Jump to content

US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

I guess at least The Rock would appeal to some of the WWE/WWF crowd, which is probably a very tough nut for any other progressive candidate to crack. Still, after becoming an actor he could be seen as having gone soft and no longer has the WWE/WWF cred he once had.

The Rock is an action and not an identifiable Elitist.  He is more Schwarzenegger. 

I do not know the politics but I think the canvassing will be entertainment since any talking point being follow with "If you smell what The Rock is cooking?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Pretty much what Sjohn said.

Sanders is 75

Bloomberg is 74

Biden is 74

Warren is 67

I know age is just a number and that 80 is the new 70, but the Sanders, Biden, and Bloomberg are just too old.  

 

I also think Bloomberg is too Republican. We already have one party that represents the C-suite class and the wealthy. I don't think we need two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Commodore said:

what about the governor of Louisiana as a dark horse

Unfortunately, he's probably too pro-life to ever win a national Democratic primary.

The more I think about it though, the more I hope The Rock jumps in to the ring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think anyone's specifically thinking Warren save, perhaps, Stonekettle. 

The current plans include Cory Booker (who is problematic), Sanders, Warren, and Biden. That being said it's a pretty long road, and both Obama and Clinton came basically out of nowhere on the world. There is some time. 

Honestly, this whole Booker situation with the Sanders drug importation bill may imply that it's really better to just come out of nowhere. Is he the best candidate? Nah, but he might have benefited from coming too late for such votes.

I think some of the Congressional games that might benefit a Senator of a particular state are just a hazard nationwide as a certain part of the Democratic party pay more and more attention.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, S John said:

If in four years we are more or less in the same position as today, where conservative Americans and liberal Americans live in alternate realities, then I think it will take someone young, exciting, and (probably) male to beat Trump.  Clinton had plenty of baggage that hurt her, but I'm not convinced that her lack of a penis didn't also hurt her when pitted against heavy-handed President Comacho.

If the clown show continues unabated for four years and enough people on the right are finally sick of it, the Dems will have a lot more leeway with who they can run.  But I do hope they have learned from some of the mistakes of 2016.  

Recall about waging war on multiple fronts?  Another penis war is a front we shouldn't go for.

Also age.  We really need much younger benches.  Which means looking in local regions, not national ones.  And probably, a new party all together, as happened with the Free Soil guys etc. in the 1850's -- which ended up with the Republican party and second time around, Lincoln.  The parties before Lincoln were running old guys including yet another son of John Quincy Adams.  He was great but not for POTUS.  He made a terrific minister to St James during the Civil War, dealing with the CSA in both England and France.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fez said:

'Anyone else' usually polls very well against all but the most popular politicians, since people can fantasize about their dream candidate. Its why 'generic Republican' and 'generic Democrat' usually do so well also. When there's an actual candidate to run against, things change very quickly.

Not when it's your own state, and you're an incumbent. That's pretty remarkably low. Especially when the governor in the same state is doing better. As the article says, one likely reason is that she simply doesn't have bipartisan appeal, at all. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Good luck with that. There's more money arrayed against it (as well as public opinion) as there is for it. Google and Microsoft alone will smack down any attempt to take away these protections. 

There's a lot more money in favor of it, and it isn't like google and facebook are giving those candidacies money. It's almost certainly dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There's a lot more money in favor of it, and it isn't like google and facebook are giving those candidacies money. It's almost certainly dead.

That's more or less what was said last time around. I don't see it. Teh intrawebs are what TV was. You fuck with it and the public outcry is going to be massive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That's more or less what was said last time around. I don't see it. Teh intrawebs are what TV was. You fuck with it and the public outcry is going to be massive.

Maybe. They fucked with TV plenty back in the day, and it worked out okay. Most people don't care until it directly hits them, and most people have no idea what net neutrality actually means. 

ETA: also, Trump et al caring about a bunch of silicon valley businesses? Fuck them. He doesn't care. They aren't employing thousands of factory workers. He could literally not care less about what Californians think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Fez said:

Unfortunately, he's probably too pro-life to ever win a national Democratic primary.

The more I think about it though, the more I hope The Rock jumps in to the ring.

Pun intended I'm sure.

He was definitely born in the USA, right? Every Democrat of colour who runs for the white house will be closely examined for birth credentials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, chairman lmao said:

buddy, I've got some bad news...

LOL. I know.

But, that doesn't mean they should continue to go down that route.

For me, rather than concentrating on who might run for the Democratic Party, the bigger question right now, is just where in the hell does the Democratic party want to go from here? Just how exactly does it want to govern, if it  gets the chance in the future.

I think it's pretty clear, I pretty much disdain the Republican Party. That said, I believe the Democratic Party has got some explainen to do about its future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kalbear said:

Maybe. They fucked with TV plenty back in the day, and it worked out okay. Most people don't care until it directly hits them, and most people have no idea what net neutrality actually means. 

I thought the backers last time out did a really good job of breaking it down for the consumer. Many of the websites and forums that I populate had get out the vote sort of movements attached to them. Seemed to be pretty damn effective the last time out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...