I think Bernie could have beat Trump, but I think the main point now is that both he and Elizabeth will be too old for people to take seriously in 2020. In my opinion we need to find a younger version of Elizabeth Warren and we'll be good to go. Unfortunately I think they're looking more for "who can make Trump look the worst" instead of "who is the best overall candidate".
You have to look ahead a bit. trump will probably be gone, so they will likely be running against Pence, who is incompetent in his own ways. There's a good chance we'll be in a recession or on the backside of one. That will then become a more important issue for voters.
I know that. It won't work again though. There is not even a whisper of who will be the next Democrat to take on President Trump. W/out that whisper somewhere shows that the party is in shambles and will throw up an "Anything but Trump candidate" not a real viable for change candidate.
Do you have the Google Machine in Canada? That was so hard:
Oprah Winfrey is on the list? You guys are in trouble.
I didn't make the list. The information you seek is out there. Like the truth.
You didn't make the list but you post it like it is the official list. Once you read it further it is all speculation. That article might as well have had 100 people listed and would have the same effect - zero. If your list is so official who do you support from it?
That's a depressing list. No wonder we ended up with this idiot president. To be fair, I'm not really a fan of any politician these days so I'm probably being overly critical. But Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? This is how the democrats think they win the presidency back? Really? Haven't they been paying attention?
Yep. Not a single one of them can beat Trump. Biden if he were younger. Otherwise, forget it. That election is already over.
Sanders would've pretty easily beat trump. I don't know why you think he wouldn't have.
How do you figure? Would he have stolen votes from trump? Or do you think people stayed home instead of going to the polls for Hillary?
csuse I don't think he takes many of any votes from trump. So if there are lots of people that stayed home then this last election is on them.
Because he was up by 10 to 12 points on trump consistently in the polls. Turnout would've been higher for him. He would've taken all of Jill Stien's votes and some of Johnson's. He would've easily taken all of the Midwest except Indiana, and gotten the rest of Clinton's states.
I don't think there was anything easy about him being elected. Could have happened...but certainly not definite. Heck - I voted for Hillary (to vote against trump)...and if Bernie was running I would have voted for Gary Johnson.
Of course it's not 100% definite, but I'm not going to pick Chaminade to beat North Carolina in the tourney, either.
Dude - Bernie v Trump is more like a NCAA play-in game .... so tell me who you got? New Orleans or Mt St Mary's?
No way. Bernie's old school game is an easy win, even with the scoop shots and underhand free throws. Squecky clean, too. No ncaa violations, unlike trump's history of giving recruits coke, strippers, and all A's without going to class. l
Old school? I know what you mean I think -The philosophy behind his game is very old. But the fact that he's doing it is practically groundbreaking again in America. I actually think it's a very modern tactic that works for the younger generations way more.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I know that. It won't work again though. There is not even a whisper of who will be the next Democrat to take on President Trump. W/out that whisper somewhere shows that the party is in shambles and will throw up an "Anything but Trump candidate" not a real viable for change candidate.
Do you have the Google Machine in Canada? That was so hard:
Oprah Winfrey is on the list? You guys are in trouble.
I didn't make the list. The information you seek is out there. Like the truth.
You didn't make the list but you post it like it is the official list. Once you read it further it is all speculation. That article might as well have had 100 people listed and would have the same effect - zero. If your list is so official who do you support from it?
That's a depressing list. No wonder we ended up with this idiot president. To be fair, I'm not really a fan of any politician these days so I'm probably being overly critical. But Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? This is how the democrats think they win the presidency back? Really? Haven't they been paying attention?
Yep. Not a single one of them can beat Trump. Biden if he were younger. Otherwise, forget it. That election is already over.
Sanders would've pretty easily beat trump. I don't know why you think he wouldn't have.
How do you figure? Would he have stolen votes from trump? Or do you think people stayed home instead of going to the polls for Hillary?
csuse I don't think he takes many of any votes from trump. So if there are lots of people that stayed home then this last election is on them.
Because he was up by 10 to 12 points on trump consistently in the polls. Turnout would've been higher for him. He would've taken all of Jill Stien's votes and some of Johnson's. He would've easily taken all of the Midwest except Indiana, and gotten the rest of Clinton's states.
I don't think there was anything easy about him being elected. Could have happened...but certainly not definite. Heck - I voted for Hillary (to vote against trump)...and if Bernie was running I would have voted for Gary Johnson.
Of course it's not 100% definite, but I'm not going to pick Chaminade to beat North Carolina in the tourney, either.
