Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
4 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Wow, thanks for that well reasoned and researched response.

Keep chasing those polls, hon.

Sure thing. Not chasing polls. Just following them. And I will keep doing so. You should too.

Posted
8 hours ago, EuroHorn said:

Democrats fighting over which old white guy should get nominated ... 

Weren’t you idiots proclaiming Dems would never again nominate a white man bc idpol?

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

facepalm

No

These Republicans are not decent people. They are inherently and intentionally hateful, bigoted, corrupt and have no loyalty to the US anymore. 

Fuck. That. Noise. 

Joe also campaigned for a republican in Michigan in 2018. Disqualifying.  They all fall in line eventually, they aren’t “special” 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

You can compliment them all you want; but they won’t work with you if you get elected, Joe 

Edited by Js1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Weren’t you idiots proclaiming Dems would never again nominate a white man bc idpol?

Narrator: “they were.”

Posted

Aside from the obvious goal of a candidate that can beat Trump, I don’t know if there has ever been a more interesting VP selection.  Actively campaigning not just Presedential candidate vs Trump but also VP candidate against Pence is something Dems should be actively planning for.  Not sure if previous campaigns had this dynamic or at least at this level.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, TexEx15 said:

Aside from the obvious goal of a candidate that can beat Trump, I don’t know if there has ever been a more interesting VP selection.  Actively campaigning not just Presedential candidate vs Trump but also VP candidate against Pence is something Dems should be actively planning for.  Not sure if previous campaigns had this dynamic or at least at this level.

Buttigieg vs. Pence

This VP debate is going to be electric!

Posted
14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Buttigieg vs. Pence

This VP debate is going to be electric!

Like a ranch fountain at a buffet in Indiana. 

Posted

Warren-Beto is my current dream ticket. Not very likely at this point but worth a shot. I'm also likijg Buttigieg and am hoping Yang gets some traction to bring in some new thinking. He's right about automization.

 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


Very presidential looking

Admittedly, I don't know much about the guy but he's got a pretty solid looking CV.

He's got "executive experience" in a prosperous, progressive state and appears to be scandal-free. Other plusses for him in my book, in no particular order, are: strong on the environment, anti-death penalty, weed-friendly, pro-international trade, opposed Iraq, seen as a leader by his gubernatorial peers, and took on Trump's Muslim-ban.

I'd like to hear the negatives from those who know more so I can have a more rounded opinion of him.

Edited by bolverk
Also, not yet in his 70s (but close).
Posted
18 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Admittedly, I don't know much about the guy but he's got a pretty solid looking CV.

He's got "executive experience" in a prosperous, progressive state and appears to be scandal-free. Other plusses for him in my book, in no particular order, are: strong on the environment, anti-death penalty, weed-friendly, pro-international trade, opposed Iraq, seen as a leader by his gubernatorial peers, and took on Trump's Muslim-ban.

I'd like to hear the negatives from those who know more so I can have a more rounded opinion of him.

I hope he focuses on these things and not just climate change.  I don't like candidacies that appear to be "one track wonders" - Booker and weed, for instance (because half the field has already co-opted the weed issue).

I think he has a very distinct voice in this primary - he's the only one with state-level executive experience (so far).  Of course, that advantage goes away if, for instance, Hickenlooper jumps in. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I hope he focuses on these things and not just climate change.  I don't like candidacies that appear to be "one track wonders" - Booker and weed, for instance (because half the field has already co-opted the weed issue).

I think he has a very distinct voice in this primary - he's the only one with state-level executive experience (so far).  Of course, that advantage goes away if, for instance, Hickenlooper jumps in. 

We're on the same page, brother.

Posted
1 hour ago, horncyclist said:

Warren-Beto is my current dream ticket. Not very likely at this point but worth a shot. I'm also likijg Buttigieg and am hoping Yang gets some traction to bring in some new thinking. He's right about automization.

 

 

This would be the next best thing to a Warren/Buttigieg ticket, but agree on the low probability of it happening. I'd settle for a Harris/Beto ticket, and I think that's a winning ticket. 

Posted (edited)
Just now, Doc Sam Beckett said:

 

This would be the next best thing to a Warren/Buttigieg ticket, but agree on the low probability of it happening. I'd settle for a Harris/Beto ticket, and I think that's a winning ticket. 

Shut up and take my money? 

Best part would be the VP debate - Pence wouldn't be able to talk, Mother would not approve of talking to men so handsome like Beto. 

Edited by Js1
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Happy to see Inslee jump in.

 

But this won't go over well. 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Ugh. If true, next.

Distasteful but not an out-right deal killer (yet). As the article notes, senators can transfer their existing campaign war chests to their presidential bids, which gives them a distinct financial advantage, and none have said they won't do so. Governors, apparently, don't have that built-in advantage. Is all of that pre-existing money at their disposal from individual donors? I doubt it but could very well be wrong.

