Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Max Power said:

Just numbers. We are breaking down trump's base as uneducated. I wanted to know what %of AA voters are considered uneducated. It's a fair question.

No it's not.  Being black isn't a conscious decision.  Being a Trump voter is.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m aware of this stunt, but I also think that there are enough people who truly feel this way to have a chance to swing the election. 

I don't want to get carried away with breaking down the 2016 results as I think for most Trump voters he represented the "heir to Reagan" and the best hope to continue the conservative revolution.   But if we take the three states that Trump narrowly won that made all of the difference I have to wonder how many of those voters were really looking for Trump to be the transformative president.  To be the president that finally represented the "ordinary man" rather than the corporate robber barons.   

If these are the people we are worrying about, then they are still looking for that change that they have hoped for over and over.  Lets offer up such a choice this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now after the last three posts of mine about what I'd want and why I'd want Warren to be the nominee, I'm still not so certain that electorate at large is just so worn out by Trump (and maybe even Obama and Bush) that they simply want the most boring candidate possible so they can have a breather the next four years.   Not what I want to be true, but very well could be the case.  But I think if this is the case it would appear in the primary results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

If people wanted boring, Klobuchar would be doing a lot better.

Hurling binders at your aides and eating salad with a comb are not boring. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

If people wanted boring, Klobuchar would be doing a lot better.

I don't buy the argument that people want "boring" at all.   I could be convinced they want "safe".  That's not the same thing.

Personally, I think a majority of the people choosing Biden in the polls are not really choosing Biden, they're choosing "Obama's VP"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders: $25.3 million
Buttigieg: $19.1 million
BIden: $15 million
Harris: $11.6 million
Yang: $10 million
Booker: $6 million

 

Updated with Biden's number.

 

That is not a good number for Biden.  Its not terrible, but trailing Sanders, Buttigieg and probably Warren is not where Joe needs to be right now.  He has other things going for him - in terms of name recognition, so being top-dog is not critical.  But, this comes at a difficult time for Biden - from a public perception standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Sanders: $25.3 million
Warren: $24.6 million
Buttigieg: $19.1 million
BIden: $15 million
Harris: $11.6 million
Yang: $10 million
Booker: $6 million

 

 

Final update with Warren's Q3 fundraising numbers.  I don't think we have heard from the other minor candidates, but their numbers won't matter in the big scheme of things.

 

One other anecdote on fundraising, that I saw this morning - One detail on Biden’s fundraising: 38% of the money he raised in his first two months came from 2,800 people who are maxed out and can’t give to him again in the primary.  Biden is not well positioned to continue to go after small money donors, and many of his deep pockets are already maxed out.  ON top of everything else - this is not good news for the Biden camp.

 

Despite what the polls are saying - I still think this is shaping up as Warren v. Buttigieg.  Both candidates have money to burn, room to grow, and well-organized campaigns.

Edited by Sinn Fein
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add them all up and you're close to trump 3Q figures.  Sounds like the big Dem donors are still holding back some too.

2020 is going to be stupid with money.  Makes me sick how much is spent on elections.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

 

 

Despite what the polls are saying - I still think this is shaping up as Warren v. Buttigieg.  Both candidates have money to burn, room to grow, and well-organized campaigns.

Neither one of these candidates has significant black support- yet. Warren has something like 11%- higher than it’s been but still low- while Buttigieg has zero. Which means neither one is going to win any of the southern states. Right now those states are going to Biden. If Biden fades then they will go to somebody else, but I don’t think that’s going to be Warren or Buttigieg. Therefore I can’t get behind your two person theory at least for now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beef said:

Add them all up and you're close to trump 3Q figures.  Sounds like the big Dem donors are still holding back some too.

2020 is going to be stupid with money.  Makes me sick how much is spent on elections.  

 

it is sickening and disturbing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw a Donald Trump ad on TV. The Democrats are trying to take Trump out. First they tried with Russia and Mueller. Now they're trying with Ukraine. But Trump is changing things: more jobs, better border security, etc. It takes a strong man to change Washington D.C., but Trump is succeeding. Paid for by the Trump Campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burn through that war chest, GOP. 
 

i saw a commercial a few times this week in MN targeting Angie Craig, who supplanted (R) Jason Lewis in 2018 in the US House. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

It seems pretty early to advertise for the general election. I'm guessing this is more about impeachment.

It makes sense, if you think the only way to save your job is to win the public debate on impeachment.

 

I am not sure what that says about any legal defenses you might have for the charges - but I suppose the strategies are not mutually exclusive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 9:07 PM, ren hoek said:

On the highest floor of the tallest building in Boston, Senator Elizabeth Warren was busy collecting big checks from some of the city’s politically connected insiders. It was April 2018 and Ms. Warren, up for re-election, was at a breakfast fund-raiser hosted for her by John M. Connors Jr., one of the old-guard power brokers of Massachusetts.

Soon after, Ms. Warren was in Manhattan doing the same. There would be trips to Hollywood and Silicon Valley, Martha’s Vineyard and Philadelphia — all with fund-raisers on the agenda. She collected campaign funds at the private home of at least one California megadonor, and was hosted by another in Florida. She held finance events until two weeks before her all-but-assured re-election last November.

Then, early this year, Ms. Warren made a bold bet that would delight the left: She announced she was quitting this big-money circuit in the 2020 presidential primary, vowing not to attend private fund-raisers or dial up rich donors anymore. Admirers and activists praised her stand — but few noted the fact that she had built a financial cushion by pocketing big checks the years before.

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

The open secret of Ms. Warren’s campaign is that her big-money fund-raising through 2018 helped lay the foundation for her anti-big-money run for the presidency. Last winter and spring, she transferred $10.4 million in leftover funds from her 2018 Senate campaign to underwrite her 2020 run, a portion of which was raised from the same donor class she is now running against.

As Ms. Warren has risen in the polls on her populist and anti-corruption message, some donors and, privately, opponents are chafing at her campaign’s purity claims of being “100 percent grass-roots funded.” Several donors now hosting events for her rivals organized fund-raisers for her last year.

“Can you spell hypocrite?” said former Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, who contributed $4,000 to Ms. Warren in 2018 and is now supporting former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Mr. Rendell said he had recruited donors to attend an intimate fund-raising dinner for Ms. Warren last year at Barclay Prime, a Philadelphia steakhouse where the famed cheesesteak goes for $120. (The dish includes Wagyu rib-eye, foie gras, truffled cheese whiz and a half-bottle of champagne.) He said he received a “glowing thank-you letter” from Ms. Warren afterward.

But when Mr. Rendell co-hosted Mr. Biden’s first fund-raiser this spring, Ms. Warren’s campaign sent brickbats, deriding the affair as “a swanky private fund-raiser for wealthy donors,” the likes of which she now shuns.

“She didn’t have any trouble taking our money the year before,” Mr. Rendell said. “All of a sudden, we were bad guys and power brokers and influence-peddlers. In 2018, we were wonderful.”

How Elizabeth Warren Raised Big Money Before She Denounced Big Money

We must fight corruption, uphold the law, and stop electing politicians who are beholden to Wall Street and our dedication to forever war!

What about this woman who was a law professor who rails against forever war, wants to get everyone college and health insurance, and created the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau?

No, not like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 10/3/2019 at 3:07 PM, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Hurling binders at your aides and eating salad with a comb are not boring. 

Our next Attorney General will need great skill in throwing the book at people.

Edited by Mister CIA
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 10/3/2019 at 4:47 PM, Sinn Fein said:

Sanders: $25.3 million
Buttigieg: $19.1 million
BIden: $15 million
Harris: $11.6 million
Yang: $10 million
Booker: $6 million

 

Updated with Biden's number.

 

That is not a good number for Biden.  Its not terrible, but trailing Sanders, Buttigieg and probably Warren is not where Joe needs to be right now.  He has other things going for him - in terms of name recognition, so being top-dog is not critical.  But, this comes at a difficult time for Biden - from a public perception standpoint.

Not sure if it could happen, but Yang suggested that they raised enough to pay for two Super Bowl commercials.  Hmm

ETA: I'm curious if there's a way to analyze/compare online polling and fund raising.  Specifically thinking of Gabbard, wondering if her online poll numbers are betrayed by fund raising numbers.

Edited by Mister CIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

We must fight corruption, uphold the law, and stop electing politicians who are beholden to Wall Street and our dedication to forever war!

What about this woman who was a law professor who rails against forever war, wants to get everyone college and health insurance, and created the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau?

No, not like that.

Henry-

She voted for the $700 billion dollar military budget.  Her rhetoric on Israel always centers Israel as a liberal democracy, our 'friend' in a troubled region, and frames it as just a Netanyahu thing rather than systematic apartheid.  She once said "[O]ver time realities are bearing down on Israel, demographic realities, births and deaths. What the region looks like."  Her decision to call the historic summit between Trump and Kim- a delicate peace process with support from President Moon as well as an overwhelming majority of Koreans- a "photo op" was incredibly disappointing.  

She positioned herself as a supporter of M4A to co-opt Sanders' messaging and platform, and is now slowly waffling away from it.  She was a Harvard Republican who billed herself as a native American, then took a DNA test proving she was 1/32nd native American, pissing off actual native Americans.  I don't know if you've watched some of those old campaign ads and interviews but there's a lot of material for the GOP to tee off on.  

She has already agreed to accept corporate cash for the general election.  She's going to take their money, so there's no point pretending she's going to challenge them in a serious way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

Henry-

She voted for the $700 billion dollar military budget.  Her rhetoric on Israel always centers Israel as a liberal democracy, our 'friend' in a troubled region, and frames it as just a Netanyahu thing rather than systematic apartheid.  She once said "[O]ver time realities are bearing down on Israel, demographic realities, births and deaths. What the region looks like."  Her decision to call the historic summit between Trump and Kim- a delicate peace process with support from President Moon as well as an overwhelming majority of Koreans- a "photo op" was incredibly disappointing.  

She positioned herself as a supporter of M4A to co-opt Sanders' messaging and platform, and is now slowly waffling away from it.  She was a Harvard Republican who billed herself as a native American, then took a DNA test proving she was 1/32nd native American, pissing off actual native Americans.  I don't know if you've watched some of those old campaign ads and interviews but there's a lot of material for the GOP to tee off on.  

She has already agreed to accept corporate cash for the general election.  She's going to take their money, so there's no point pretending she's going to challenge them in a serious way.  

It’s just a little weird that the only person you don’t post these kinds of things about is Donald Trump. 

  • Like 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

It’s just a little weird that the only person you don’t post these kinds of things about is Donald Trump. 

95% of the posting population here has that more than covered. When you say things like this, it gives off the impression you'd like this place to be even more of a bubble than it already is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

It’s just a little weird that the only person you don’t post these kinds of things about is Donald Trump. 

I do post these kinds of things about Donald Trump.  I have called him a war criminal and said he should be tried for war crimes in Yemen.  I've discussed his troubling ties to Sheldon Adelson and the Israeli far-right more than anyone else on this board.   

Beyond that, there's no getting around him as the 2020 nominee for the Republicans.  Primarying him would go over about as well as primarying Obama in 2012.  The modern-day GOP is quite possibly the worst, most corrupt, most cruel, most corporate-bought party in our lifetimes.  So we need the Dems or somebody else to be a real opposition party against that.  And when I see them doubling down on 2016, having learned nothing or lost their jobs from their historic failure in that election, I find it incredibly demoralizing that they still maintain currency as a viable political party.  

I mean, at least the GOP is out in the open with it.  At least with Trump in office, liberals aren't asleep at the wheel like they were for 8 years when there was a pretty face on the empire.  There would be nothing more contemptible than these spineless, morally bankrupt losers seizing power again.  They need to fix their #### or lose to Trump again. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, timschochet said:

Neither one of these candidates has significant black support- yet. Warren has something like 11%- higher than it’s been but still low- while Buttigieg has zero. Which means neither one is going to win any of the southern states. Right now those states are going to Biden. If Biden fades then they will go to somebody else, but I don’t think that’s going to be Warren or Buttigieg. Therefore I can’t get behind your two person theory at least for now. 

I realize that having peoples votes not matter is not a good thing, but I always felt one weakness the Democratic Party had was concern about stuff like this. Honestly, who cares which candidates Deep Red (or Blue) states like best, when it does not effect the election that counts. Mississippi likes Biden? Who cares. A popular vote among swing states or potential swing states would be better than having to settle for subpar candidates because they appeal to voters in states that they will lose in the election.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, huthut said:

I realize that having peoples votes not matter is not a good thing, but I always felt one weakness the Democratic Party had was concern about stuff like this. Honestly, who cares which candidates Deep Red (or Blue) states like best, when it does not effect the election that counts. Mississippi likes Biden? Who cares. A popular vote among swing states or potential swing states would be better than having to settle for subpar candidates because they appeal to voters in states that they will lose in the election.

Doesn't change the fact if you can't get black support in the south you won't win the democratic nomination. 

Edited by Mile High

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mile High said:

Doesn't change the fact if you can't  black support in the south you won't win the democratic nomination. 

Exactly. It is what it is. 

And what it is is a historical anomaly caused, not by the Democrats, but by southern conservatives. Blacks aren’t a majority in the south or anything close to it. And these states rarely vote Democrat. So why do blacks in the south have so much power in deciding who the Democratic nominee is? 

Because after the Civil Right Act of 1964, white people in the South quit the Democratic Party in droves. This was Nixon’s “southern strategy.” Ever since, what’s left of the Democrats in states like South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, etc is dominated by black voters. And so they get to influence  way beyond their numbers.  When they’re unified they pretty much get to decide everything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, huthut said:

I realize that having peoples votes not matter is not a good thing, but I always felt one weakness the Democratic Party had was concern about stuff like this. Honestly, who cares which candidates Deep Red (or Blue) states like best, when it does not effect the election that counts. Mississippi likes Biden? Who cares. A popular vote among swing states or potential swing states would be better than having to settle for subpar candidates because they appeal to voters in states that they will lose in the election.

:goodposting:It's insane that candidates have to cater to primary voters in states that their party has not even come remotely close to winning in this century. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Murph said:

:goodposting:It's insane that candidates have to cater to primary voters in states that their party has not even come remotely close to winning in this century. 

The insane part is only a few states matter to winning in this century. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Mile High said:

Doesn't change the fact if you can't get black support in the south you won't win the democratic nomination. 

That doesn't change the fact that Biden would lose every single state in the south, while also putting forward a weak candidate to do so (Biden). 

Edited by huthut
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, huthut said:

That doesn't change the fact that Biden would lose every single state in the south.  

Same as any of the other candidates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ren hoek said:

Henry-

She voted for the $700 billion dollar military budget.  Her rhetoric on Israel always centers Israel as a liberal democracy, our 'friend' in a troubled region, and frames it as just a Netanyahu thing rather than systematic apartheid.  She once said "[O]ver time realities are bearing down on Israel, demographic realities, births and deaths. What the region looks like."  

Obviously we don’t see eye to eye on Israel and likely never will. 

But your criticism of Warren on this issue extends to nearly the entire Democratic field of candidates, as well as ever major Democratic politician in modern times. Warren’s position on Israel is the Democratic position on Israel. 

Its as if someone said “I’m looking over the Democratic candidates and I’ve decided I can’t support Kamala Harris because she’s pro choice.” They’re ALL pro-choice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mile High said:

Same as any of the other candidates. 

But another might be better in the midwest or Ohio or Rust Belt that are toss ups. If all those places like Biden, fine. But if they like Warren or whoever I think that should be given more weight than what the south thinks. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Murph said:

:goodposting:It's insane that candidates have to cater to primary voters in states that their party has not even come remotely close to winning in this century. 

You’re right. It is insane. So is the entire system of choosing the President. This is just one insane aspect. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

 When they’re unified they pretty much get to decide everything. 

I think you are slightly overselling this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2019 at 5:47 PM, Sinn Fein said:

Updated with Biden's number.
That is not a good number for Biden. 

This explains the significant uptick in campaign emails recently to the point that I'm about ready to hit Unsubscribe. Today's was looking for $5 for a new Rapid Response Fund to counteract the "false ads" Trump is dropping in early voting states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ren hoek said:

I do post these kinds of things about Donald Trump.  I have called him a war criminal and said he should be tried for war crimes in Yemen.  I've discussed his troubling ties to Sheldon Adelson and the Israeli far-right more than anyone else on this board.   

Beyond that, there's no getting around him as the 2020 nominee for the Republicans.  Primarying him would go over about as well as primarying Obama in 2012.  The modern-day GOP is quite possibly the worst, most corrupt, most cruel, most corporate-bought party in our lifetimes.  So we need the Dems or somebody else to be a real opposition party against that.  And when I see them doubling down on 2016, having learned nothing or lost their jobs from their historic failure in that election, I find it incredibly demoralizing that they still maintain currency as a viable political party.  

I mean, at least the GOP is out in the open with it.  At least with Trump in office, liberals aren't asleep at the wheel like they were for 8 years when there was a pretty face on the empire.  There would be nothing more contemptible than these spineless, morally bankrupt losers seizing power again.  They need to fix their #### or lose to Trump again. 

Sorry, by “things” I meant “articles.”  My apologies for the confusion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr Anonymous said:

95% of the posting population here has that more than covered. When you say things like this, it gives off the impression you'd like this place to be even more of a bubble than it already is.

Perhaps your inference isn’t the same as my implication. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Perhaps your inference isn’t the same as my implication. 

Very possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 10/4/2019 at 11:20 AM, Sinn Fein said:

Sanders: $25.3 million
Warren: $24.6 million
Buttigieg: $19.1 million
BIden: $15 million
Harris: $11.6 million
Yang: $10 million
Booker: $6 million

 

 

Final update with Warren's Q3 fundraising numbers.  I don't think we have heard from the other minor candidates, but their numbers won't matter in the big scheme of things.

 

One other anecdote on fundraising, that I saw this morning - One detail on Biden’s fundraising: 38% of the money he raised in his first two months came from 2,800 people who are maxed out and can’t give to him again in the primary.  Biden is not well positioned to continue to go after small money donors, and many of his deep pockets are already maxed out.  ON top of everything else - this is not good news for the Biden camp.

 

Despite what the polls are saying - I still think this is shaping up as Warren v. Buttigieg.  Both candidates have money to burn, room to grow, and well-organized campaigns.

Good to see Pete is still hanging around, but the SC problem is still huge for him.

Edited by Slapdash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Slapdash said:

Good to see Pete is still hanging around, but the SC problem is still huge for him.

I think he'd nominate perfectly fine Supreme Court Justices.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2019 at 10:20 AM, Sinn Fein said:

One detail on Biden’s fundraising: 38% of the money he raised in his first two months came from 2,800 people who are maxed out and can’t give to him again in the primary.  Biden is not well positioned to continue to go after small money donors, and many of his deep pockets are already maxed out.  ON top of everything else - this is not good news for the Biden camp.

That’s good stuff IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willie Brown - of all people - I guess he is not a fan of Kamala:

 

It’s time for Hillary Clinton to come out of retirement, lace up the gloves and get back in the ring with President Trump for what would be the biggest political rematch ever.

Call me crazy, but from what I’ve seen so far, Clinton is the only candidate short of Barack Obama who has the brains, the battle-tested brawn and the national presence to take out Trump. And Obama can’t run.

Bernie Sanders was fading even before his heart started acting up. Joe Biden has become Trump’s main talking point in the whole Ukraine-China impeachment mess, which hardly helps him. And he wasn’t exactly running away with it before that.

Elizabeth Warren has a following, but it’s not that much broader than Sanders’. If he drops out, she might pick up some of his votes. But there’s the big question of whether she appeals to anyone besides the furthest left element of the Democratic Party.

 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Who-should-run-against-Trump-How-about-Hillary-14494201.php

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

Willie Brown - of all people - I guess he is not a fan of Kamala:

 

It’s time for Hillary Clinton to come out of retirement, lace up the gloves and get back in the ring with President Trump for what would be the biggest political rematch ever.

Call me crazy, but from what I’ve seen so far, Clinton is the only candidate short of Barack Obama who has the brains, the battle-tested brawn and the national presence to take out Trump. And Obama can’t run.

Bernie Sanders was fading even before his heart started acting up. Joe Biden has become Trump’s main talking point in the whole Ukraine-China impeachment mess, which hardly helps him. And he wasn’t exactly running away with it before that.

Elizabeth Warren has a following, but it’s not that much broader than Sanders’. If he drops out, she might pick up some of his votes. But there’s the big question of whether she appeals to anyone besides the furthest left element of the Democratic Party.

 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Who-should-run-against-Trump-How-about-Hillary-14494201.php

It seems like she's keeping a toe in the water with the press circuit she's been doing.  I could see her jumping in if things get hairy for Biden and he drops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KiddLattimer said:

It seems like she's keeping a toe in the water with the press circuit she's been doing.  I could see her jumping in if things get hairy for Biden and he drops

People don’t like to admit they were wrong. People who voted for Trump last time because Hillary was even worse are unlikely to change their minds. They could vote for Warren or whomever, though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary is not coming back. Nobody new is coming in. 

If Biden is the nominee he will crush Trump. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Willie Brown - of all people - I guess he is not a fan of Kamala:

 

It’s time for Hillary Clinton to come out of retirement, lace up the gloves and get back in the ring with President Trump for what would be the biggest political rematch ever.

Call me crazy, but from what I’ve seen so far, Clinton is the only candidate short of Barack Obama who has the brains, the battle-tested brawn and the national presence to take out Trump. And Obama can’t run.

Bernie Sanders was fading even before his heart started acting up. Joe Biden has become Trump’s main talking point in the whole Ukraine-China impeachment mess, which hardly helps him. And he wasn’t exactly running away with it before that.

Elizabeth Warren has a following, but it’s not that much broader than Sanders’. If he drops out, she might pick up some of his votes. But there’s the big question of whether she appeals to anyone besides the furthest left element of the Democratic Party.

 

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Who-should-run-against-Trump-How-about-Hillary-14494201.php

I’d rather have Gore or Kerry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Juxtatarot said:

I’d rather have Gore or Kerry.

That would be something.

Either one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I’d rather have Gore or Kerry.

Gore - 71

Clinton - 71

Kerry - 75

 

Hasn't this generation had their chance to lead?

Of the three, I think only Clinton would make a race of it - but I suppose I should not rule out anything at this point.

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

Gore - 71

Clinton - 71

Kerry - 75

 

Hasn't this generation had their chance to lead?

Of the three, I think only Clinton would make a race of it - but I suppose I should not rule out anything at this point.

It wasn’t really a serious post.  (Brown’s opinion shouldn’t be considered serious either.) Just choosing between the past losers.

I didn’t realize Kerry was that old though.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Brown is serious.  And I would not be shocked to see Clinton float more trial balloons to test the water.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I think Brown is serious.  And I would not be shocked to see Clinton float more trial balloons to test the water.

This is the one thing that could hand Trump another four years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.