Dude - Bernie v Trump is more like a NCAA play-in game .... so tell me who you got? New Orleans or Mt St Mary's?
No way. Bernie's old school game is an easy win, even with the scoop shots and underhand free throws. Squecky clean, too. No ncaa violations, unlike trump's history of giving recruits coke, strippers, and all A's without going to class. l
Old school? I know what you mean I think -The philosophy behind his game is very old. But the fact that he's doing it is practically groundbreaking again in America. I actually think it's a very modern tactic that works for the younger generations way more.
I agree. That was more coming from me picturing Bernie playing basketball.
I think Bernie could have beat Trump, but I think the main point now is that both he and Elizabeth will be too old for people to take seriously in 2020. In my opinion we need to find a younger version of Elizabeth Warren and we'll be good to go. Unfortunately I think they're looking more for "who can make Trump look the worst" instead of "who is the best overall candidate".
Warren is younger than Trump. Bernie is only a few years older. So they are all basically the same age. I don't understand people's attitudes about the age of any of these people, Trump and Hillary included. They are all pretty much the exact same age. It's a bizarre consideration IMO, unless you think they are ALL too old right now, and that alone determines your decision, which it shouldn't. I personally look at the message/political potential only, and assuming they aren't in bad health and about to drop dead, no problem. Sure, youth is surging ahead in international politics, with Canada and France as noteable examples. And that's great IMO. However, I would never reject a great candidate just because they're in their 70s. That is just pure ageism, which I am very much against. Elizabeth Warren, in particular, is in super good shape, and I have no idea how anyone could watch her and think she's too old for the job.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yep. Not a single one of them can beat Trump. Biden if he were younger. Otherwise, forget it. That election is already over.
Sanders would've pretty easily beat trump. I don't know why you think he wouldn't have.
How do you figure? Would he have stolen votes from trump? Or do you think people stayed home instead of going to the polls for Hillary?
csuse I don't think he takes many of any votes from trump. So if there are lots of people that stayed home then this last election is on them.
I don't think he would have. But it is possible. I think the election was to a degree a reflection of how hated Hilary was for 25 years. It was an arrogant and stupid move by the party to think it was her chance and that Trump did not stand a chance.
Would Sanders have stolen votes from Trump? Probably not. Would anti-Trump turnout have increased to the point of turning it? I tend to doubt it, but maybe. Ultimately he was viewed as "too liberal," not to mention Jewish. I think the lost votes for that would have made up for the turnout votes. But who knows?
As to 2020, the Democrats don't have a deep bench and I'm not seeing a viable candidate. Trump is, at least by default, probably not going to be beatable.
Who saw Obama coming in 2005? No one knew who he was before the convention speech.
That's a fair point. If someone's going to beat Trump, it's someone thus far off of that radar.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I think Bernie could have beat Trump, but I think the main point now is that both he and Elizabeth will be too old for people to take seriously in 2020. In my opinion we need to find a younger version of Elizabeth Warren and we'll be good to go. Unfortunately I think they're looking more for "who can make Trump look the worst" instead of "who is the best overall candidate".
Warren is younger than Trump. Bernie is only a few years older. So they are all basically the same age. I don't understand people's attitudes about the age of any of these people, Trump and Hillary included. They are all pretty much the exact same age. It's a bizarre consideration IMO, unless you think they are ALL too old right now, and that alone determines your decision, which it shouldn't. I personally look at the message/political potential only, and assuming they aren't in bad health and about to drop dead, no problem. Sure, youth is surging ahead in international politics, with Canada and France as noteable examples. And that's great IMO. However, I would never reject a great candidate just because they're in their 70s. That is just pure ageism, which I am very much against. Elizabeth Warren, in particular, is in super good shape, and I have no idea how anyone could watch her and think she's too old for the job.
I totally agree with you. I thought I remembered reading that she was Bernie's age but I guess I should fact check before I post. And although I agree with you, there were lots of people saying that they wouldn't vote for Bernie because he was too old, which is completely stupid but it's true. Just like it was stupid that some people were detracted from Hilary because of the emails, but just becuase it's stupid doesn't mean that it's not a factor, because some voters are stupid, or at least are prone to make stupid decisions.
I know that. It won't work again though. There is not even a whisper of who will be the next Democrat to take on President Trump. W/out that whisper somewhere shows that the party is in shambles and will throw up an "Anything but Trump candidate" not a real viable for change candidate.
Do you have the Google Machine in Canada? That was so hard:
Oprah Winfrey is on the list? You guys are in trouble.
I didn't make the list. The information you seek is out there. Like the truth.
