|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Sure but "transformational energy" got us 8 years of Obama who was perhaps the least transformational President of my lifetime. It wins elections though. I don’t see Newsom winning a primary or a general.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:He’s unctuous. He was married to Kimberly Guilfoyle for five years. His behavior during covid. Wait, Guilfoyle, isn't that the 'THE BEST IS YET TO COME' lady?  Edit: Oh he's also an adulterer. "It later emerged that Newsom, then 39, was having an affair with Ruby Rippey-Tourk, the wife of his then-campaign manager and former deputy chief of staff, Alex Tourk. It is unclear if Guilfoyle knew about the affair before the scandal broke in 2007." https://people.com/politics/trump-jr-kimberly-guilfoyle-ca-lt-governor-cheated/ Dull Fork fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Feb 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 00:24
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:You think she just fell out of s coconut tree? She exists in the context of all in which she lives and what came before her. I know this has been going around as a funny meme but I'm almost certain she actually got it from her ma as a South Asian / Tamil saying. You know, where Mrs Harris the Elder was born. Yiggy posted:It was pre South Carolina and Biden was dying on the vine. Clyburn demanded it and Biden needed Clyburn’s network to survive SC. That’s it. Classic democratic horse trading. and then Harris immediately shivved my girl Karen Bass, still mad about that
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 00:34
|
|
|
If the last dozen pages are of any indication, the strongest 2028 Dem candidate would be Taylor Swift.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 00:35
|
|
|
Rogue AI Goddess posted:If the last dozen pages are of any indication, the strongest 2028 Dem candidate would be Taylor Swift. One year too young I’m afraid
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 00:38
|
|
|
Rogue AI Goddess posted:If the last dozen pages are of any indication, the strongest 2028 Dem candidate would be Taylor Swift. Strongest in 2024 as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 00:38
|
|
|
Gretchen Whitmer always seemed like a strong option to me, less perception of greasy ambition than Newsom. She'll get the usual misogyny-driven pushback (bitchy, etc.) but so would anything short of a caricature of a woman. I guess the timing of Michigan gubernatorial elections is a bit awkward (2 years offset of presidential elections), but her scandals have been relatively minor and she has solid approval.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 00:39
|
|
|
Ocadio-Cortez-Omar 2028 just for the exploding heads.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 00:39
|
|
|
Is there any reason Pritzker would be a bad 2028 candidate? He seems mostly fine right
Tatsuta Age fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Feb 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 00:44
|
|
|
zoux posted:One year too young I’m afraid Her birthday is in mid-December, so she would become eligible between the election and the certification of the vote. This has never happened before so there's no precedent about it, but since the relevant constitutional clauses refer to the taking of office she would probably be allowed to be inaugurated
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 01:05
|
|
|
Very popular in Illinois, pretty good positions for a non-socialist, hasn't succumbed to the Illinois Governor Curse, can eat the opposing nominee. If we must be ruled by a billionaire, may as well be Pritzker. still rooting for a labor leader tho, Shawn Fain is the darling of the moment and had the political acumen to overthrow frigging Jimmy Hoffa Jr e: Ilhan Omar is foreign born sadly but that's okay
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 01:06
|
|
|
a judge's decree in the future posted:The Pritzker Family is banned from doing business in Illinois for 3 years!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 01:08
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:Very popular in Illinois, pretty good positions for a non-socialist, hasn't succumbed to the Illinois Governor Curse, can eat the opposing nominee. I think Rashida Tlaib is also foreign born, but I'd rather give her a choice ambassador spot. Like Ambassador to Israel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 01:18
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:Very popular in Illinois, pretty good positions for a non-socialist, hasn't succumbed to the Illinois Governor Curse, can eat the opposing nominee. As a billionaire, he also represents the only constituency the Democratic Party actually cares about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 01:22
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I think Rashida Tlaib is also foreign born, but I'd rather give her a choice ambassador spot. Like Ambassador to Israel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 01:29
|
|
|
Andy Beshear won as a Democrat twice in Kentucky, and not as a Manchin type quasi-Republican either. The first time was because the incumbent R, Matt Bevin, was so toxic he managed to alienate absolutely everyone (and Beshear is the son of a popular former governer) but he won reelection because people liked him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 01:32
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:It wins elections though. Biden and Clinton: famously promising to transform society I don't think "transformational energy wins elections" is convincing given the outcome of the last 2 dem primaries. Maybe there was a moment for it in the wake of GWB when our politics wasn't permanently hosed by overt fascism but I think that moment has passed. FLIPADELPHIA fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Feb 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 01:49
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I think Rashida Tlaib is also foreign born, but I'd rather give her a choice ambassador spot. Like Ambassador to Israel. You're probably thinking of Omar, who was born in Somalia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 01:57
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Biden and Clinton: famously promising to transform society I think another Obama could do it, the trick would be if they actually were as transformational as they advertised they were. Unlike Obama who ended up caring more about decorum and bipartisanship.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 02:03
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Biden and Clinton: famously promising to transform society Clinton did run as a transformational candidate. There was "The Man from Hope" video that the Clinton campaign literally passed out VHS copies of at public events and he was constantly stressing how there was "a new generation of leadership" because he and Gore were 25 years younger than Bush and the baby boomers were finally going to be in charge and make history. He even called his campaign "the campaign to change America." His administration just ended up not achieving much in the way of public policy after 1995. But, he ended up massively popular anyway by just riding a good economy and no major American wars. So, I guess you're not wrong that transformational energy isn't necessary to be popular or win elections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 02:03
|
|
|
Every president is transformational.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 02:07
|
|
|
I'd say we may as well give Maura Healey a go but I'm not sure how a good chunk of the country would respond to an openly gay woman governor from Massachusetts running for President. I mean I do know how that would go down in a lot of the country. But at least she's in the right age range.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 02:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Every president is transformational. They don't all run as transformational Presidents, though. H.W. Bush ran explicitly as a steady hand and someone who was going to carry on the Reagan legacy, but be a little less extreme about it, Carter/Biden/George W. Bush ran on "getting things back to normal" after the last guy was too crazy, most presidents who run for re-election run a campaign based on keeping a good thing going or not switching horses midstream.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 02:12
|
|
|
The distinction regarding how "transformational" a president can be, at least in a positive sense, continues to be how much of Congress is aligned with them.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 02:21
|
|
|
Congress was not aligned with Trump at all and he was arguably the most transformational president since Reagan. Sure he didn't get a lot done with regard to legislation, but in terms of destroying norms and building the highest basement approval score among their base, Trump changed the paradigm. I'd argue that Trump has the most loyal base of any politician in American history. That in itself is kind of transformational.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 02:28
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:She was born in Detroit. I feel bad not knowing this, but I'll definitely would like to see Netanyahu and his Likudniks' faces upon seeing a Palestinian-American President.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 02:54
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Congress was not aligned with Trump at all and he was arguably the most transformational president since Reagan. Sure he didn't get a lot done with regard to legislation, but in terms of destroying norms and building the highest basement approval score among their base, Trump changed the paradigm. Republicans had majorities in both houses until January 2019.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 03:16
|
|
|
Aegis posted:Republicans had majorities in both houses until January 2019. That wasn't the point; the point was that even without doing a whole lot legislatively (regardless of who held it) he still managed to gently caress up a ton of things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 03:45
|
|
|
Aegis posted:Republicans had majorities in both houses until January 2019. And even after that, absolute refusal to hold a president accountable is a form of alignment. This is particularly important in the context of the kind of transformative figure Trump was, and the executive nature of the presidency. A president who wants to build things must have the cooperation of Congress to pass legislation, because building things through executive orders alone is both limited and precarious. For example, LBJ's transformative victories relied on having a massive Congressional majority including some friendly Republicans that offset how much of his own party was in conflict with his more ambitious proposals. A president who wants to smash things and do crimes only needs a Congress that stays out of the way. It's a case-specific manifestation of how it is easier to destroy than create. Nixon only resigned because his own party would have helped convict him in an impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 03:46
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Biden and Clinton: famously promising to transform society Yes Clinton did promise that. One of the things he ran on was universal healthcare. They put Hillary in charge. It got stomped pretty hard. That’s where the demonization of Hillary started and the reaction brought in the whole contract with America Gingrich stuff. I mean most of us were around ten so, it not like one should remember.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 04:06
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Yes Clinton did promise that. One of the things he ran on was universal healthcare. They put Hillary in charge. It got stomped pretty hard. That’s where the demonization of Hillary started and the reaction brought in the whole contract with America Gingrich stuff. It didn't really start then. Even before she was brought in to deal with it the right was horrified that she was an equal partner in their marriage, was given a share of the credit in his political success beyond the traditional the "behind every good man" wife cliche, and a professional who didn't immediately change her last name and become a homemaker. But it sure kicked it up for exactly the same reason. That's the root cause of the endless hammering of "arrogance" for someone showing an absolute typical amount of ambition for senators, white house insiders, and major presidential candidates. Any younger Gen-Xer or older millennial grew up baked in that whether from conservative relatives, jokes on TV, or friends at school parroting both of those; but when you're young it's easy to not think about it. Admittedly, a lot of the Hillary panic was, as I said before, over transformative vibes. Nancy Reagan had at least a much actual power in the White House as Hillary Clinton, but she was happy to present as the smiling wife rather than as the equal partner and that was the important thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 04:59
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:It didn't really start then. Even before she was brought in to deal with it the right was horrified that she was an equal partner in their marriage, was given a share of the credit in his political success beyond the traditional the "behind every good man" wife cliche, and a professional who didn't immediately change her last name and become a homemaker. But it sure kicked it up for exactly the same reason. That's the root cause of the endless hammering of "arrogance" for someone showing an absolute typical amount of ambition for senators, white house insiders, and major presidential candidates. Any younger Gen-Xer or older millennial grew up baked in that whether from conservative relatives, jokes on TV, or friends at school parroting both of those; but when you're young it's easy to not think about it. Yeah this is more accurate than my memory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 05:26
|
|
|
Apologies: in my last post I meant Hillary not Bill. Against both Obama and Sanders she ran as a Reasonable Centrist trying to temper the radicalism of The Left. That she lost in 08 then won in 16 kind of undermines the idea that being perceived as transformational is a predictor of success in elections.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 07:21
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Apologies: in my last post I meant Hillary not Bill. Bill was perceived as transformational in 92. By 08 Hillary was perceived as the establishment dem and Obama was perceived as transformational.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 07:24
|
|
|
Yeah so for 2008 your assertion seems sound. Then in 2016 against Sanders she won handily by campaigning basically the same way she did 8 years prior. Sanders is probably the most transformational candidate (in terms of campaign) we've had in modern US politics and he's lost badly twice in a row.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 07:49
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Sanders is probably the most transformational candidate (in terms of campaign) we've had in modern US politics and he's lost badly twice in a row. Having the most popular and most far left grassroots campaign in recent political history is not the most transformational... At least according to my own entirely subjective definition of transformational as “most actual potential to actually enact the most change.” (Your mileage may absolutely vary.) I’m also likely being pessimistic and/or too perversely nostalgic for the Obama 2008 run, which is what would then qualify the most to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 07:59
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Sanders is probably the most transformational candidate (in terms of campaign) we've had in modern US politics and he's lost badly twice in a row. Socialism was a bad bad word to most of the electorate. He did extremely well with that considered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 08:00
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Bill was perceived as transformational in 92. By 08 Hillary was perceived as the establishment dem and Obama was perceived as transformational. In 2008 it was notable that their policy proposals were nearly identical to each other (and starkly different from Clinton 2016) with a strongly vibes-based difference of "fresh-faced outsider" vs "connected enough to get things done." In retrospect, while I strongly supported Obama at the time and still don't dislike him, it's hard to deny first-term Obama wasn't really that connected or able to get things done, whether or not you believe the lib-whisperers who insist that he secretly never wanted to. It's hard to know if Clinton would have done better, but it's unlikely that she would have done less, compromised with the right more, or had a bigger reactionary wave in 2010.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 09:37
|
|
|
McCloud posted:So assuming that happens, what would the consequences of this be for the election? I would assume that this would be disastrous for the downticket races, right? I vaguely recall reading that the local GOP offices are really low on cash right now, so Trump embezzling the RNC coffers at this point would basically lead to ceding a lot of local elections to the dems, wouldn't it? With the usual modern caveat that we're on the border of the Cool Zone and conventional wisdom feels a lot less reliable than it used to: Cataclysmic. The GOP is already hugely behind on fundraising - your vague recollection is correct - and I think at least some part of their post-2016 election struggles have to be laid at the door of their financial woes. Combined with the white-hot hatred so many have for Trump and the continuing anger over them killing Roe which all keeps Dems seriously fired up, and the apparent disdain for Trump that much of the billionaire class has developed, losing any of their limited financial resources this year is going to be desperately painful for the GOP. E; From the Trump legal thread https://twitter.com/rpyers/status/1...ingawful.com%2F Ms Adequate fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Feb 17, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 09:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:With the usual modern caveat that we're on the border of the Cool Zone and conventional wisdom feels a lot less reliable than it used to: Cataclysmic. The GOP is already hugely behind on fundraising - your vague recollection is correct - and I think at least some part of their post-2016 election struggles have to be laid at the door of their financial woes. Combined with the white-hot hatred so many have for Trump and the continuing anger over them killing Roe which all keeps Dems seriously fired up, and the apparent disdain for Trump that much of the billionaire class has developed, losing any of their limited financial resources this year is going to be desperately painful for the GOP. Don't worry, the FEC will bail them out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2024 10:03
|
|
