|
Nonsense posted:I don't want any Presidents West of the Mississippi. I demand the smuggest New Englander, it's time to piss off the conservative fatherland. My dream is of President Al Franken being his own Press Secretary and just trolling the poo poo out of people.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:While most of it is just starry-eyed dreaming, there could be legitimate value to a Warren- or Bernie-led primary challenge from the left, in that by doing so Hillary (or Biden, in the unlikely event Hillary didn't run or he prevailed over her) might thereby shift the overall Democratic platform a step or two in that direction, all the while not jeopardizing their standing in the Senate. If by shift the overall democratic platform you mean become further marginalized by the very serious people then yeah, totally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:If by shift the overall democratic platform you mean become further marginalized by the very serious people then yeah, totally. It doesn't matter when the nominee of the party of very serious people is the not so serious Ted Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 19:59
|
|
SAVE_US.CHR
|
Snoggle posted:My dream is of President Al Franken being his own Press Secretary and just trolling the poo poo out of people. "Let me tell you about Supply-Side Jesus, Chuck...  "Also, screw that: if Al Franken becomes President I want Garrison Keillor for Press Secretary. Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Oct 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:If by shift the overall democratic platform you mean become further marginalized by the very serious people then yeah, totally. I'd normally agree and then go into a cynical funk for a while, but recent events seem to imply that the Democrats are, finally, waking up to how there's no goddamn point in adopting further-right positions as it won't bring in any conservative votes (since American conservatism has gone completely frothing-at-the-mouth crazy) and will alienate those to the left who normally hold their nose and vote D. And I'm not talking a dramatic platform shift, just a few small slides here and there on subjects the moneymen who back mainline Democrats don't care enough about to fight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Snoggle posted:My dream is of President Al Franken being his own Press Secretary and just trolling the poo poo out of people. President Sanders, press secretary Franken. (Joe Biden being VP for life of course)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I'd normally agree and then go into a cynical funk for a while, but recent events seem to imply that the Democrats are, finally, waking up to how there's no goddamn point in adopting further-right positions as it won't bring in any conservative votes (since American conservatism has gone completely frothing-at-the-mouth crazy) and will alienate those to the left who normally hold their nose and vote D. And I'm not talking a dramatic platform shift, just a few small slides here and there on subjects the moneymen who back mainline Democrats don't care enough about to fight. Well I meant more running a message campaign opposite the Clinton steamroller. Alter Ego posted:Also, screw that: if Al Franken becomes President I want Garrison Keillor for Press Secretary. Great idea, bore the white house press corps to tears, then troll them with corny music.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
What would be the "small slides" people are thinking may come from this? (And I mean realistic things not the typical wish list of trying the Bush Administration for war crimes et all)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:If by shift the overall democratic platform you mean become further marginalized by the very serious people then yeah, totally. The very serious people can go eat a dick. The guys who thought Iraq and banking deregulation and austerity were good ideas are not policy role models. "Slightly to the left of David Brooks" is not a viable goal for a political party. If the mainstream media is pretty clearly not going to highlight major party-wide ideological shifts, then Democrats should take advantage of that - if they're not going to call out the entire Republican Party for moving rightward, they can't pretend to be fair and also call out the Democratic Party for moving leftward.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:While most of it is just starry-eyed dreaming, there could be legitimate value to a Warren- or Bernie-led primary challenge from the left, in that by doing so Hillary (or Biden, in the unlikely event Hillary didn't run or he prevailed over her) might thereby shift the overall Democratic platform a step or two in that direction, all the while not jeopardizing their standing in the Senate. It's not going to do any of that except -possibly- on one specific pet issue if Message Leftie has a pet issue he resonates on. Bernie might get Hillary to commit 5% left on NSA poo poo or something, so sure, why not. Just don't campaign for him or send him money because that'd be worse than throwing it down a well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Stormagetiton posted:If the mainstream media is pretty clearly not going to highlight major party-wide ideological shifts, then Democrats should take advantage of that - if they're not going to call out the entire Republican Party for moving rightward, they can't pretend to be fair and also call out the Democratic Party for moving leftward. If it adds to the preordained horserace narrative they absolutely will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Is there any chance Bernie actually launches a Presidential campaign? He wont win, or even come close, obviously, but I want to see Bernie in the primary debates. That would be super cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
DOOP posted:Is there any chance Bernie actually launches a Presidential campaign? He wont win, or even come close, obviously, but I want to see Bernie in the primary debates. That would be super cool. Bernie is not breaking 5% so he won't be in any debates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:"Let me tell you about Supply-Side Jesus, Chuck... I would actually be alright with Norm MacDonald as press secretary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Progressives would be idiotic to turn up Hillary, 12-16 years of White House control (not to mention 2 more SCOTUS nominations) will move the country indelibly to the left of where it was in 04 and may finally bring about the GöPerdämmerung. She can win the White House in a walk with a slightly less enthusiastic version of the Obama coalition and Kerry's numbers with white women. If she got Al Gore's numbers with White women she'd win in a landslide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:"Let me tell you about Supply-Side Jesus, Chuck... I have bad news about Garrison Keillor regarding the Jews and homosexual marriage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
This thread's turning into a liberal-white-guy version of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZaVA3NS7zE
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Corrupt Politician posted:This thread's turning into a liberal-white-guy version of this: Noted liberal-black-guy mayor said those words, not I.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
DOOP posted:Is there any chance Bernie actually launches a Presidential campaign? He wont win, or even come close, obviously, but I want to see Bernie in the primary debates. That would be super cool. He's been doing speaking gigs and interviews way the hell away from Vermont and his quotes on the subject have changed from Shermanesque nos to well I don't really want to but maybe if nobody else steps up. If nothing else he's trying to make his endorsement worth something or raise his national profile or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
I was talking to someone about the Democratic prospects for 2016 and after we agreed that Hillary was the strongest contender for the top of the ticket we both realized we didn't really know who she would pick for VP in the event of her nomination. Has there been much speculation on who the strong prospects for that would be, or will we just not know enough until we see who performs well in the primary?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Bernie's not up for re-election until 2018 at which time he'll be 77, so there's a chance he's not planning to serve another term and sees a 2016 media campaign as an end to a quixotic career. Adar raises the valid point that there will likely be an effort to shut him (or whomever ends up being the lefty protest candidate) out of the debates by the DNC. The networks will resist that since they love throwing people like Kucinich, Gravel, Cain, and Bachmann up on the stage. The networks have won all the previous rounds of that particular game, but the RNC is definitely going to try to put a stop to it this cycle and if they are successful the DNC will probably succeed as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I was talking to someone about the Democratic prospects for 2016 and after we agreed that Hillary was the strongest contender for the top of the ticket we both realized we didn't really know who she would pick for VP in the event of her nomination. Has there been much speculation on who the strong prospects for that would be, or will we just not know enough until we see who performs well in the primary? By that point, Terry McAuliffe will have had some experience actually holding a public office.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I was talking to someone about the Democratic prospects for 2016 and after we agreed that Hillary was the strongest contender for the top of the ticket we both realized we didn't really know who she would pick for VP in the event of her nomination. Has there been much speculation on who the strong prospects for that would be, or will we just not know enough until we see who performs well in the primary? Clinton at the top of the ticket frees up the Democrats to put a boring white guy technocrat in the #2 spot and the Democrats have no shortage of those. It'll be Mark Warner or someone who might as well be Mark Warner (Martin O'Malley, call your office!), with the added drama of potential personality conflicts between that person and the Clintonsphere. Obviously Joe Biden should be the Democrats VP pick again because he is really good at that job, but I can't see it happening. B B posted:By that point, Terry McAuliffe will have had some experience actually holding a public office. Rahm already does, if we're constructing nightmare scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Maddow is doubling down on the Rand Paul plagiarism story, thanks to some investigative research by Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski. First: Paul's speech about immigration referencing the film Stand And Deliver.  Second: Wikipedia with lines directly lifted from it underlined.  I'm sure Maddow is dying to get him back on the show so she can ask him if he still believes that true freedom is the ability to not allow blacks into your place of business. This may be only the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Clinton at the top of the ticket frees up the Democrats to put a boring white guy technocrat in the #2 spot and the Democrats have no shortage of those. It'll be Mark Warner or someone who might as well be Mark Warner (Martin O'Malley, call your office!), with the added drama of potential personality conflicts between that person and the Clintonsphere. See, I was thinking of someone like O'Malley but I think that gives you many of the same problems Biden would; you've already got a white East Coast technocrat at the top of the ticket and doubling down on that isn't going to win you more votes. Comedy option: Both Castro twins, in shifts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
I'm highly skeptical of all the hand-wringing about VPs having to come from particular geographic regions. Our last two have hailed from the key electoral states of Delaware and Wyoming. I think the only real tests that the VP needs to pass are (1) appear competent, and (2) get along with the top of the ticket.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
I think there's a decent shot Hillary would want to pick an African-American male technocrat instead of a white male technocrat to try and keep the Obama coalition together, which basically means Cory Booker or Deval Patrick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I think there's a decent shot Hillary would want to pick an African-American male technocrat instead of a white male technocrat to try and keep the Obama coalition together, which basically means Cory Booker or Deval Patrick. Harold Ford, Jr. would offer the added advantage of having no actual geographic base.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
How do Christie and Booker compare in terms of appealing to New Jerseyans? I don't imagine Booker will "flip" NJ as VP, but maybe having to choose between Hillary/Democrats and Christie/Republicans will do that job anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Then do I have some bad news for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek0Hpa44f3c
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I'm highly skeptical of all the hand-wringing about VPs having to come from particular geographic regions. Our last two have hailed from the key electoral states of Delaware and Wyoming. I think the only real tests that the VP needs to pass are (1) appear competent, and (2) get along with the top of the ticket. I don't think they need to be from a swing state, I just expect them to want to vary where the ticket is from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
ufarn posted:How do Christie and Booker compare in terms of appealing to New Jerseyans? I don't imagine Booker will "flip" NJ as VP, but maybe having to choose between Hillary/Democrats and Christie/Republicans will do that job anyway. What do you mean by "flip" NJ? I don't think it's voted GOP since Reagan. Christie winning NJ as an incumbent governor, even if he wins big, is no guarantee he'd win it as a presidential candidate in a general election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I don't think they need to be from a swing state, I just expect them to want to vary where the ticket is from. The last one to do that was probably HW Bush and Quayle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
I wonder how much of a progressive opposition will be mounted against Hillary Clinton. It could be a similar situation to the 2012 Republican Primaries, in that a number of less moderate Democrats try to be the anti-Hillary, but nobody ever coalesces behind them, so her 2008 inevitability strategy would actually work this time. Considering the Democratic progressives are far more disorganized even than the Tea Party Republicans, it seems likely. Maybe there won't even be significant progressive opposition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:I wonder how much of a progressive opposition will be mounted against Hillary Clinton. It could be a similar situation to the 2012 Republican Primaries, in that a number of less moderate Democrats try to be the anti-Hillary, but nobody ever coalesces behind them, so her 2008 inevitability strategy would actually work this time. Considering the Democratic progressives are far more disorganized even than the Tea Party Republicans, it seems likely. Maybe there won't even be significant progressive opposition. I don't know if people know what a Hillary presidency will mean. It'll probably amount to a fight for concessions on things like surveillance and the like instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:I wonder how much of a progressive opposition will be mounted against Hillary Clinton. It could be a similar situation to the 2012 Republican Primaries, in that a number of less moderate Democrats try to be the anti-Hillary, but nobody ever coalesces behind them, so her 2008 inevitability strategy would actually work this time. Considering the Democratic progressives are far more disorganized even than the Tea Party Republicans, it seems likely. Maybe there won't even be significant progressive opposition. If there was enough progressive opposition to cause Hillary problems in 2016, someone would have ran a quixotic "progressive" primary to Obama in 2012. That didn't happen. The real trouble for Hillary, as always, is that the Clintons have very significant establishment enemies. The secondary trouble is that the sitting Vice President that doubles as probably the best retail politician in the party has had deep presidential ambitions for 37 years or so and this will be his last best shot at it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
You're absolutely high if you think Warren would oppose Clinton from the left in a Dem primary, especially since the mythical progressive democrat hasn't been seen in the wild since Dean (and even that's arguable). Ed - You're also high if you think Biden is seriously going to compete against Clinton in a primary. The "Democrats in Disarray!!" headlines write themselves in that case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:If there was enough progressive opposition to cause Hillary problems in 2016, someone would have ran a quixotic "progressive" primary to Obama in 2012. That didn't happen. Oh, so we're just pretending John Wolfe, Jr. doesn't exist now!  (much as we did in 2012)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
serewit posted:Ed - You're also high if you think Biden is seriously going to compete against Clinton in a primary. The "Democrats in Disarray!!" headlines write themselves in that case. Biden is giving every sign that he is going to make the race as long as he feels up to it whether Clinton's in or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
If Hillary runs for the party nomination and no significant opposition pops up when would it be appropriate for her to announce her VP candidate? Also would there be any chance that Hillary would pick Warren for her VP?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:23
|
|