You didn't make the list but you post it like it is the official list. Once you read it further it is all speculation. That article might as well have had 100 people listed and would have the same effect - zero. If your list is so official who do you support from it?
That's a depressing list. No wonder we ended up with this idiot president. To be fair, I'm not really a fan of any politician these days so I'm probably being overly critical. But Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? This is how the democrats think they win the presidency back? Really? Haven't they been paying attention?
Yep. Not a single one of them can beat Trump. Biden if he were younger. Otherwise, forget it. That election is already over.
Sanders would've pretty easily beat trump. I don't know why you think he wouldn't have.
How do you figure? Would he have stolen votes from trump? Or do you think people stayed home instead of going to the polls for Hillary?
csuse I don't think he takes many of any votes from trump. So if there are lots of people that stayed home then this last election is on them.
Because he was up by 10 to 12 points on trump consistently in the polls. Turnout would've been higher for him. He would've taken all of Jill Stien's votes and some of Johnson's. He would've easily taken all of the Midwest except Indiana, and gotten the rest of Clinton's states.
I don't think there was anything easy about him being elected. Could have happened...but certainly not definite. Heck - I voted for Hillary (to vote against trump)...and if Bernie was running I would have voted for Gary Johnson.
Of course it's not 100% definite, but I'm not going to pick Chaminade to beat North Carolina in the tourney, either.
Dude - Bernie v Trump is more like a NCAA play-in game .... so tell me who you got? New Orleans or Mt St Mary's?
No way. Bernie's old school game is an easy win, even with the scoop shots and underhand free throws. Squecky clean, too. No ncaa violations, unlike trump's history of giving recruits coke, strippers, and all A's without going to class. l
Old school? I know what you mean I think -The philosophy behind his game is very old. But the fact that he's doing it is practically groundbreaking again in America. I actually think it's a very modern tactic that works for the younger generations way more.
I agree. That was more coming from me picturing Bernie playing basketball.
I know that. It won't work again though. There is not even a whisper of who will be the next Democrat to take on President Trump. W/out that whisper somewhere shows that the party is in shambles and will throw up an "Anything but Trump candidate" not a real viable for change candidate.
Do you have the Google Machine in Canada? That was so hard:
Oprah Winfrey is on the list? You guys are in trouble.
I didn't make the list. The information you seek is out there. Like the truth.
You didn't make the list but you post it like it is the official list. Once you read it further it is all speculation. That article might as well have had 100 people listed and would have the same effect - zero. If your list is so official who do you support from it?
That's a depressing list. No wonder we ended up with this idiot president. To be fair, I'm not really a fan of any politician these days so I'm probably being overly critical. But Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? This is how the democrats think they win the presidency back? Really? Haven't they been paying attention?
Yep. Not a single one of them can beat Trump. Biden if he were younger. Otherwise, forget it. That election is already over.
Sanders would've pretty easily beat trump. I don't know why you think he wouldn't have.
How do you figure? Would he have stolen votes from trump? Or do you think people stayed home instead of going to the polls for Hillary?
csuse I don't think he takes many of any votes from trump. So if there are lots of people that stayed home then this last election is on them.
Because he was up by 10 to 12 points on trump consistently in the polls. Turnout would've been higher for him. He would've taken all of Jill Stien's votes and some of Johnson's. He would've easily taken all of the Midwest except Indiana, and gotten the rest of Clinton's states.
I don't think there was anything easy about him being elected. Could have happened...but certainly not definite. Heck - I voted for Hillary (to vote against trump)...and if Bernie was running I would have voted for Gary Johnson.
Of course it's not 100% definite, but I'm not going to pick Chaminade to beat North Carolina in the tourney, either.
Dude - Bernie v Trump is more like a NCAA play-in game .... so tell me who you got? New Orleans or Mt St Mary's?
No way. Bernie's old school game is an easy win, even with the scoop shots and underhand free throws. Squecky clean, too. No ncaa violations, unlike trump's history of giving recruits coke, strippers, and all A's without going to class. l
Old school? I know what you mean I think -The philosophy behind his game is very old. But the fact that he's doing it is practically groundbreaking again in America. I actually think it's a very modern tactic that works for the younger generations way more.
I agree. That was more coming from me picturing Bernie playing basketball.
I think Bernie could have beat Trump, but I think the main point now is that both he and Elizabeth will be too old for people to take seriously in 2020. In my opinion we need to find a younger version of Elizabeth Warren and we'll be good to go. Unfortunately I think they're looking more for "who can make Trump look the worst" instead of "who is the best overall candidate".