Edit: The article also states that none of the other Democratic hopefuls have said they'd refuse Super Pac money in the general.

Edited by bolverk
Posted
20 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

 

This would be the next best thing to a Warren/Buttigieg ticket, but agree on the low probability of it happening. I'd settle for a Harris/Beto ticket, and I think that's a winning ticket. 

I still don't get the appeal of Harris.

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I still don't get the appeal of Harris.

She objectively checks the most boxes for a successful bid for the Democratic nomination.

1.  She’s a person of color which gives her an advantage in the southern states where the minority demographic carries serious weight.

2.  She’s a woman which is also an asset among Democratic primary voters.

3.  She’s not old. 

4. She has a career of public service.

5. She’s from California which gives her another huge advantage when it comes to winning that state in the primary.

 

However, when it comes to real substance and ideas that separates her from the pack, there’s not a lot there yet.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Posted (edited)

To be fair, there wasn't a lot of real substance with Obama either.  "Yes we can" and "hope we can believe in" wasn't really a policy platform.  "Speaking truth" isn't either. 

The candidacies are a lot alike.  And not just because they're both black.  They're both inspirational stories and the face of changing demographics in America and totally 180s from Bush/Trump.

Edited by Js1
Posted
23 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Edit: The article also states that none of the other Democratic hopefuls have said they'd refuse Super Pac money in the genera

It would be insane to do that in the general election. Cool, but insane.

In the primary, however, anyone who uses a SuperPAC is playing dirty.

Posted
1 minute ago, Js1 said:

To be fair, there wasn't a lot of real substance with Obama either.  "Yes we can" and "hope we can believe in" wasn't really a policy platform.  "Speaking truth" isn't either. 

The candidacies are a lot alike.  And not just because they're both black.  They're both inspirational stories and the face of changing demographics in America and totally 180s from Bush/Trump.

Obama had plenty of policy. The biggest thing being health insurance.   Hope and change was about tone and vision.  It wasn't his platform. 

  • Like 1
Posted

I'm going to change my name to Super PAC and start donating money to Democratic candidates and tank their campaigns. Oh really Ms. Harris, you don't accept Super PAC money? Well how do you explain this: (I ride in on a motorized scooter waiving tiny American flags with a t-shirt that says SUPER PAC and start throwing money on the stage). 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Js1 said:

To be fair, there wasn't a lot of real substance with Obama either.  "Yes we can" and "hope we can believe in" wasn't really a policy platform.  "Speaking truth" isn't either. 

The candidacies are a lot alike.  And not just because they're both black.  They're both inspirational stories and the face of changing demographics in America and totally 180s from Bush/Trump.

tenor.gif?itemid=7301050

giphy.gif

Danny-Glover-No.gif

kim-kardashian-no-gif.gif

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

To be fair, there wasn't a lot of real substance with Obama either.  "Yes we can" and "hope we can believe in" wasn't really a policy platform.  "Speaking truth" isn't either. 

Like Obama, I consider her lack of substance an asset politically because her detractors can’t pin her down on any specific policy position.  

She’s campaigning on giving people the feels which sadly works better than the policy wonks. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Posted
10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It would be insane to do that in the general election. Cool, but insane.

In the primary, however, anyone who uses a SuperPAC is playing dirty.

If you can assure me that none of the other candidates have no SuperPAC money in their existing senate campaign war chests, then I'd agree. And, honestly, I really have no idea if they do or don't.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Like Obama, I consider her lack of substance an asset politically because her detractors can’t pin her down on any specific policy position.  

She campaigning on giving people the feels which sadly works better than the policy wonks. 

It may work better to get elected.  Not so much on the actual governing front.

Posted
29 minutes ago, Js1 said:

To be fair, there wasn't a lot of real substance with Obama either.  "Yes we can" and "hope we can believe in" wasn't really a policy platform.  "Speaking truth" isn't either. 

The candidacies are a lot alike.  And not just because they're both black.  They're both inspirational stories and the face of changing demographics in America and totally 180s from Bush/Trump.

The sweet spot for the media and for the party is someone with charm who will mouth the words but isn't a threat to actually do anything once in power.  

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
Just now, Fozzz said:

The sweet spot for the media and for the party is someone with charm who will mouth the words but isn't a threat to actually do anything once in power.  

It would be nice if the electorate stopped rewarding politicians like this.

Posted
15 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Sure thing. Not chasing polls. Just following them. And I will keep doing so. You should too.

You should grow a brain and then use it.

Posted

Obama had charm and appeal and people loved him. Harris doesn't and people don't.

Obama 2007 would be annihilating this field.

Y'all forget about our boy Barack. He was dynamite. Kamala is fully meh.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Obama barely beat Hillary Clinton

Which was a near miracle for someone in his position going against her structural advantages. 

Beto is the only one in the possible field who has what Obama had.  But without a few years in the Senate under his belt, I don't think he can pull off anything more than VP. 

  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...