothing to do with "DNC dirty-dealing" and everything to do with 40 years of Republican fear mongering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

" I know most Ds don't want to hear it but the dirty-dealing DNC needs to own this outcome."

That will never happen. Barnyard animal stupidity is predictable, to say the least. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:
56 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

I'm pre-boomer and I agree (about choosing younger candidate). I know most Ds don't want to hear it but the dirty-dealing DNC needs to own this outcome. They should have all been replaced. I can well imagine the bullshit some of them are planning this time around to manipulate and get even. If that happens, Rump wins again over the oldsters.

 

You DO recall that Hillary got the most votes in both the primary elections AND the general, right? This result has nothing to do with "DNC dirty-dealing" and everything to do with 40 years of Republican fear mongering.

 

^ Both ^ The real "dirty deal" is the whole super-delegate thing which makes the primary even less democratic..... irony indeed. Hillary got more votes anyway, largely IMHO because she had more name recognition, and a hell of a lot more money.

Donna Brazille gets a lot of crap for the ineffective Democratic Party but (again IMHO) she was hamstrung by a couple of factors, one is that the party itself not only had no money but was in debt big-time....... dunno why they didn't just get more money from the Russians....... and prior Democratic Party leaders had deliberately and maliciously pissed off a bunch of groups that normally align with Democrats, thus shrinking the coalition. I don't think she had the leadership qualities to get out of that hole anyway, but she (and thus the party "organization," such as it is) had the odds stacked against.

In a way, this is good, because it means that Democratic candidates rise or fall on their own strengths and merit, not because they get funneled cash and assistants from a top-down authoritarian party machine.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

^ Both ^ The real "dirty deal" is the whole super-delegate thing which makes the primary even less democratic..... irony indeed. Hillary got more votes anyway, largely IMHO because she had more name recognition, and a hell of a lot more money.

Donna Brazille gets a lot of crap for the ineffective Democratic Party but (again IMHO) she was hamstrung by a couple of factors, one is that the party itself not only had no money but was in debt big-time....... dunno why they didn't just get more money from the Russians....... and prior Democratic Party leaders had deliberately and maliciously pissed off a bunch of groups that normally align with Democrats, thus shrinking the coalition. I don't think she had the leadership qualities to get out of that hole anyway, but she (and thus the party "organization," such as it is) had the odds stacked against.

In a way, this is good, because it means that Democratic candidates rise or fall on their own strengths and merit, not because they get funneled cash and assistants from a top-down authoritarian party machine.

-DSK

I hope that last paragraph works out but I doubt it bc there is still plenty of talk about running the usual old suspects. And doubtless DWShultz is still slinking around, up to no good. We ought to be past kingmakers in the smoke-filled rooms but we are not.

The Rs are in the same shape. If Rump goes down prematurely, and I sure hope he does, Mitch and Co. Are right back in the driver's seat. 

The melinneials can carry the day... if they show up. 

We need term limits now more than ever, and real leadership; not based on candidates' color or gender or "turn."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

" I know most Ds don't want to hear it but the dirty-dealing DNC needs to own this outcome."

You DO recall that Hillary got the most votes in both the primary elections AND the general, right? This result has nothing to do with "DNC dirty-dealing" and everything to do with 40 years of Republican fear mongering.

The sweet bird of myopic vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

I hope that last paragraph works out but I doubt it bc there is still plenty of talk about running the usual old suspects. And doubtless DWShultz is still slinking around, up to no good. We ought to be past kingmakers in the smoke-filled rooms but we are not.

The Rs are in the same shape. If Rump goes down prematurely, and I sure hope he does, Mitch and Co. Are right back in the driver's seat. 

The melinneials can carry the day... if they show up. 

We need term limits now more than ever, and real leadership; not based on candidates' color or gender or "turn."