Warren is younger than Trump. Bernie is only a few years older. So they are all basically the same age. I don't understand people's attitudes about the age of any of these people, Trump and Hillary included. They are all pretty much the exact same age. It's a bizarre consideration IMO, unless you think they are ALL too old right now, and that alone determines your decision, which it shouldn't. I personally look at the message/political potential only, and assuming they aren't in bad health and about to drop dead, no problem. Sure, youth is surging ahead in international politics, with Canada and France as noteable examples. And that's great IMO. However, I would never reject a great candidate just because they're in their 70s. That is just pure ageism, which I am very much against. Elizabeth Warren, in particular, is in super good shape, and I have no idea how anyone could watch her and think she's too old for the job.
I totally agree with you. I thought I remembered reading that she was Bernie's age but I guess I should fact check before I post. And although I agree with you, there were lots of people saying that they wouldn't vote for Bernie because he was too old, which is completely stupid but it's true. Just like it was stupid that some people were detracted from Hilary because of the emails, but just becuase it's stupid doesn't mean that it's not a factor, because some voters are stupid, or at least are prone to make stupid decisions.
You know what would change most of those people's minds? If Bernie simply dyed his hair back to its original colour. Yup, that is how ridiculous people are, lol.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think Bernie could have beat Trump, but I think the main point now is that both he and Elizabeth will be too old for people to take seriously in 2020. In my opinion we need to find a younger version of Elizabeth Warren and we'll be good to go. Unfortunately I think they're looking more for "who can make Trump look the worst" instead of "who is the best overall candidate".
Warren is younger than Trump. Bernie is only a few years older. So they are all basically the same age. I don't understand people's attitudes about the age of any of these people, Trump and Hillary included. They are all pretty much the exact same age. It's a bizarre consideration IMO, unless you think they are ALL too old right now, and that alone determines your decision, which it shouldn't. I personally look at the message/political potential only, and assuming they aren't in bad health and about to drop dead, no problem. Sure, youth is surging ahead in international politics, with Canada and France as noteable examples. And that's great IMO. However, I would never reject a great candidate just because they're in their 70s. That is just pure ageism, which I am very much against. Elizabeth Warren, in particular, is in super good shape, and I have no idea how anyone could watch her and think she's too old for the job.
I totally agree with you. I thought I remembered reading that she was Bernie's age but I guess I should fact check before I post. And although I agree with you, there were lots of people saying that they wouldn't vote for Bernie because he was too old, which is completely stupid but it's true. Just like it was stupid that some people were detracted from Hilary because of the emails, but just becuase it's stupid doesn't mean that it's not a factor, because some voters are stupid, or at least are prone to make stupid decisions.
You know what would change most of those people's minds? If Bernie simply dyed his hair back to its original colour. Yup, that is how ridiculous people are, lol.
Yes! Bernie 2020!
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,314
Just to make my stance known here and in response to unsung's thoughts on his Sanders as "crooked politician" thread, I do not support the notion that Trump should be impeached. Does that mean I'm a Trump supporter, no. Obviously NO! Is he incompetent to stand as president? Perhaps, but he was elected, like it or not (I don't) and I think we should leave him in office, do our best to work with more competent people in state and local politics and learn a big lesson from this fiasco. Besides, I'm no more thrilled with the idea of having Pence as POTUS than I am Trump. Eligible U.S. voters fucked up. Suck it up and learn from this and get our shit together.
That's my take and I stand by it.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I think Bernie could have beat Trump, but I think the main point now is that both he and Elizabeth will be too old for people to take seriously in 2020. In my opinion we need to find a younger version of Elizabeth Warren and we'll be good to go. Unfortunately I think they're looking more for "who can make Trump look the worst" instead of "who is the best overall candidate".
I don't know about other readers on here, but I really feel the DNC is in the midst of a catastrophic identity crisis, and needs to answer some existential questions before pursuing candidates, to ensure that their actions are in alignment with a strong strategy.
First - what do the people want the DNC to be (what is the core identity of the party)? Next - are the DNC willing to be what the people want them to be (what personal/political gains are willing to be sacrificed for the people)? After that - what actions show the people this willingness to change (how does the party restore public faith)? Finally - what messengers (politicians) are the ones to usher in this new era (which available politicians present with an aura of trustworthiness, and are predominantly aligned with the identity of the party)?
I think these questions must be answered for the DNC to stand a fighting chance. Americans have stated through their votes that the status quo is no longer a tenable option for them, and that they will leap into an abyss to avoid it - regardless of whether there's a soft cushion of millions of dollars in it, or a pit of magma.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I think Bernie could have beat Trump, but I think the main point now is that both he and Elizabeth will be too old for people to take seriously in 2020. In my opinion we need to find a younger version of Elizabeth Warren and we'll be good to go. Unfortunately I think they're looking more for "who can make Trump look the worst" instead of "who is the best overall candidate".
I don't know about other readers on here, but I really feel the DNC is in the midst of a catastrophic identity crisis, and needs to answer some existential questions before pursuing candidates, to ensure that their actions are in alignment with a strong strategy.
First - what do the people want the DNC to be (what is the core identity of the party)? Next - are the DNC willing to be what the people want them to be (what personal/political gains are willing to be sacrificed for the people)? After that - what actions show the people this willingness to change (how does the party restore public faith)? Finally - what messengers (politicians) are the ones to usher in this new era (which available politicians present with an aura of trustworthiness, and are predominantly aligned with the identity of the party)?
I think these questions must be answered for the DNC to stand a fighting chance. Americans have stated through their votes that the status quo is no longer a tenable option for them, and that they will leap into an abyss to avoid it - regardless of whether there's a soft cushion of millions of dollars in it, or a pit of magma.
Very well said. It's not that I like Donald Trump, but doing nothing but criticize him 24/7 doesn't leave a lot of room for these questions to be answered in a thorough and effective manner. I know it's only been 5 months, but it doesn't seem like this non-stop shit on Trump train is slowing down anytime soon, and addressing these things Benjs brought up will take all the time we have.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,314
I think Bernie could have beat Trump, but I think the main point now is that both he and Elizabeth will be too old for people to take seriously in 2020. In my opinion we need to find a younger version of Elizabeth Warren and we'll be good to go. Unfortunately I think they're looking more for "who can make Trump look the worst" instead of "who is the best overall candidate".
I don't know about other readers on here, but I really feel the DNC is in the midst of a catastrophic identity crisis, and needs to answer some existential questions before pursuing candidates, to ensure that their actions are in alignment with a strong strategy.
First - what do the people want the DNC to be (what is the core identity of the party)? Next - are the DNC willing to be what the people want them to be (what personal/political gains are willing to be sacrificed for the people)? After that - what actions show the people this willingness to change (how does the party restore public faith)? Finally - what messengers (politicians) are the ones to usher in this new era (which available politicians present with an aura of trustworthiness, and are predominantly aligned with the identity of the party)?
I think these questions must be answered for the DNC to stand a fighting chance. Americans have stated through their votes that the status quo is no longer a tenable option for them, and that they will leap into an abyss to avoid it - regardless of whether there's a soft cushion of millions of dollars in it, or a pit of magma.
Very well said. It's not that I like Donald Trump, but doing nothing but criticize him 24/7 doesn't leave a lot of room for these questions to be answered in a thorough and effective manner. I know it's only been 5 months, but it doesn't seem like this non-stop shit on Trump train is slowing down anytime soon, and addressing these things Benjs brought up will take all the time we have.
I think Bernie could have beat Trump, but I think the main point now is that both he and Elizabeth will be too old for people to take seriously in 2020. In my opinion we need to find a younger version of Elizabeth Warren and we'll be good to go. Unfortunately I think they're looking more for "who can make Trump look the worst" instead of "who is the best overall candidate".
I don't know about other readers on here, but I really feel the DNC is in the midst of a catastrophic identity crisis, and needs to answer some existential questions before pursuing candidates, to ensure that their actions are in alignment with a strong strategy.
First - what do the people want the DNC to be (what is the core identity of the party)? Next - are the DNC willing to be what the people want them to be (what personal/political gains are willing to be sacrificed for the people)? After that - what actions show the people this willingness to change (how does the party restore public faith)? Finally - what messengers (politicians) are the ones to usher in this new era (which available politicians present with an aura of trustworthiness, and are predominantly aligned with the identity of the party)?
I think these questions must be answered for the DNC to stand a fighting chance. Americans have stated through their votes that the status quo is no longer a tenable option for them, and that they will leap into an abyss to avoid it - regardless of whether there's a soft cushion of millions of dollars in it, or a pit of magma.
...right on, benjs. The next 3 1/2 years are a great opportunity for the DNC to look at ways to become a stronger, better party again... and for the GOP to become at least a somewhat reasonably sane party again.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I know that. It won't work again though. There is not even a whisper of who will be the next Democrat to take on President Trump. W/out that whisper somewhere shows that the party is in shambles and will throw up an "Anything but Trump candidate" not a real viable for change candidate.
Do you have the Google Machine in Canada? That was so hard:
Oprah Winfrey is on the list? You guys are in trouble.
I didn't make the list. The information you seek is out there. Like the truth.
You didn't make the list but you post it like it is the official list. Once you read it further it is all speculation. That article might as well have had 100 people listed and would have the same effect - zero. If your list is so official who do you support from it?
That's a depressing list. No wonder we ended up with this idiot president. To be fair, I'm not really a fan of any politician these days so I'm probably being overly critical. But Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? This is how the democrats think they win the presidency back? Really? Haven't they been paying attention?
Yep. Not a single one of them can beat Trump. Biden if he were younger. Otherwise, forget it. That election is already over.
Sanders would've pretty easily beat trump. I don't know why you think he wouldn't have.
How do you figure? Would he have stolen votes from trump? Or do you think people stayed home instead of going to the polls for Hillary?
csuse I don't think he takes many of any votes from trump. So if there are lots of people that stayed home then this last election is on them.
I don't think he would have. But it is possible. I think the election was to a degree a reflection of how hated Hilary was for 25 years. It was an arrogant and stupid move by the party to think it was her chance and that Trump did not stand a chance.
Would Sanders have stolen votes from Trump? Probably not. Would anti-Trump turnout have increased to the point of turning it? I tend to doubt it, but maybe. Ultimately he was viewed as "too liberal," not to mention Jewish. I think the lost votes for that would have made up for the turnout votes. But who knows?
As to 2020, the Democrats don't have a deep bench and I'm not seeing a viable candidate. Trump is, at least by default, probably not going to be beatable.
Who saw Obama coming in 2005? No one knew who he was before the convention speech.
Ahem! I saw him coming. I think it was 2003 when I finally realized, "Holy shit...Barack has a path to being President"
The DNC speech in 2004 sealed the deal. Losing and getting four more years of Bush sucked, but I knew we had a great candidate in the pipeline. That's not what we have right now. I'm personally interested in Gavin Newsom. I think he's the big rising star right now to watch. Not Warren, Sanders or even Harris. Fun trivia: if conservatives want to blame anyone for Obama, look no further than Mike Ditka. When Obama's senate candidate dropped out, Ditka was approached to run. He gave it serious thought but declined. In a state still obsessed with Ditka's '87 Bears, he was the only man who could stop the train.
I know that. It won't work again though. There is not even a whisper of who will be the next Democrat to take on President Trump. W/out that whisper somewhere shows that the party is in shambles and will throw up an "Anything but Trump candidate" not a real viable for change candidate.
Do you have the Google Machine in Canada? That was so hard:
Oprah Winfrey is on the list? You guys are in trouble.
I didn't make the list. The information you seek is out there. Like the truth.
You didn't make the list but you post it like it is the official list. Once you read it further it is all speculation. That article might as well have had 100 people listed and would have the same effect - zero. If your list is so official who do you support from it?
That's a depressing list. No wonder we ended up with this idiot president. To be fair, I'm not really a fan of any politician these days so I'm probably being overly critical. But Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? This is how the democrats think they win the presidency back? Really? Haven't they been paying attention?
Yep. Not a single one of them can beat Trump. Biden if he were younger. Otherwise, forget it. That election is already over.
Sanders would've pretty easily beat trump. I don't know why you think he wouldn't have.
How do you figure? Would he have stolen votes from trump? Or do you think people stayed home instead of going to the polls for Hillary?
csuse I don't think he takes many of any votes from trump. So if there are lots of people that stayed home then this last election is on them.
I don't think he would have. But it is possible. I think the election was to a degree a reflection of how hated Hilary was for 25 years. It was an arrogant and stupid move by the party to think it was her chance and that Trump did not stand a chance.
Would Sanders have stolen votes from Trump? Probably not. Would anti-Trump turnout have increased to the point of turning it? I tend to doubt it, but maybe. Ultimately he was viewed as "too liberal," not to mention Jewish. I think the lost votes for that would have made up for the turnout votes. But who knows?
As to 2020, the Democrats don't have a deep bench and I'm not seeing a viable candidate. Trump is, at least by default, probably not going to be beatable.
Who saw Obama coming in 2005? No one knew who he was before the convention speech.
Ahem! I saw him coming. I think it was 2003 when I finally realized, "Holy shit...Barack has a path to being President"
I know that. It won't work again though. There is not even a whisper of who will be the next Democrat to take on President Trump. W/out that whisper somewhere shows that the party is in shambles and will throw up an "Anything but Trump candidate" not a real viable for change candidate.
Do you have the Google Machine in Canada? That was so hard:
Oprah Winfrey is on the list? You guys are in trouble.
I didn't make the list. The information you seek is out there. Like the truth.
You didn't make the list but you post it like it is the official list. Once you read it further it is all speculation. That article might as well have had 100 people listed and would have the same effect - zero. If your list is so official who do you support from it?
That's a depressing list. No wonder we ended up with this idiot president. To be fair, I'm not really a fan of any politician these days so I'm probably being overly critical. But Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? This is how the democrats think they win the presidency back? Really? Haven't they been paying attention?
Yep. Not a single one of them can beat Trump. Biden if he were younger. Otherwise, forget it. That election is already over.
Sanders would've pretty easily beat trump. I don't know why you think he wouldn't have.
How do you figure? Would he have stolen votes from trump? Or do you think people stayed home instead of going to the polls for Hillary?
csuse I don't think he takes many of any votes from trump. So if there are lots of people that stayed home then this last election is on them.
I don't think he would have. But it is possible. I think the election was to a degree a reflection of how hated Hilary was for 25 years. It was an arrogant and stupid move by the party to think it was her chance and that Trump did not stand a chance.
Would Sanders have stolen votes from Trump? Probably not. Would anti-Trump turnout have increased to the point of turning it? I tend to doubt it, but maybe. Ultimately he was viewed as "too liberal," not to mention Jewish. I think the lost votes for that would have made up for the turnout votes. But who knows?
As to 2020, the Democrats don't have a deep bench and I'm not seeing a viable candidate. Trump is, at least by default, probably not going to be beatable.
Who saw Obama coming in 2005? No one knew who he was before the convention speech.
Ahem! I saw him coming. I think it was 2003 when I finally realized, "Holy shit...Barack has a path to being President"
I admitted to voting for him in 2005.
Do you agree with my comment about Ditka? We had some nervous days as names were kicked around and Ditka scared us more than anyone. Then they brought in that weirdo from Maryland to run and it was game over. Obama was on his way.
Yes! Alan Keyes. I think he won 2 or 3 of the 102 counties in the state. I think that if Ryan could have won, he could have been a GOP rockstar and been a Presidential candidate. He never really rubbed me the wrong way. A Chicago Republican in most states is a moderate Democrat.
Yeah but had Ryan stayed in the race he would have won. Those divorce docs were supposed to have been sealed, I can't recall how it got out.
I do believe Ditka would have won as well. The man is still considered a God.
Alan Keyes was the guy brought in.
Ahh, yes, Alan nutjob Keyes. Another birther movement conspiracist. Another sore loser. That guy was demolished by Barb Mikulski here in Maryland for the Senate back in '92.
Yes! Alan Keyes. I think he won 2 or 3 of the 102 counties in the state. I think that if Ryan could have won, he could have been a GOP rockstar and been a Presidential candidate. He never really rubbed me the wrong way. A Chicago Republican in most states is a moderate Democrat.
Is it not odd that what got him to withdraw is now mild by comparison?
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Yes! Alan Keyes. I think he won 2 or 3 of the 102 counties in the state. I think that if Ryan could have won, he could have been a GOP rockstar and been a Presidential candidate. He never really rubbed me the wrong way. A Chicago Republican in most states is a moderate Democrat.
In full fairness Clinton only won 11. Quinn won only 4 when he beat Brady in 2010.
“The original tweet was in my view an important piece of evidence in the pattern of Trump’s possible obstruction of justice and witness intimidation,” says ethics guru Norman Eisen. “The fact that Trump has now admitted it was misleading adds to that evidence.” He explains, “Remember, obstruction is a crime of corrupt intent. Dishonesty of this kind further documents that intent. Moreover, today’s admission eliminates more benign explanations, such as that Trump really believed Comey was lying and had evidence to prove it. By process of elimination, what is left is the intent to impede the investigation by harassing the main witness against Trump.” He concludes: “Bottom line: Another tweet has landed in Mueller’s exhibit file, which is already bulging with them.
The effort to intimidate Comey with a threat about nonexistent tapes did not occur in a vacuum. He told Comey, after clearing the Oval Office of witnesses, that he would “hope” Comey would let his fired national security director, Michael Flynn, go. Purportedly Trump asked Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Mike S. Rogers to weigh in with Comey as well. He then concocted a phony rationale for firing Comey. He sent aides out to lie in order to support that cover story (before confessing he had Russia in mind when he fired Comey). Those facts suggest an effort to obstruct justice, to prevent the prosecution of Flynn and potential discovery of incriminating or embarrassing information about him or his campaign. Lawyers who have been wrongly arguing that firing Comey cannot be the basis for an obstruction-of-justice charge have a problem: It’s not just the firing that is at issue.Recall that in 1974, House Judiciary Committee members drew up an article of impeachment against Richard Nixon for abuse of power, which, among other things, cited his approval of a plan to misuse the CIA to shut down the FBI investigation of the Watergate burglary (“interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees”). Trump has the benefit of subservient Republicans in Congress with regard to impeachment. Mueller, however, is a whole other matter.https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/06/22/trumps-bluff-is-called-revealing-another-self-inflicted-legal-wound/?tid=hybrid_mostsharedarticles_3_na&utm_term=.7375b83b28d2
Yes! Alan Keyes. I think he won 2 or 3 of the 102 counties in the state. I think that if Ryan could have won, he could have been a GOP rockstar and been a Presidential candidate. He never really rubbed me the wrong way. A Chicago Republican in most states is a moderate Democrat.
In full fairness Clinton only won 11. Quinn won only 4 when he beat Brady in 2010.
That's very true. I wouldn't be shocked if in the next 3-4 cycles that Illinois go red. Rauner is hurting that presently but it's not the solid blue it was for years.
Comments
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
That's my take and I stand by it.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
First - what do the people want the DNC to be (what is the core identity of the party)?
Next - are the DNC willing to be what the people want them to be (what personal/political gains are willing to be sacrificed for the people)?
After that - what actions show the people this willingness to change (how does the party restore public faith)?
Finally - what messengers (politicians) are the ones to usher in this new era (which available politicians present with an aura of trustworthiness, and are predominantly aligned with the identity of the party)?
I think these questions must be answered for the DNC to stand a fighting chance. Americans have stated through their votes that the status quo is no longer a tenable option for them, and that they will leap into an abyss to avoid it - regardless of whether there's a soft cushion of millions of dollars in it, or a pit of magma.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
...right on, benjs. The next 3 1/2 years are a great opportunity for the DNC to look at ways to become a stronger, better party again... and for the GOP to become at least a somewhat reasonably sane party again.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Fun trivia: if conservatives want to blame anyone for Obama, look no further than Mike Ditka. When Obama's senate candidate dropped out, Ditka was approached to run. He gave it serious thought but declined. In a state still obsessed with Ditka's '87 Bears, he was the only man who could stop the train.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
I do believe Ditka would have won as well. The man is still considered a God.
Alan Keyes was the guy brought in.
I think that if Ryan could have won, he could have been a GOP rockstar and been a Presidential candidate. He never really rubbed me the wrong way. A Chicago Republican in most states is a moderate Democrat.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
“The original tweet was in my view an important piece of evidence in the pattern of Trump’s possible obstruction of justice and witness intimidation,” says ethics guru Norman Eisen. “The fact that Trump has now admitted it was misleading adds to that evidence.” He explains, “Remember, obstruction is a crime of corrupt intent. Dishonesty of this kind further documents that intent. Moreover, today’s admission eliminates more benign explanations, such as that Trump really believed Comey was lying and had evidence to prove it. By process of elimination, what is left is the intent to impede the investigation by harassing the main witness against Trump.” He concludes: “Bottom line: Another tweet has landed in Mueller’s exhibit file, which is already bulging with them.
The effort to intimidate Comey with a threat about nonexistent tapes did not occur in a vacuum. He told Comey, after clearing the Oval Office of witnesses, that he would “hope” Comey would let his fired national security director, Michael Flynn, go. Purportedly Trump asked Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Mike S. Rogers to weigh in with Comey as well. He then concocted a phony rationale for firing Comey. He sent aides out to lie in order to support that cover story (before confessing he had Russia in mind when he fired Comey). Those facts suggest an effort to obstruct justice, to prevent the prosecution of Flynn and potential discovery of incriminating or embarrassing information about him or his campaign. Lawyers who have been wrongly arguing that firing Comey cannot be the basis for an obstruction-of-justice charge have a problem: It’s not just the firing that is at issue.Recall that in 1974, House Judiciary Committee members drew up an article of impeachment against Richard Nixon for abuse of power, which, among other things, cited his approval of a plan to misuse the CIA to shut down the FBI investigation of the Watergate burglary (“interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees”). Trump has the benefit of subservient Republicans in Congress with regard to impeachment. Mueller, however, is a whole other matter.https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/06/22/trumps-bluff-is-called-revealing-another-self-inflicted-legal-wound/?tid=hybrid_mostsharedarticles_3_na&utm_term=.7375b83b28d2Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm