Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

Why has Beto not declared yet? ...

This gets asked about one candidate or another almost every election cycle.  I forget the details, but generally, once a candidate declares, they are bound by rules/laws (like contribution limits) that they do not have to mind while only having an exploratory committee. 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/11/exploratory.committees.faq/index.html

Posted
2 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

I'm sort of arguing that he should aspire to Governor of Texas when Texas gets more purple. If he throws his weight around here and concentrates on this state, I think he can make it happen sooner than otherwise. Being President shouldn't be the prize everyone should aspire to. Some people can affect more positive change and do the most good in their state. Like Jerry Brown. That guy worked his skills for the betterment of California and he was beyond a shadow of a doubt a positive force. California has done well under his stewardship. He may have wanted higher national office when he was younger, but if you look at his life, he affected more positive change for California as governor than he would have as president. 

I know it is crazy for Beto not to throw his hat in the presidential race...if being president is what he wants. I just wish he'd consider looking at the good that he could do here and maybe stay home and fix the shit here. Oh well, it isn't likely and I like him so whatever he decides, I'll likely consider him for being my candidate.

The nation is already purple. He lost a Texas race just last year. Why wait for Texas to turn when he is a national brand already?  And even if he loses a Pres run, it keeps his brand strong enough for a 2022 governor shot. In fact, if he doesnt run for Pres, he will be completely faded away by 2022 and 2018 will be ancient history. He has to do it just to make some 2020 noise and stay in the spotlight, win or lose. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, bernorange said:

This gets asked about one candidate or another almost every election cycle.  I forget the details, but generally, once a candidate declares, they are bound by rules/laws (like contribution limits) that they do not have to mind while only having an exploratory committee. 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/11/exploratory.committees.faq/index.html

There is that, and there is also the successful Obama late surge model. Dems can't win with a long term campaign. The Fox/conservative radio attacks on Dem frontrunners insures that long term candidates will be "tired," and voters should "want another Dem/woman/minority/liberal, just not this Dem/woman/minority/liberal."  It has to be a "surprise" run by a candidate who hasn't really seen many attacks beforehand. 

Warren is done with because of those tactics. However, this may be an interesting cycle because AOC is an attack magnet and she draws fire away from actual Presidential candidates.  She may very well protect the field so they can run and win with sustained campaigns. 

Edited by FondrenRoad
  • Like 1
Posted
On 1/17/2019 at 5:42 PM, Bama Chick said:

 

 


He may be too “centrist” for some and too green for others, but no one can deny he’s charismatic and inspiring. Dude’s a rock star.

 

 

Right now:

My brain says Biden/Beto for the best chance at a win.

My gut says Warren/Beto to reflect my core values as a human being.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Right now:

My brain says Biden/Beto for the best chance at a win.

My gut says Warren/Beto to reflect my core values as a human being.

I'm not sure two white men are ever going to be the Democratic ticket ever again.

We'll see.

Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I'm not sure two white men are ever going to be the Democratic ticket ever again.

We'll see.

I get your point, but I think "Uncle Joe" might be the exception for this singular circumstance due to his being able to call back on Obama administration nostalgia and his overall broad popularity with blue-collar, baby-boomer whites.

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Listen to this adult speaking in complete sentences.

Nice clip.

This isn't meant as a criticism of you or her, but how low have we fallen that a coherent message spoken in complete sentences which express full thoughts is the bar that's set for "presidential?"

It's fucking pathetic.

Edit:

I am concerned about some of the reports regarding her behavior as a prosecutor. Bottom line though: I would have no problem whatsoever in voting for Harris over Trump or any other Republican.

"The perfect is not be the enemy of the good."

Edited by bolverk
Posted
9 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Warren is done with because of those tactics. However, this may be an interesting cycle because AOC is an attack magnet and she draws fire away from actual Presidential candidates.  She may very well protect the field so they can run and win with sustained campaigns. 

You may be right about drawing fire away from the candidates.

 

Posted

Yeah, obviously Kamala sounds exactly the amount smarter than Trump that she is.  But she's way stronger than Gillibrand (who sounds like she's running for president of student council) and more natural than Warren.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Yeah, obviously Kamala sounds exactly the amount smarter than Trump that she is.  But she's way stronger than Gillibrand (who sounds like she's running for president of student council) and more natural than Warren.

Is this like American Idol or something? 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Is this like American Idol or something? 

It's been "like" American Idol for a long time, buddy.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It's been "like" American Idol for a long time, buddy.

Must be why the last dem nominee for President was soooo charismatic.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Total long shot, but really like what I've read about Buttigieg and I hope voters take him seriously.

 

Agreed. Can't see a world in which he's at the top of the ticket but perhaps he'd have a shot at VP? 

Posted
24 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Buttgieg cannot be allowed to get the nomination. Trump would ruin him with nicknames. 

Sadly this is true and his name alone will stop him from winning, regardless of the dotard.

Posted
On 1/21/2019 at 12:02 PM, Jhawk said:

I did not know that about her status in the party.  She's young, attractive, military service, etc.  If you're looking for energy, she is a reasonable face of the party that isn't off the rails to the left or too centrist (I would think).  She would smoke any repub in love for the military so that takes away a talking point.  She's a young woman so the dems can continue to harp on "old white men".  If the party would put time and money into her PR then she would be a slam dunk I thought.  As a conservative, she would be someone I would NOT fear in ruining the country so I would see over the top attack ads as blasphemy and out of touch.  Which would turn me off to a republican candidate and maybe get me to stay home.  However if someone like Clinton or AOC or Warren were running then I would absolutely see attack ads as true and it would get me up to go to the polls.  A candidate like Tulsi could lull the opposition to sleep I guess is what I'm saying.

 

Lol were you in a coma for the entirety of the 2004 election? The right wing propaganda machine made a decorated Vietnam vet out to be an anti-military pussy while a guy who had his daddy get him into the champagne unit at the national guard was apparently the second coming of Patton. There will never be any way to "take away" a right wing talking point because they are completely unmoored from any semblance of reality. The Dems could nominate the most milquetoast bloodless inoffensive centrist and Republicans would screech that (s)he is the next coming of Mao. Its laughable that people actually think the Dems could ever do anything to blunt attacks from the right

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Marcus Aurelius said:

 

Lol were you in a coma for the entirety of the 2004 election? The right wing propaganda machine made a decorated Vietnam vet out to be an anti-military pussy while a guy who had his daddy get him into the champagne unit at the national guard was apparently the second coming of Patton. There will never be any way to "take away" a right wing talking point because they are completely unmoored from any semblance of reality. The Dems could nominate the most milquetoast bloodless inoffensive centrist and Republicans would screech that (s)he is the next coming of Mao. Its laughable that people actually think the Dems could ever do anything to blunt attacks from the right

To be fair, Kerry did serve his country.  But he also shouted down his service to his country and to troops that were still serving.  Then he went on to suppotr wars in his political career that were just as dumb as the war he was in.  That is never a good look regardless of your politics.  It wasn't a good look when McCain was hobnobbing with ISIS and Al Qaeda guys either and he should have been appropriately trashed for it.  I certainly trashed him for it and no one I know has any respect for that piece of shit because of that.

Edited by Jhawk
Posted
59 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Buttigieg seems like a smart dude.  This is like car shopping when you just drive Mac's exercise bike.

Yeah, dude is very sharp. 

This is a great interview from March 2017. It's 25 minutes long but well worth it...starts around 2 minute mark.  

 

Posted

LInk to Buttigieg's interview with Chris Hayes

While I'm most impressed by how thoughtful and intelligent he is, it's nice to see he can talk a little shit as well. 

"At the end of the day, I have more years of government experience than the President of the United States, I have more executive experience than the Vice President, and I have more military experience than the two of them put together."

P.S. Why is Hayes acting like such a dick in this interview? 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted
10 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

P.S. Why is Hayes acting like such a dick in this interview? 

 

I thought he was a little tough on him but Buttigieg handled himself well. Hayes seems genuinely intrigued by him and I think it's helpful in the long run to not get softball questions tossed his way.

Thought Pete came across really well. Still a lot to learn about him but so far so good.

 



×
×
  • Create New...