Don't fall for fearmongering about Representative Wasserperson.  She is a lightweight, who was in way over her head at DNC.  She backed Obummer early and turned that into a good payoff.  Her great accomplishment in Tallahassee, (after gaining the nickname I used upon arrival as a new state legislator and telling the good old boys that she wanted the good old boys to use gender neutral terms) was a bill to make the Key Lime Pie the Official State Pie of Florida.  

This is not someone who will be seeking or attaining higher office.  Her constituents love her because she represents their interests, so they keep sending her back. That is kinds the way the system should work.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

I think she's playing a long game, angling for VP.

Or just profile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tulsi's toast. She met w/ Assad, and made seriously anti gay comments when she was 21.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

A year and a half ahead of the 1994 election, nobody outside Arkansas had ever heard of Bill Clinton. A year and a half ahead of the 2008 election, the economic disaster was just beginning to unfold and rather few people had heard of Barack Obama.

The eventual Democratic candidate(s) could be anybody in a large relatively obscure field, or somebody else; besides IMHO Warren and Biden are both too old. The Baby Boomers are done. The torch should be passed to a new generation.

-DSK

Bill Clinton had given the nomination speech at the 1988 DNC convention, and Obama had given the keynote at the 2004 DNC convention. This MNF bit was months before Obama announced and when it was already widely speculated he would run. 

 

 

I think it a bit revisionist how they are often portrayed as coming out of nowhere, just as it would be to portray Warren or Tulsi Gabbard as coming out of nowhere. It is really tough to run for President, you either need very deep pockets, or a coalition of people behind you with very deep pockets (or as is the case with Sanders, a very very big coalition with moderately deep pockets). The Dem nominee won't really come out of nowhere, it will be somebody who is known and has already assembling the infrastructure for some time. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Tulsi's toast. She met w/ Assad, and made seriously anti gay comments when she was 21.

She did worse than meet with Assad, she met with Trump. Still, the world is different now and if Trump's election proves anything, it is that the past can be dismissed as not being relevant and sometimes as not existing at all. Fake news, Fake history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LenP said:

She did worse than meet with Assad, she met with Trump. Still, the world is different now and if Trump's election proves anything, it is that the past can be dismissed as not being relevant and sometimes as not existing at all. Fake news, Fake history. 

with republicans (dumber than rocks) - proven.  but with enlightened democrats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 1:51 AM, Mrleft8 said:

Tulsi's toast. She met w/ Assad, and made seriously anti gay comments when she was 21.

GULP

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17? Tell me she didn't keep an annotated calendar.

I didn't, thank goodness.

There was a gay kid where I went to high school who developed a crush on a friend of mine, who was not gay. An increasingly creep soap opera ensued for a while. Unhappy with this situation, my friend humiliated the kid in an incredibly mean way, so much that he left the school. I was there and on his side. I'm not proud of it and it doesn't define my political views about gay people today.

I don't care enough to learn what she actually said at 17.

She met with Assad? Blasphemy if you think de-regiming Syria is a good idea, I guess. Doesn't bother me a bit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warrens ground game is the best so far.

A lot of people are skittish about her chances because “last election proved a woman can’t win” but... last time the popular vote went to H, and look who’s Speaker for her second time.

Shes gotta get Occasio’s support, and some bright choice for VP. My preference would be some exRepublican who is sick of that shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2019 at 2:00 PM, LenP said:

Bill Clinton had given the nomination speech at the 1988 DNC convention, and Obama had given the keynote at the 2004 DNC convention.

Which suggests, Warren.

 

2 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Warrens ground game is the best so far.

A lot of people are skittish about her chances because “last election proved a woman can’t win” but... last time the popular vote went to H, and look who’s Speaker for her second time.

Shes gotta get Occasio’s support, and some bright choice for VP. My preference would be some exRepublican who is sick of that shit.

 

Problem with Warren is she's such a nerd. 

Responding to the Pocanhontas thing with a DNA test? 

Trying to copy AOC's kitchen livestream?  "I'm gonna get me a beer"

That shit was Hillary-level awkward.

