Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I think Pete is by far the most qualified candidate.   I also think he has about a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.  Our electorate is bigoted as fuck.  A black woman and a gay man are DOA in a POTUS election. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I think Pete is by far the most qualified candidate.   I also think he has about a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.  Our electorate is bigoted as fuck.  A black woman and a gay man are DOA in a POTUS election. 

Michelle Obama, if she were so inclined, would win going away.

Posted
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Michelle Obama, if she were so inclined, would win going away.

The same Michelle Obama who got castigated for trying to make school lunches healthier?

You need to brush up on your Bill Burr

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

Yes, the same Michelle Obama. She didn't get castigated by the voters who swing presidential elections.

You have a lot more faith in suburban women than I do.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I think Pete is by far the most qualified candidate.   I also think he has about a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.  Our electorate is bigoted as fuck.  A black woman and a gay man are DOA in a POTUS election. 

ANY woman is DOA, unfortunately and unbelievably. It's a shame because we're going to run AOC. She'd be the best thing to happen to the presidency and country in decades, but there's basically no chance. The drooling idiots of this country can't imagine a woman as president and it scares them. 

I'd be a lot more optimistic about a gay man's chances, actually. 

Edited by Hookah Horns
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Dems need to change the nominating rules. Have a closed convention in December '27 and nominate Donald J. Trump. The only way he doesn't get a third term is if Dems put him on their ticket.

  • Haha 6
Posted
5 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

ANY woman is DOA, unfortunately and unbelievably. It's a shame because we're going to run AOC. She'd be the best thing to happen to the presidency and country in decades, but there's basically no chance. The drooling idiots of this country can't imagine a woman as president and it scares them. 

I'd be a lot more optimistic about a gay man's chances, actually. 

I don't think that will happen soon. She will be a governor or senator before she even thinks about running for president. But she is the current defacto leader and will be testing her kingmaking power soon, perhaps even in the NYC mayoral race.

Posted
6 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Dems need to change the nominating rules. Have a closed convention in December '27 and nominate Donald J. Trump. The only way he doesn't get a third term is if Dems put him on their ticket.

687474703a2f2f69332e7974696d672e636f6d2f

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I think Pete is by far the most qualified candidate. 

We can't have anyone this close to Biden.  

He watched the fucking disaster germinate, and he rode along into the crash. 

Would I have known better?  Nope. But Dems need to have someone who wouldn't have known better.  Or at least aren't associated with this.

Sorry - Obama/Biden era is over.  Thank you for your service.

Kamala, Pete:  Here's to your senate bids and podcast/news panel careers.

Posted
Just now, chainsaw said:

I don't think that will happen soon. She will be a governor or senator before she even thinks about running for president. But she is the current defacto leader and will be testing her kingmaking power soon, perhaps even in the NYC mayoral race.

She is nowhere close to being the de facto leader of the Democratic Party.

Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

She is nowhere close to being the de facto leader of the Democratic Party.

That's a quaint notion.

Your opinion is at odds with Trump

https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-calls-aoc-leader-democratic-party-2078215

Your opinion is at odds with polling

https://www.al.com/politics/2025/05/no-one-is-the-face-of-the-democrats-new-poll-should-scare-the-party-ahead-of-next-elections.html

I'm not saying she's done anything to earn it, I'm just saying nobody else is stepping up.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

That's a quaint notion.

Your opinion is at odds with Trump

https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-calls-aoc-leader-democratic-party-2078215

Your opinion is at odds with polling

https://www.al.com/politics/2025/05/no-one-is-the-face-of-the-democrats-new-poll-should-scare-the-party-ahead-of-next-elections.html

I'm not saying she's done anything to earn it, I'm just saying nobody else is stepping up.

So you're telling me the de facto leader of the Democratic Party can't win a power struggle with *checks notes* Nancy Pelosi?

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So you're telling me the de facto leader of the Democratic Party can't win a power struggle with *checks notes* Nancy Pelosi?

 

I'm just saying perception is reality. Trump lies about many things but one of the few things he has going for him is instinctively knowing who has power. There's no democrat with more clout than AOC. He knows it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

Posted
7 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I'm just saying perception is reality. Trump lies about many things but one of the few things he has going for him is instinctively knowing who has power. There's no democrat with more clout than AOC. He knows it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

Just not within her own party. 

Got it.

Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Just not within her own party. 

Got it.

This is like criticizing DJ Monroe for not playing enough snaps at Texas. If she wanted to, she could throw her weight around and rock the boat. She could portal out of the party, so to speak, and comfortably win re-election in her district.

