legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79559 posts
Fri Jun-09-17 09:38 AM
4. "FUCK NO either way bruh" In response to Reply # 1
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
3. "He's been among the most active in standing up to 45" In response to Reply # 0
Sure, he's the Senate minority leader so he has a big bullhorn built in with the position. But being the face of Senate opposition will help him bigly if he decides to run.
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79559 posts
Fri Jun-09-17 10:38 AM
7. "I think it's better to ride the wave like we did with Obama" In response to Reply # 5
he clearly wasn't our first choice when it all started but once that wave got going... it made sense to ride it.
I didn't feel a wave with Hilldawg. It was more like "welp, its her time"
in 2020 it definitely is a bad idea to run an old head with a lot of baggage.
I prefer someone younger, fresher in 2020.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
10. "might not be a wave. then what? " In response to Reply # 7
ppl slept on obama cuz the clinton name was familiar
but if the 2020 field is shumer, cuomo, oprah, the rock, and trump on the other side- u staying home or naw?
i agree it would be a bad idea to pick a boring career-politician type candidate buuut, thats what 90% of the options are. aint a lot of obamas just sitting around.
my thinking kinda shifted on this when i saw gop mentality and demographics shrinking, country as a whole turning browner, and yet these clowns painting the whole country red at every level of govt.
dem voters inspecting and looking for a reason to disqualify a candidate
& repubs close their eyes, ignore 1000 other flaws and look for just 1 reason to qualify theirs
)))--####---###--(((
bunda <-.-> ^_^ \^0^/ get busy living, or get busy dying.
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79559 posts
Fri Jun-09-17 12:30 PM
11. "there is always a wave." In response to Reply # 10
just gotta ride that shit instead of the ole "most qualified" bullshit that doesn't seem to matter anymore.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
stravinskian Member since Feb 24th 2003 12698 posts
Fri Jun-09-17 12:59 PM
13. "It was clear in 2004 that Obama would be an '08 frontrunner if he ran." In response to Reply # 7
And he was. People were talking about it from the day he started in the senate. When Tim Russert got him to admit that he might not stick to his pledge of a complete first term it was front-page news, and the Hillary team knew they had a very hard race ahead, especially once Obama started tying down establishment endorsements like Zbigniev Brzezinski, Ted Kennedy, and Al Gore.
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79559 posts
Fri Jun-09-17 02:14 PM
18. "nah.. while people said he could be the one in 2004" In response to Reply # 13
he damn sure wasn't a front runner early on.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
>is losing team logic > >someone to "electrify the base" smh > > >that and the assumption that voting/govt/politicians are gonna >instantly make your live better and if not, why bother > >^^blk folks fall 4 that one hard > > >
did blk folk fall for that harder than whites who vote for Trump and the GOP ?
24. ""Not ______" candidates stay losing " In response to Reply # 5
Hillary, Kerry, Mitt, McCain, Gore etc...
In the case of Obama, Bill, Bernie Trump, their supporters felt like they're voting *for* someone
Doesn't matter if it's wrong or Americans are immature and expect too much. It's just how shit is, and it seems to be shifting even more in that direction
6. "Id argue he's worse then Hillary" In response to Reply # 0
both of them self serving assholes, but at least Hilary was concerned about the Clinton brand/name. Schumer just wants power; he's basically the real life Littlefinger.
stravinskian Member since Feb 24th 2003 12698 posts
Fri Jun-09-17 12:50 PM
12. "I don't think that makes electoral sense, and I don't think he wants it." In response to Reply # 0
He would have made moves decades ago if he ever thought he should be president.
I haven't heard any buzz about Schumer running except from bitter Sanders supporters who fell for the "rigged primary" nonsense.
If possible, we want someone younger, with broader electoral and demographic appeal, not too tainted by a long congressional career. My money is still on Kamala Harris as the strongest candidate.
Congressional leaders have the problem of becoming the obvious punching bag for the competing party, a dynamic that they don't put much effort into fighting because their career depends only on opinions in their own districts. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi couldn't possibly win national elections; neither, thankfully, could Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan. (Remember when Paul Ryan was considered a presidential contender? He certainly isn't now.) Candidates in the opposing party attack these leaders relentlessly, and candidates in the same party run on being "independent" from leadership. Both sides make the leaders look bad.
14. "Lol. You always find a way to slip something like this in" In response to Reply # 12
> >I haven't heard any buzz about Schumer running except from >bitter Sanders supporters who fell for the "rigged primary" >nonsense. >
I strongly agree with this part here (the long career part, not necessarily Harris). In this facts don't matter era, I don't think a candidate can have a deep history. One where people can point at actions and decisions and be like "See!!"
When a candidate can resort to what he/she would have done, then they are a blank slate that people can project whatever qualities they want onto. Usually good qualities (see Trump. He was against Iraq, against Iran deal, against this and that. Other candidates were on record).
This is a sad realization because to me actions are much more important than words. But I think that's what we are dealing with now.
>If possible, we want someone younger, with broader electoral >and demographic appeal, not too tainted by a long >congressional career. My money is still on Kamala Harris as >the strongest candidate.
stravinskian Member since Feb 24th 2003 12698 posts
Fri Jun-09-17 01:20 PM
16. "But yeah, the value of not having a track record," In response to Reply # 14
I think, is one of the unfortunate revelations of the Obama and Trump victories. And I think Obama would agree that this is a sad state of affairs.
It's just like you said: people can fill in the blanks any way they want. We had people assuming Obama supported single-payer when his health plan was to the right of Hillary's, assuming he was a pacifist even though he openly called for expanding the Afghanistan war. For me he was a hero for science and technocratic leadership (and I think he lived up to my naive expectation), but I'm sure there were people out there expecting him to ban GMO's or whatever.
Trump took it to a whole new place, though. People weren't just believing what they wanted to believe with Trump, they were believing and trumpeting obvious lies (or blowing them off with "don't take him literally") simply because it helps them strategically. To an extent, I'm glad Democrats don't have THAT much party discipline, but it's a real tough machine to be up against.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