She might have a snowball's chance in hell  -  if she can get someone like, say, Tammy Duckworth as running mate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Max is Trolling again.

Could be Biden, but I doubt it.

We'll see lots of conservative/religious folk with their wipers on "HIgh" swishing away the deeds

they've previously squinted through.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frenchie said:

Which suggests, Warren.

 

 

Problem with Warren is she's such a nerd. 

Responding to the Pocanhontas thing with a DNA test? 

Trying to copy AOC's kitchen livestream?  "I'm gonna get me a beer"

That shit was Hillary-level awkward.

She might have a snowball's chance in hell  -  if she can get someone like, say, Tammy Duckworth as running mate. 

I dunno... her policy proposals are on point for average people and after Trump the country might be ready for a competent, caring nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frenchie said:

Problem with Warren is she's such a nerd. 

I dunno. Obama was a nerd too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frenchie said:

Problem with Warren is she's such a nerd. 

Responding to the Pocanhontas thing with a DNA test? 

Trying to copy AOC's kitchen livestream?  "I'm gonna get me a beer"

That shit was Hillary-level awkward.

She might have a snowball's chance in hell  -  if she can get someone like, say, Tammy Duckworth as running mate. 

Yea, she's got some issues :)  She's one of those candidates who really needs to just give up the 'image coaching' and be herself.  She's ALWAYS going to be awkward in certain settings.

That being said, I still believe that Warren's biggest hurdle is Bernie and to a lesser degree Cuomo.  I don't know how she convinces a Bernie voter to become a Warren voter in the primaries but that's what she's got to do.  That' gets WAAAY easier if Bernie himself decides not to run.  But I doubt that.

I think Gabbard is already cooked.  She's just not where the progressive wing is leaning these days and that's from where the energy is coming.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Sherrod Brown runs. He’s not a radical and he appeals to the working class. Amy Klobuchar as running mate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Yea, she's got some issues :)  She's one of those candidates who really needs to just give up the 'image coaching' and be herself.  She's ALWAYS going to be awkward in certain settings.

That being said, I still believe that Warren's biggest hurdle is Bernie and to a lesser degree Cuomo.  I don't know how she convinces a Bernie voter to become a Warren voter in the primaries but that's what she's got to do.  That' gets WAAAY easier if Bernie himself decides not to run.  But I doubt that.

I think Gabbard is already cooked.  She's just not where the progressive wing is leaning these days and that's from where the energy is coming.  

I think “Bernie’s voters” corresponds to the hard-to-herd cats which characterizes Democrat voters so well.

They don’t “belong” to politicians they way Trumpettes do. Fiercely independent and fickle, they are more influenced by political fad than charisma. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Yea, she's got some issues :)  She's one of those candidates who really needs to just give up the 'image coaching' and be herself.  She's ALWAYS going to be awkward in certain settings.

That being said, I still believe that Warren's biggest hurdle is Bernie and to a lesser degree Cuomo.  I don't know how she convinces a Bernie voter to become a Warren voter in the primaries but that's what she's got to do.  That' gets WAAAY easier if Bernie himself decides not to run.  But I doubt that.

I think Gabbard is already cooked.  She's just not where the progressive wing is leaning these days and that's from where the energy is coming.  

 

don't underestimate cuomo.  he's got dem control in albany, a healthy nys income stream to spend, and a long list of progressive initiatives he'll get passed in the next 4 - 6 months.  he also has a new ag that will start ramping up charges against trump inc and trump family when the time is right

he will make sure the new laws he gets passed become national news, and will be a strong player for 2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I think “Bernie’s voters” corresponds to the hard-to-herd cats lemmings which characterizes Democrat voters so well.

Fiercely independent dependent on government largess and fickle  suffering from groupthink, they are more influenced by hatred of Trump political fad than and prefer charismatic leaders with thin resumes like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and AOC.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

don't underestimate cuomo.  he's got dem control in albany, a healthy nys income stream to spend, and a long list of progressive initiatives he'll get passed in the next 4 - 6 months.  he also has a new ag that will start ramping up charges against trump inc and trump family when the time is right

he will make sure the new laws he gets passed become national news, and will be a strong player for 2020

Yea, I don't underestimate Cuomo at all.  I can't see how Warren can win the nomination without a vocal and enthusiastic base and, although new England is a lot of voters, none of those 3 are going to win if they split the votes up.  The way you win in a big field is a chunk of die hard support that always keeps you in the running wherever you go - but you also have to have some foundation of virtually guaranteed delegates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cuomo? he's got little to no national recognition. anythings possible but the enthusiasm shown here for him by not democrats should be an indication he hasn't a chance in hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

Yea, I don't underestimate Cuomo at all.  I can't see how Warren can win the nomination without a vocal and enthusiastic base and, although new England is a lot of voters, none of those 3 are going to win if they split the votes up.  The way you win in a big field is a chunk of die hard support that always keeps you in the running wherever you go - but you also have to have some foundation of virtually guaranteed delegates.

I don't think I can stand another presidential election where both major party candidates are from NY. I don't think the rest of the country could either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t stand his voice or his politics, and I suspect most folks in flyover country feel the same as I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Olsonist said:

I dunno. Obama was a nerd too.

Yeah, but he wasn't painfully awkward about it.

Like cmilliken says  -  she needs to stop being so damned self-conscious about it, and embrace it.

Cuomo?  I fuckin hope not.  Too establishment for the libs, too lib for the cons, and too obviously opportunistic self-serving hypocrite for either/both..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myself, I don't see her awkwardness and I do see her 'embracing it.' But maybe that's because I like her. She seems to be a lot like Obama to me. I think she's 'inherited' the national progressive constituency that Bernie created.

I'd like to see a Warren/Beto ticket.

I agree completely on Cuomo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, J28 said:
7 hours ago, phillysailor said:

I think “Bernie’s voters” corresponds to the hard-to-herd cats lemmings which characterizes Democrat voters so well.

 Fiercely independent dependent on government largess and fickle  suffering from groupthink, they are more influenced by hatred of Trump political fad than and prefer charismatic leaders with thin resumes like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and AOC.

 FIFY

Groupthink, yeah that may well apply, but your other edits miss the mark. 

Remember the quote “I don’t belong to an organized party, I’m a Democrat?” That’s because getting them to agree has been historically difficult. Hence, herding cats applies to us, whereas the righties march in lockstep over the cliff, led by political heroes and church leaders who invoke babies rights, trickle down and other right wing tropes. They are authoritarian to the core, whereas lefties resent & distrust authority.

I think both sides respond to charismatic leaders; JFK, Reagan, Bill C and Trump used theirs to good effect.

But I really think the Bernie phenomenon was an anti-establishment candidate preaching to the hearts of libs: government for & by well meaning & earning people supporting those less fortunate.

And that’s the other thing you don’t get: many, many Bernie supporters are top 10%. They are well educated, scientifically minded, socially aware guys & gals sick of the usual corporate politics. They don’t mind giving back to the society which helped them become successful: they know they didn’t build all of what they enjoy.

They are way more humble and civic minded than arrogant & greedy Trump voters in it for the tax breaks & power play.

Elizabeth Warren could scoop them up because they recognize in her a kindred soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and thin resumes? 

Which party voted in a reformed alky whose biggest success was pledge week and a mediocre baseball team? Which party invited a bankrupt businessman with extensive Russian ties and a silver spoon to lead the country?

Our “inexperience” must refer to being editor of the Harvard Law Review, Rhodes Scholar and other lightweight accomplishments.

Your blinders are very definitely impeding your judgment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Myself, I don't see her awkwardness and I do see her 'embracing it.' But maybe that's because I like her. She seems to be a lot like Obama to me. I think she's 'inherited' the national progressive constituency that Bernie created.

I'd like to see a Warren/Beto ticket.

I agree completely on Cuomo.

I don't know. She lacks that certain je ne sais quoi, but I don't know what it is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Myself, I don't see her awkwardness and I do see her 'embracing it.' But maybe that's because I'm a lot like her. She seems to be a lot like Obama to me. I think she's 'inherited' the national progressive constituency that Bernie created.

I'd like to see a Warren/Beto ticket.

I agree completely on Cuomo.

FTFY (no offence, same's true for me).

 

I like her, I just worry she's shooting herself in the foot, at times, lately.  The dna test, and the beer in the kitchen thing?  She needs to drop that bullshit. Just be who she is.  

I agree she'll pick up most of Bernie's supporters.   Even if he runs again.  Not inherit: take back.  Lots of folks only backed him, because she wasn't running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 1:51 AM, Mrleft8 said:

Tulsi's toast. She met w/ Assad, and made seriously anti gay comments when she was 21.

Yup, she's toast. DUH.

Screen-Shot-2013-09-02-at-2.27.47-PM.png

Screen-Shot-2013-09-02-at-2.39.38-PM.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Poor man has no chin. No wonder he gasses his own people. De-regime immediately!

Yes, I expect him to start gassing innocent women and children at any minute, now that Trump is threatening to pull out USG troops! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

And, in the least surprising headline of 1/21/19... Harris is in.

 

As a prosecutor in San Francisco, she took the death penalty off the table in for a cop killer.  Softer on crime than warm butter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True dat, but she has nice hair and can emulate Obama’s speaking style and mannerisms, plus she’s woke.   That qualifies her to be a top tier Democrat candidate this cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, silent bob said:

As a prosecutor in San Francisco, she took the death penalty off the table in for a cop killer.  Softer on crime than warm butter.

What difference does it make?
When was the last time Cali cooked anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 1/17/06. A blind elderly man in a wheelchair. They're not over the embarrassment yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, silent bob said:

As a prosecutor in San Francisco, she took the death penalty off the table in for a cop killer.  Softer on crime than warm butter.

 

3 hours ago, J28 said:

True dat, but she has nice hair and can emulate Obama’s speaking style and mannerisms, plus she’s woke.   That qualifies her to be a top tier Democrat candidate this cycle.

lol, conservatives bullshitting about "soft on crime".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

What difference does it make?
When was the last time Cali cooked anyone?

the US doesn't execute many people - because it's expensive and aside from fueling the blood lust of morons like those above, pointless. This is just bullshit the Trumpanzees fling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

the US doesn't execute many people - because it's expensive and aside from fueling the blood lust of morons like those above, pointless. This is just bullshit the Trumpanzees fling.

It needn't be. I think 20 + years on Death Row is prima facie cruel and unusual punishment.

We could treat capital cases as priority speedy trials/appeals to be completed in 90 days.

Pointless? Just storage of these lower-than-pond-scums costs us a fortune; money that could be used to care for regular folks who haven't killed or raped 17 teenagers or worse.

And for what? Some long-descredited religious notions?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

It needn't be. I think 20 + years on Death Row is prima facie cruel and unusual punishment.

We could treat capital cases as priority speedy trials/appeals to be completed in 90 days.

Pointless? Just storage of these lower-than-pond-scums costs us a fortune; money that could be used to care for regular folks who haven't killed or raped 17 teenagers or worse.

And for what? Some long-descredited religious notions?

 

What about

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, frenchie said:

Collateral damage.

If you're going to unnecessarily kill some people, it's going to include some who didn't deserve it. Until we invent a human or a government that doesn't fuck up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 12:24 AM, bridhb said:

Being an old boomer myself, I agree.

being a young boomer, I dont..well, I do sort of .I certainly think someone under 60.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kamala is having her opening rally locally, but alas, it conflicts with the Jr Program.

Otherwise, I think it would be a great civic experience for my teen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites