People either loved Booker's speech or went "meh". I thought he did a good job of weaving the African American literary cannon into a happy America speech for all comers. These things rarely pan out (see Chris Christie) but as of now you would think that the next big presidential hopefuls on our side include Booker, Warren, and Garcetti.Originally Posted by Bernanke
See also: yourself.
You are wildly out of touch if you think any of them would do anything other than get slaughtered by a half competent GOP nominee.
I changed my mind about things when I left university and experienced the working world, as I suspect most sensible people do.
I think Kaine might be in the running as well if he gets 8 years as VP. He has surprised me so far.
Got anyone particular in mind?
[QUOTE=Bernanke;117584]I think Kaine might be in the running as well if he gets 8 years as VP. He has surprised me so far.
VP may as well be Siberia anymore. I've no idea why progressives wanted one of their few stalwarts exiled there.
@Mert - hmm, maybe I said "hopeful" for a reason. Or you could just reflexively attack anything that does not swear allegiance.
IMO Kaine would be a great Democrat nominee.
I think the fundamental issue with why there don't seem to be any good Democrats is that at the end of the day people want a tall, handsome charismatic alpha male (preferably with a few plausible rumors suggesting womanizing tendencies) to lead them, and men with those qualifications are simply not liberal enough to satisfy the base. Clinton in his prime was the last one I can remember that fit the bill, he'd be a Republican today anyways.
Warren's too old. I can't see the Dems running a 70+yo Warren back to back from Hillary, although if Trump wins or Clinton only chooses to serve one term then it's more possible.
I suspect a Clinton will bookend this generation of Democratic politics, one way or the other. The next Dem nomination will be younger.
The Democrats could basically do with someone like Trudeau, the Canadian. Similar liberal values but not a thousand years old.
Trudeau is probably the best you'll get from a liberal. Dude is as beta as you would expect from a progressive but the underlying genetic quality + genuine subconscious entitlement that comes from his background is elite tier, so that it balances out to the extent that he projects some natural leadership value (his wife is hot; that's a big indicator).
That bloke's an embarrassment.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...nap-story.html
Trump 47-40 Clinton
O'Malley was quality. All that optimism.
Trump is the first major party nominee in forty or so years that has not released his tax returns. The last one was Nixon.
There's something going on.
That's likely just because he vastly overstates his charitable contributions. It's a minor thing in the big scheme, although an unsurprising bit of nastiness.
Why is releasing tax returns even a thing? It's made its way over here as well, and it's fucking stupid.
He's asking Russia to hack Clinton's emails which contain personal information? That ... sounds illegal.
No, he is asking Russia to hack her server during her time at State because he worries it contains hidden classified information. Which is ok because of Benghazi.
You sort of have to wonder how this would be playing out if it was Trump who was claiming the Russians were trying to sabotage his campaign. I can't imagine they would be given much credence. Is it a good idea to start fighting in the gutter now? I suppose someone has to keep flying the flag for McCarthyism. There is obviously a fear that the original idea that he'd eventually sabotage himself (before now, obviously) was very wrong. Maybe that's a good thing.
His comments were obviously not an incitement of any sort.
It'll get real dirty between now and November. I bet Trump is wallowing in filth but his support is much, much less likely to care.
I would strongly encourage you not to take a tongue in cheek joking comment, made after saying that there would be serious consequences if it was proven that Russia was proven to be behind the DNC leak, seriously.
More significantly, Trump up 2 in the latest Reuters poll, he was down 11 three weeks ago:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/2...or-first-time/
I think his actual quote is something along the lines of hopes they have it and can share. Which is silly if you think the material is classified but not incitement. I'm 1000% not voting Trump and think that the Russia conspiracy stuff is one of the dumbest things I've heard.
I think Trump is becoming a bit of a victim of his media success. He got a pass on policy for a long time because he was an amusing story that could get eyeballs. Now they want their typical policy related fight and he is not giving it to them. They need a new story for the daily campaign churn and they have picked up that they can bait him and get him to double down about almost anything. If you notice she also got him to respond to her personally.
His hope is that the resentment of both the media and policy elite that works in the flyover states continues to play. Hers is that she gets enough women in the Midwest to say what my wife does about him "ughh that creepy guy at work who always tries to look down your shirt."
It isn't that hard to find the actual quote. It doesn't say that.
Find it instead of have it sure. But if you think it may be classified? Why would you want them to have it at all even if they were an ally?
I'm obviously missing your point completely.
The debates are going to be sensations. 'Hillary' will already have a crack team of twenty-six year old wankers coming up with snarky put-downs that won't resonate beyond Twitter, and he'll shitpost her into having a stroke. If I was him I would go with the Bill Clinton is a sex offender stuff straight off the bat, and then run a cigar under my nose as she stumbles around for an answer.
Even 'Bernie' had her in full seethe mode within five minutes every time. The Donald will don her senseless. She can go join 'Jeb' who is still crying in some corner.
'Jeb is a mess!'
Trump would go with the Lewinsky line as well, wouldn't he. The television could be fucking spectacular.
"I'll stand up to Vladimir Putin!"
You can make up your own innuendo.
His guacamole recipe was shit.
My point was that this:
Is a bit of a daft line to take on the back of his comments. Not that the whole Russia angle isn't a bit of a foray into mentalville as it is.Donald Trump has "actively encouraged" foreign powers to hack his presidential rival Hillary Clinton, her camp says.
Yes, that is just dumb and went right over my head. That whole talking points memo story is just a ludicrous stringing together of coincidences.
"She couldn't satisfy her husband, how could she possibly satisfy the American people?"
Also the Russian angle is pretty outrageous tin-foil hat speculation that would be immediately dismissed and mocked if it was anyone other than Clinton who stood to benefit from the obfuscation.
What's your evidence here, out of curiosity? Otherwise, you're just brashly making an assertion.
The transcript of Trump's post-election speech - the one where he slags off Ted Cruz - is amazing.
He did get one thing absolutely correct in his campaign. Trump could shoot a man in the middle of fifth avenue and it wouldn't affect his supporters one jot.
Likewise, any good things he says or does won't affect the anti-Trump bandwagon one jot.
Yeah, I more and more feel like this election will be about getting your base to turn out rather than fighting for independents. That's why Trump hasn't "pivoted" at all which some people expected him to do after the primary.
The one thing that could break away from this is if any well-known Repubs endorse Gary Johnson, otherwise it's gonna be pandering towards their respective camps for 3 months.
I read somewhere that they're estimating the "true" middle ground as about 6%, and that political strategists have largely decided that there's more value in energising your base than pivoting towards the middle.
I've been binge-watching Veep lately, and it just makes me feel a bit despairing.
Mic drop of a speech from Obama, but doubt it swings many votes.
I don't think anything swings votes at this point; there's very little middle ground left in US politics. It's a matter of energising the base. That speech should play well in that regard - it was a hell of a piece of oratory. The man can speak.
Bams speech is one of the best I have ever seen.
You don't get to say, 'the Republican nominee is colluding with the Russians to manipulate the outcome of the election' without having evidence. Burden of proof is on the accuser.
The funniest part of course is that Democrats are okay with manipulating the democratic process when they are the ones doing the manipulating
This is totally wrong; 38% of the country is registered as independent. Moreover, Trump is pulling many many Democrats over to his side, and a significant amount of Republicans are similarly voting for Hillary. You're repeating the outdated conventional wisdom from past elections.I read somewhere that they're estimating the "true" middle ground as about 6%, and that political strategists have largely decided that there's more value in energising your base than pivoting towards the middle.
I've been binge-watching Veep lately, and it just makes me feel a bit despairing.
I only read this in an article, which noted that lack of political registration isn't as reliable on voting patterns as it used to be. I read that they estimated that about 6% of voters were in the "legitimately could swing" basket. It's not nothing, but it's miles from 38%.
This is the opposite of conventional wisdom, which is that you go extreme in the primaries and pull to the centre in the election itself. Whereas for the first time, we are likely to see things go the other way this year, because campaign managers are prioritising getting out their own base over winning the undecideds.
EDIT: I did get all this third-hand from articles, of course. I'm fairly sure I littered enough "apparently"s throughout to make that clear.
I mean, you saw the article - it's not random assertions. As I said at the time, most of it is circumstantial. But there are enough notes of weirdness - Trump ignoring every other aspect of the platform in favour of Ukraine, and the DNC hackers apparently being Russian government - that it's worth taking a closer look.You don't get to say, 'the Republican nominee is colluding with the Russians to manipulate the outcome of the election' without having evidence. Burden of proof is on the accuser.
The funniest part of course is that Democrats are okay with manipulating the democratic process when they are the ones doing the manipulating
It's not strong evidence, and I doubt that it's true - I imagine Russia want Trump to win because of their own reasons, and Trump likes Putin because he respects hardman dictators, neither of which are of the level of collusion. But it's enough that you can't just brashly write it off completely without some explanation. I mean, you can - you can do whatever you please - but it's not really as convincing as move as you think it is.
https://twitter.com/mikedogli/status/758578450760204288
Comment below captures it well:
Progressive Democrats order aggressive police force to protect their border wall from undocumented delegated
There's also circumstantial evidence that the Clintons ordered a bunch of murders over the years for their own political gain (including a DNC staffer last week). That's not generally how serious public discourse is supposed to happen.
All we can be sure of is Ted Cruz' dad killed JFK.
Uh huh.
In other news, seems like Biden got the attack speech, in a similar vein to Christie for the RNC. Did a good job with it too - he's an incredibly likeable person, which is a nice contrast.
Reply With Quote