Posted
9 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I'm just saying perception is reality. Trump lies about many things but one of the few things he has going for him is instinctively knowing who has power. There's no democrat with more clout than AOC. He knows it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

Are you okay? Trump calls AOC the leader because of the "socialist" label attached to her. It's strictly a scare tactic. And you use polling, where in this specific case "No one" and "other" are basically in a 3 way tie with AOC as evidence?

What's going on here? 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Are you okay? Trump calls AOC the leader because of the "socialist" label attached to her. It's strictly a scare tactic. And you use polling, where in this specific case "No one" and "other" are basically in a 3 way tie with AOC as evidence?

What's going on here? 

If not AOC, then who's the "face" of the party?

Posted
Just now, chainsaw said:

This is like criticizing DJ Monroe for not playing enough snaps at Texas. If she wanted to, she could throw her weight around and rock the boat. She could portal out of the party, so to speak, and comfortably win re-election in her district.

I guess she just chose not to use that weight to get assigned the spot she wanted on Oversight.

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I don't know. Right now I'd say there is no real "face" of the party. 

 

Well a pollster ranked a bunch of people and AOC is by far #1, with Bernie Sanders #2.

Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

I guess she just chose not to use that weight to get assigned the spot she wanted on Oversight.

 

AOC has sway with voters, not the fossils in Congress that are demonstrably incapable of opposing the Trump regime.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

Well a pollster ranked a bunch of people and AOC is by far #1, with Bernie Sanders #2.

This is misleading, if not outright false. 

According to your link: 

AOC - 26%

No one - 26% 

Other - 22% 

Bernie - 12% 

 

48%, almost half of the respondents, couldn't even come up with a name. The title of the article is "'No one' is the face of the Democrats? New poll should scare the party ahead of next elections". 

And you read that as AOC is the face of the party? C'mon. 

 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Michelle Obama, if she were so inclined, would win going away.

I think she could, and she might be the only person in the country who could, but I don't think she'd make it to Election Day.

They're going to finish coming out over the next 3.5 years, man.  All the way out.

Edited by TexArcher
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

This is misleading, if not outright false. 

According to your link: 

AOC - 26%

No one - 26% 

Other - 22% 

Bernie - 12% 

 

48%, almost half of the respondents, couldn't even come up with a name. The title of the article is "'No one' is the face of the Democrats? New poll should scare the party ahead of next elections". 

And you read that as AOC is the face of the party? C'mon. 

 

This is just copium on your part. Almost every article that reported on this poll has used a headline to the effect that AOC is the face of the party. But fine let's bring this back to Pete Buttigieg. He got 5% (tied with Hakeem Jeffries).

So why are we spending so much time pretending Pete is this generational political superstar when despite all his media hits and Fox News debates and town halls he can't get even one fifth of AOC's share in this poll?

Posted

I realize this is a weak appeal to "authority" but I believe every lib podcast I listen to has acknowledged AOC as the de facto leader/face of the party now. It's hard to argue with considering her and Bernie's tour is basically the only thing the entire party has done since inauguration day. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

This is just copium on your part. Almost every article that reported on this poll has used a headline to the effect that AOC is the face of the party. But fine let's bring this back to Pete Buttigieg. He got 5% (tied with Hakeem Jeffries).

So why are we spending so much time pretending Pete is this generational political superstar when despite all his media hits and Fox News debates and town halls he can't get even one fifth of AOC's share in this poll?

I truly believe Pete would poll much better if his surname didn't start with Butt and wasn't impossible for anyone to confidently pronounce. Seriously - the electorate is that dumb. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

This is just copium on your part. Almost every article that reported on this poll has used a headline to the effect that AOC is the face of the party. But fine let's bring this back to Pete Buttigieg. He got 5% (tied with Hakeem Jeffries).

So why are we spending so much time pretending Pete is this generational political superstar when despite all his media hits and Fox News debates and town halls he can't get even one fifth of AOC's share in this poll?

This has nothing do with Pete. The copium is coming from you, to the point where you declare that perception is reality.

Maybe AOC will become the face of the party. I generally like her. IMO, no one has really taken the reins yet. Jeffries and Schumer are absolute embarrassments, so we need someone to emerge ASAP. 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

If not AOC, then who's the "face" of the party?

 

18 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I don't know. Right now I'd say there is no real "face" of the party. 

 

Unfortunately it's still Biden-Harris, which is why the left-leaning media (and Dem voters) are currently unable to organize around a cohesive message.  It's also why the more mainstream media is still squatting on revisiting the 2024 election--that's still getting more oxygen than Trump's corruption. 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Just now, Hookah Horns said:

I truly believe Pete would poll much better if his surname didn't start with Butt and wasn't impossible for anyone to confidently pronounce. Seriously - the electorate is that dumb. 

That was my first impression at the time he threw his hat into the ring. Back then I really thought Beto would outshine him, but I was wrong there. Most people recognize him and no longer struggle with his last name. Still, at the end of the day, Pete is more of a surrogate than a leader, and he's quite valuable in that role.

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

AOC has sway with voters, not the fossils in Congress that are demonstrably incapable of opposing the Trump regime.

We're obviously talking about two different things. Her power is limited at the moment, mainly because she has failed to use her sway with voters to accumulate political power within the Democratic caucus. 

Edited by David Dennison
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

the Democratic caucus. 

The Democratic caucus are fucking losers. it's a requirement to be a fucking loser if you want to be promoted in that organization.

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Also, the face of the Democratic Party is Barack Obama.

An interesting theory. Assuming that were true, where the fuck has he been the last 9 years?

Posted
Just now, chainsaw said:

The Democratic caucus are fucking losers. it's a requirement to be a fucking loser if you want to be promoted in that organization.

For better or worse, those losers have a lot of power.

Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

For better or worse, those losers have a lot of power.

Not really. That's why the republicans have been behaving and will continue to behave as if there's no opposition whatsoever.

Posted
24 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I consume a lot of left-leaning and also centrist media and I don't think I've seen AOC's name in months.

I disagree with @chainsaw’s elevation of her, but in support of his argument is that she gets more play on social media and that is below the radar for a bunch of (mostly) 50 year old cargo short wearing surlyites.

  • Haha 2
Posted

There was a leadership vacuum and it's being filled by the strongest actors in the party.

1. AOC

2. Sanders

3. Crockett

4. Kamala Harris

5. Buttigieg / Jeffries (TIE)

7. Booker

8. Newsom

I'm honestly shocked Jeffries is as high as he is, but look at that top three and compare how the public perceives them to how Booker and Newsom are perceived today.

https://coefficient.org/national-approval-study/

Posted
3 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

48%, almost half of the respondents, couldn't even come up with a name.

I don't know why that is necessarily a problem at this juncture. 

Over the next year or so we will see how many James Talaricos and Pete Bs (white, military, maybe not gay) rise to the surface.

I don't see AOC as being able to beat a white guy.  Not in this retarded country of ours.

More importantly, I am not sure why I am certering this stuff.

Nothing, not even the rain,

Has such small hands.

Posted
3 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

1. Too cute, too female.

2. Too old.

3. Too cute, too female.

4. Fuck no.

5. Okay, maybe Jeffries.

7. Sure

8. Doofus.

And I think Jeffries and Booker would be the two worst out of those options. 

Disarray, baby. Disarray. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, LCHorn said:

 

Unfortunately it's still Biden-Harris, which is why the left-leaning media (and Dem voters) are currently unable to organize around a cohesive message.  It's also why the more mainstream media is still squatting on revisiting the 2024 election--that's still getting more oxygen than Trump's corruption. 

 

 

That's happening, but it has nothing to do with Biden and Harris being organically the face of the party. It has everything to do with our media, in varying degrees, being tools of the wealthy elite in preserving and growing their personal fortunes. Trumps' corruption and incompetence would push anything Biden or Harris to the back page and almost completely off air if journalistic credibility still existed and publishers and news directors weren't nearly as corrupted as our political class. Instead, Tapper et al. are manufacturing ongoing scandal to both make money for themselves, and fulfill their masters' wishes.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

There was a leadership vacuum and it's being filled by the strongest actors in the party.

1. AOC

2. Sanders

3. Crockett

4. Kamala Harris

5. Buttigieg / Jeffries (TIE)

7. Booker

8. Newsom

I'm honestly shocked Jeffries is as high as he is, but look at that top three and compare how the public perceives them to how Booker and Newsom are perceived today.

https://coefficient.org/national-approval-study/

That is quite the poo poo platter. I'd take a Mitt Romney over any of them

Edited by 6th Street
Posted
5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Michelle Obama, if she were so inclined, would win going away.

Jesus Christ, she'd be shredded, probably assassinated.

5 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

You have a lot more faith in suburban women than I do.  

I have zero such faith.  The American people have gone full racist again, and man, they LIKE how it feels.  ESPECIALLY suburban women.  Hate is fucking intoxicating, and we're drunk as hell on it now.

17 minutes ago, Texas Flood said:

If he runs on popular progressive positions like universal healthcare, he might be it.

You mean, on "MARXIST COMMUNISM?????"  That's all the GQP has to do.  Call him a marxist communist non-stop, and he's toast.  It doesn't have to be true, it just has to appeal to idiots.

That is the entire story of America politics 2025: it doesn't have to be true, it just has to appeal to idiots.

The sooner the Dems wake up to that and start playing that game, the better a chance they'll have.

Which is never going to happen.   So, we're fucked.  We are a full-on idiocracy now, and there's no going back.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...