TheCid

2020 Election

149 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, mr6666 said:

Amy Klobuchar Announces 2020 Presidential Run

The Minnesota senator is one of several women in the crowded Democratic field, already considered the most diverse in history.

 

It will be very interesting when these women start to attack each other.      So far all of the announced candidates have only attacked Trump,   with the line of 'I would be a better President than Trump'.    (not a very high bar IMO).

I want to hear why each believes they would be a better President than the other Dems running.

PS:  Klobuchar did mention that she has a history in Congress of reaching out to GOP members and passing bipartisan legislation.    While that is sound messaging for the general election,   I don't think it will play well in the Dem primary.    E.g. those Dems that support the resistance movement,   want a take-no-prisoners candidate.   Also CA moved up their Primary election to March;   CA is home to the resistance movement.   A moderate \ bipartisan type candidate wishes the CA primary was still in June.

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of CNN's lead articles is about Harris and if she is 'black'.     This is what happens when Dems play the identity politics card thinking they have a royal flush when they have a pair of deuces.

First what does being 'black' mean in American society?    Just the color of one's skin or the ethnic background of one's parents?   When Harris was asked about comments that stated she wasn't African-American,  she responded by saying she was 'black'.    This would suggest that being 'black' is NOT limited to being African-American.  Either way Harris ducked the direct question.   

Of course she did this because she wants to receive support from the African-American community  (e.g. announcing her candidacy on MLK day).      This is pragmatic since that community is larger than the Indian (as in India),  American community.

But like we saw with Warren and the push-back from Native-Americans:  it isn't the contents of one's blood but instead how one was raised and their experiences;  Where they went to school,   their neighborhood,   friends,  etc....    Warren finally admitted she didn't have any of those experiences other than the ones she manufactured. 

The same is true for Harris.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

One of CNN's lead articles is about Harris and if she is 'black'.     This is what happens when Dems play the identity politics card thinking they have a royal flush when they have a pair of deuces.

You start be saying that this is a CNN article, not a statement from the DNC. Then you say the Dems are playing the identity politics game. So is it CNN or the Dems? Or have you joined in with the thinking that CNN is an arm of the DNC? 

CNN is after eyeballs and clicks. The quickest means to that end is pumping up the outrage machine. And few things fuel outrage like race. Like most news outlets, they've lost most of their credibility by pandering with sensationalist, tabloid-style journalism and talking-head shouting matches. It's a farce, a trick to keep people watching or reading. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

You start be saying that this is a CNN article, not a statement from the DNC. Then you say the Dems are playing the identity politics game. So is it CNN or the Dems? Or have you joined in with the thinking that CNN is an arm of the DNC? 

CNN is after eyeballs and clicks. The quickest means to that end is pumping up the outrage machine. And few things fuel outrage like race. Like most news outlets, they've lost most of their credibility by pandering with sensationalist, tabloid-style journalism and talking-head shouting matches. It's a farce, a trick to keep people watching or reading. 

Both Dems and CNN are playing the identity politics "game" but for different reasons:   E.g.  Many Dem politicians  and general members of the party, have the POV that only politicians with a similar identity 'background' are best able to represent voters with said identity\background.  

As noted CNN pushes identity politic issues for 'eyeballs and clicks'.     But the Harris interview wasn't hosted by CNN so in this case CNN was just reporting "news" not trying to make it.

From the CNN site: In an interview with The Breakfast Club hosts DJ Envy and Charlamagne Tha God that aired Monday, the show's hosts asked the California Democrat to address a series of derogatory memes that have circulated on social media. One of the hosts cited a meme that said Harris is "not African-American" because her parents were immigrants born in India and Jamaica and she spent her high school years in Canada.

Note that today's L.A. Times has a lead story (under their 'Election 2020 heading) about Harris with this title: Oakland not fully sold on Harris - Candidate embraces city, but feeling isn't necessarily mutual.   Harris being 'black' is a key part of this story as well;   E.g. Oakland is a 'city with a rich and resonant history of black aspiration and achievement".     Then it goes on to quote Oakland residences that don't believe Harris is part of this history.  (code for not black enough????).

As you know I've been highly critical of CNN but I don't find fault with them in this case,  especially since the L.A.. Times is running a similar narrative.   I.e. the narrative is NOT a reflection of 'fake news' but instead a reflection of identity politics in the Dem party run amok  (as is the Warren story). 

I look forward to the primary debates where these Dems will be challenged to show why they are the best to represent women, blacks, Latinos,  etc...    E.g. how will someone like Booker beat someone like Harris in the contest for African-American primary votes?    Yea,  by discussing their stance on policies that impact this community????   

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes more sense. Like you say, CNN isn't directly responsible, but they did make an editorial decision to carry it as a story. As you say, it's more unneeded divisiveness, and exactly the kind of thing that will guarantee Trump wins a second term (or Pence a first, whichever the case). The media is starting to drive the narrative again for the 2020 race, framing the talking points and pushing the social media machine to force candidates to respond to this kind of nonsense rather than the issues.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Both Dems and CNN are playing the identity politics "game" but for different reasons:   E.g.  Many Dem politicians  and general members of the party, have the POV that only politicians with a similar identity 'background' are best able to represent voters with said identity\background.  

As noted CNN pushes identity politic issues for 'eyeballs and clicks'.     But the Harris interview wasn't hosted by CNN so in this case CNN was just reporting "news" not trying to make it.

From the CNN site: In an interview with The Breakfast Club hosts DJ Envy and Charlamagne Tha God that aired Monday, the show's hosts asked the California Democrat to address a series of derogatory memes that have circulated on social media. One of the hosts cited a meme that said Harris is "not African-American" because her parents were immigrants born in India and Jamaica and she spent her high school years in Canada.

Note that today's L.A. Times has a lead story (under their 'Election 2020 heading) about Harris with this title: Oakland not fully sold on Harris - Candidate embraces city, but feeling isn't necessarily mutual.   Harris being 'black' is a key part of this story as well;   E.g. Oakland is a 'city with a rich and resonant history of black aspiration and achievement".     Then it goes on to quote Oakland residences that don't believe Harris is part of this history.  (code for not black enough????).

As you know I've been highly critical of CNN but I don't find fault with them in this case,  especially since the L.A.. Times is running a similar narrative.   I.e. the narrative is NOT a reflection of 'fake news' but instead a reflection of identity politics in the Dem party run amok  (as is the Warren story). 

I look forward to the primary debates where these Dems will be challenged to show why they are the best to represent women, blacks, Latinos,  etc...    E.g. how will someone like Booker beat someone like Harris in the contest for African-American primary votes?    Yea,  by discussing their stance on policies that impact this community????   

 

 Barack Obama had the same problem because he's not an African-American either. 

He was able to co-opt his wife's identity and in in fact her whole environment and Ambiance in Chicago to relate to black people and of course his children with her helped as well. Michelle Obama had a real black urban American experience to share and he opted into it when he married her. But in the beginning Obama had some similar criticisms as they're doing with Kamala Harris now. And Obama attended Primary School in Indonesia I believe with his white mother from Kansas and her second Muslim Indonesian husband.

 

Unfortunately for Harris, she doesn't have an immediate black family because I do believe she's married to a white lawyer and she has no children of her own. But her mother did raise her in the black neighborhood in a black community environment. So that is probably her personal identity and she can sell that in all honesty to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Princess of Tap said:

 Barack Obama had the same problem because he's not an African-American either. 

He was able to co-opt his wife's identity and in in fact her whole environment and Ambiance in Chicago to relate to black people and of course his children with her helped as well. Michelle Obama had a real black urban American experience to share and he opted into it when he married her. But in the beginning Obama had some similar criticisms as they're doing with Kamala Harris now. And Obama attended Primary School in Indonesia I believe with his white mother from Kansas and her second Muslim Indonesian husband.

 

Unfortunately for Harris, she doesn't have an immediate black family because I do believe she's married to a white lawyer and she has no children of her own. But her mother did raise her in the black neighborhood in a black community environment. So that is probably her personal identity and she can sell that in all honesty to the public.

Since you're African-American,  I'm really interested in what you believe is 'the same problem'.   I.e. what is the problem here that Obama had and Harris is having? 

E.g. Is the problem trying to convince actual African-American voters like yourself that their 'personal identity' is close enough to your own?      If not,  what then? 

As you know I'm a mixed-race individual;   If I was asked if I was Japanese or white I would answer 'both or neither'.     Both Obama and Harris are very intelligent and accomplished individual.     I just don't understand why they couldn't just be more open about their personal identity.   (and why doing so appears to be a problem).

PS:  This is from Wiki about Harris' childhood - she didn't really spend much time in a black community environment.  

 

Her name, Kamala, comes from the Sanskrit word for the lotus flower. Her family lived in Berkeley, California, where both of her parents attended graduate school.[10] She was close to her maternal grandfather, P. V. Gopalan, an Indian diplomat.[6][11] As a child, she frequently visited her extended family in the Besant Nagar neighborhood of Chennai, Tamil Nadu.[12] Harris grew up going to both a black Baptist church and a Hindu temple.[13] She has one younger sister, Maya Harris.[14][15] They both sang in a Baptist choir.[16]

Harris's parents divorced when she was seven, and her mother was granted custody of the children by court-ordered settlement.[10][8] After the divorce, when Harris was 12,[17]her mother moved with the children to Montreal, Québec, Canada, where Shyamala accepted a position doing research at Jewish General Hospital and teaching at McGill University.[18][19]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Since you're African-American,  I'm really interested in what you believe is 'the same problem'.   I.e. what is the problem here that Obama had and Harris is having? 

E.g. Is the problem trying to convince actual African-American voters like yourself that their 'personal identity' is close enough to your own?      If not,  what then? 

As you know I'm a mixed-race individual;   If I was asked if I was Japanese or white I would answer 'both or neither'.     Both Obama and Harris are very intelligent and accomplished individual.     I just don't understand why they couldn't just be more open about their personal identity.   (and why doing so appears to be a problem).

PS:  This is from Wiki about Harris' childhood - she didn't really spend much time in a black community environment.  

 

Her name, Kamala, comes from the Sanskrit word for the lotus flower. Her family lived in Berkeley, California, where both of her parents attended graduate school.[10] She was close to her maternal grandfather, P. V. Gopalan, an Indian diplomat.[6][11] As a child, she frequently visited her extended family in the Besant Nagar neighborhood of Chennai, Tamil Nadu.[12] Harris grew up going to both a black Baptist church and a Hindu temple.[13] She has one younger sister, Maya Harris.[14][15] They both sang in a Baptist choir.[16]

Harris's parents divorced when she was seven, and her mother was granted custody of the children by court-ordered settlement.[10][8] After the divorce, when Harris was 12,[17]her mother moved with the children to Montreal, Québec, Canada, where Shyamala accepted a position doing research at Jewish General Hospital and teaching at McGill University.[18][19]

 While I'm not a black person, I've had the fortunate ability to grow up in a mixed-race and mixed ethnic community-- having friends of different races and  nationalities even before I went to college.--even before I lived abroad..

 the way that it's been explained to me is that you have to actually have a black parent in order to be black or understand what it means to be a black person in America 

 as I said to you in another conversation, phenotype is everything. If you look a certain way and you fit a certain stereotype and you have some kind of backing in that Community, then you fit in.

Now I know a little bit about your background. And one of my best friends in graduate school was Japanese-American and her family had been in a relocation Camp during World War II before her birth.

 she was able to explain certain things to me that I'm just going to guess you wouldn't understand because your family was in Japan during the war. And you really haven't had a Japanese American Experience like her family had.

 her mother was an American born in the United States and saw things in an American way. Whereas your mother is from Japan she's loyal to Japan and she still see things more in a Japanese cultural manner.

So that is the way I think the black people are seeing people who are not really from the black experience in terms also of their parents and grandparents Etc. Who went through Jim Crow and segregation and all that stuff.

 the other thing that I noticed when I was at KU was that the black students had a great deal of animosity against the African foreign students. They didn't socialize or get together. 

 African students were in the world group with Arabs and Chinese excetera, whereas the black students were in their own black student union group.  that's what I could personally observe.

Then I can recall that when Barack Obama was in undergraduate school he was in the world group. Somewhere after Harvard and getting the black Mentor Who was the black Minister and marrying the black woman from the black community in Chicago, Barack Obama became more identified with the black community. 

But there was nothing in his white Kansas mother's roots or his African Kenyan father's roots that had anything to do with black American people.  Obama fought for and struggled with a black identity and I believe this Minister who mentored him and then marrying into this black Chicago family is what got him over.

 and what I'm hearing also about Kamala , and this is something that I remember you talking about cuz you know more about her personal history than I do. Is that a lot of black people in Oakland or **** off about her work as a prosecutor. They feel like she hasn't been sympathetic enough to black people in that role.

 but since you're mixed-race you can identify with the idea of phenotype. However you may say you identify or what you say you are people will accept you as how you look in the United States.  and if Kamala can get some backing from the right back black people and if she can get mentored or look like she was mentored by someone like that black Minister that Barack Obama had in Chicago then she may just get over because she really does look the part.

 because as I said in America phenotype is everything but you know that better than I would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kamala Harris, sort of Bob Marley in reverse and they both liked ganja. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

One of CNN's lead articles is about Harris and if she is 'black'.     This is what happens when Dems play the identity politics card thinking they have a royal flush when they have a pair of deuces.

First what does being 'black' mean in American society?    Just the color of one's skin or the ethnic background of one's parents?   When Harris was asked about comments that stated she wasn't African-American,  she responded by saying she was 'black'.    This would suggest that being 'black' is NOT limited to being African-American.  Either way Harris ducked the direct question.   

Of course she did this because she wants to receive support from the African-American community  (e.g. announcing her candidacy on MLK day).      This is pragmatic since that community is larger than the Indian (as in India),  American community.

But like we saw with Warren and the push-back from Native-Americans:  it isn't the contents of one's blood but instead how one was raised and their experiences;  Where they went to school,   their neighborhood,   friends,  etc....    Warren finally admitted she didn't have any of those experiences other than the ones she manufactured. 

The same is true for Harris.   

 

 

Saw an interesting episode of Shameless (comedy) last night.  Two characters are married and one is white and one is black.  They have two black daughters and were hoping to adopt an Hispanic.  The two very young daughters attacked the Hispanic, supposedly because he was not "brown" like them.  So the scenes were about what is "brown" and who is not brown enough and are browns attacking the "different" browns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Saw an interesting episode of Shameless (comedy) last night.  Two characters are married and one is white and one is black.  They have two black daughters and were hoping to adopt an Hispanic.  The two very young daughters attacked the Hispanic, supposedly because he was not "brown" like them.  So the scenes were about what is "brown" and who is not brown enough and are browns attacking the "different" browns.

Yea, that is funny.   My mom, who is 100% Japaneses,  keeps telling me I'm not Japaneses enough.   I tell her that is being I'm NOT Japaneses,  she is.   I'm mixed and therefore either both, or neither.

But one thing that surprises me about your comment here;  I assume the show used said 'they have two black daughters';  It looks like this show is using 'black' based only on the color on the kids skin.     I don't agree with categorizing people based on the color of their skin,  but that appears to be what 'black' means today.    Thus I would label the kids mixed (like me),  instead of either black or white.   (and note one would get in trouble if they called Asians 'yellow', so why is it OK to call people with dark skin 'black').     

Asians from India (who have the darkest skin color in the world), are 'black' if one is using only skin color.   But to lump them in with African-Americans because they have similar skin color is odd to me since,  generally, they have much different cultural experiences.    (but of course there are white African-Americans, if one includes white South Africans,  so this entire 'game' of classification is messed up IMO).

 

Share this post


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

 (and note one would get in trouble if they called Asians 'yellow', so why is it OK to call people with dark skin 'black').     

Asians from India (who have the darkest skin color in the world), are 'black' if one is using only skin color.     (but of course there are white African-Americans, if one includes white South Africans,  so this entire 'game' of classification is messed up IMO).

 

African-Americans created "black" as their descriptor because they did not like colored or negro.  Then someone decided African-American was better than black as a descriptor.

Worked with a woman who was 100% Indian and light colored and had lived in US since beginning college.  We had another Indian woman in the office who was beautiful, but darker.  When her parents visited from India, the lighter Indian woman told them how beautiful the darker one was.  All they could say was that it didn't matter because of how dark she was.  All of these people were college graduates.

You are correct that the whole classification system is messed up.  When do Italian-Americans become just Americans or white Americans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TheCid said:

African-Americans created "black" as their descriptor because they did not like colored or negro.  Then someone decided African-American was better than black as a descriptor.

Worked with a woman who was 100% Indian and light colored and had lived in US since beginning college.  We had another Indian woman in the office who was beautiful, but darker.  When her parents visited from India, the lighter Indian woman told them how beautiful the darker one was.  All they could say was that it didn't matter because of how dark she was.  All of these people were college graduates.

You are correct that the whole classification system is messed up.  When do Italian-Americans become just Americans or white Americans?

India has had a Caste System for centuries. The paler skinned ones were the "Brahmin" upper class and darker ones were the slave caste. This was long before any Europeans set foot in that country.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's rally in El Paso —and Beto's response

— is a preview of every 2020 debate to come

The president and the presumptive Democratic hopeful offered two different visions of what America could be.

".....O’Rourke, whose narrow loss to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, last year was perhaps the most success a statewide Texas Democrat could expect at this particular political moment, was on his home turf and defended his community in both English and Spanish, essentially telling the nation that we can be better.

 

Trump, meanwhile, kept to his standard lies about El Paso and borders and criminal immigrants. Even though much of what he said about the Texas city was blatantly false —.....

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-rally-el-paso-beto-s-response-preview-every-ncna970636?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump’s Base Isn’t Enough -

-

"......This year’s results do serve as a warning to Trump in one important sense, however: His base alone will not be enough to win a second term. Throughout the stretch run of the 2018 midterm campaign, Trump and Republicans highlighted highly charged partisan issues, from the Central American migrant caravan to Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. And Republican voters did indeed turn out in very high numbers: GOP candidates for the House received more than 50 million votes, more than the roughly 45 million they got in 2010.

But it wasn’t enough, or even close to enough. Problem No. 1 is that Republicans lost among swing voters: Independent voters went for Democrats by a 12-point margin, and voters who voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 went to Democrats by 13 points.

Trump and Republicans also have Problem No. 2, however: Their base is smaller than the Democratic one. This isn’t quite as much of a disadvantage as it might seem; the Democratic base is less cohesive and therefore harder to govern. Democratic voters are sometimes less likely to turn out, although that wasn’t a problem this year. And because Republican voters are concentrated in rural, agrarian states, the GOP has a big advantage in the Senate.1

Nonetheless, it does mean that Republicans can’t win the presidency by turning out their base alone, a strategy that sometimes is available to Democrats.......

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-base-isnt-enough/

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

Trump’s Base Isn’t Enough -

-

"......This year’s results do serve as a warning to Trump in one important sense, however: His base alone will not be enough to win a second term. Throughout the stretch run of the 2018 midterm campaign, Trump and Republicans highlighted highly charged partisan issues, from the Central American migrant caravan to Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. And Republican voters did indeed turn out in very high numbers: GOP candidates for the House received more than 50 million votes, more than the roughly 45 million they got in 2010.

But it wasn’t enough, or even close to enough. Problem No. 1 is that Republicans lost among swing voters: Independent voters went for Democrats by a 12-point margin, and voters who voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 went to Democrats by 13 points.

Trump and Republicans also have Problem No. 2, however: Their base is smaller than the Democratic one. This isn’t quite as much of a disadvantage as it might seem; the Democratic base is less cohesive and therefore harder to govern. Democratic voters are sometimes less likely to turn out, although that wasn’t a problem this year. And because Republican voters are concentrated in rural, agrarian states, the GOP has a big advantage in the Senate.1

Nonetheless, it does mean that Republicans can’t win the presidency by turning out their base alone, a strategy that sometimes is available to Democrats.......

 

 

Yea,  Trump's base isn't enough for him to win re-election.   But if the Dems continue to go-left (e.g.  the GOP, along with assistance from CNN and MSNBC etc... is able to make AOC and other social-democrats the 'face' of the party),   Trump will again win those battleground\purple Midwestern states.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Trump’s Base Isn’t Enough -

-

"......This year’s results do serve as a warning to Trump in one important sense, however: His base alone will not be enough to win a second term. Throughout the stretch run of the 2018 midterm campaign, Trump and Republicans highlighted highly charged partisan issues, from the Central American migrant caravan to Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. And Republican voters did indeed turn out in very high numbers: GOP candidates for the House received more than 50 million votes, more than the roughly 45 million they got in 2010.

But it wasn’t enough, or even close to enough. Problem No. 1 is that Republicans lost among swing voters: Independent voters went for Democrats by a 12-point margin, and voters who voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 went to Democrats by 13 points.

Trump and Republicans also have Problem No. 2, however: Their base is smaller than the Democratic one. This isn’t quite as much of a disadvantage as it might seem; the Democratic base is less cohesive and therefore harder to govern. Democratic voters are sometimes less likely to turn out, although that wasn’t a problem this year. And because Republican voters are concentrated in rural, agrarian states, the GOP has a big advantage in the Senate.1

Nonetheless, it does mean that Republicans can’t win the presidency by turning out their base alone, a strategy that sometimes is available to Democrats.......

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-base-isnt-enough/

 

I disagree with the last statement.  No party can win the "presidency by turning out their base alone."   There was no presidential election in 2018, so presidential independent voters from 2016 are irrelevant to 2018 Congressional elections.  While the Dem base may be larger, it is also far more difficult to get them to vote. Not a problem the GOP has.

The GOP has a big advantage in the Senate, which also means they have a big advantage in the Electoral College.  And as James has pointed out, the GOPers control more House delegations than the Dems.  Which means they control more states than the Dems.  The presidential election is all about the Electoral College.

The question is can the Dems translate a one-time victory in the House into a strategy to win the presidency and the Senate and keep the House in 2020?  Not if they turn left and focus on identity politics.  Not if they "assassinate" each other in the presidential primaries.  Not if they run so many candidates, they appear to again be a party in total disarray.

Incidentally, fivethirtyeight.com was pretty much wrong about who was going to win in 2016.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is a link to the latest CNN political commentary that says;  Joe shouldn't run,,,, because he is a white man.

The tag line is classic identity politics: that the 'face' of the Dem party needs to reflect the future and NOT the past;  this is code for: there is no future for white-men in the Dem party.      

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/17/opinions/joe-biden-president-2020-zelizer/index.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Below is a link to the latest CNN political commentary that says;  Joe shouldn't run,,,, because he is a white man.

The tag line is classic identity politics: that the 'face' of the Dem party needs to reflect the future and NOT the past;  this is code for: there is no future for white-men in the Dem party.      

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/17/opinions/joe-biden-president-2020-zelizer/index.html

 

I don't see it as quite that black and white.  I heard something similar from Moanin' Joe (MSNBC) the other day.  I don't think it is all about identity politics, but that will always be a factor for the Dems.  

Biden is too old and lacks the requisite energy to win the primary and then defeat an incumbent Trump.  He has failed to win the nomination several times.  He should have run against Hillary in 2015/16 even if in "mourning" for his son.  That was his time.  This isn't.

I like Ol' Joe, he is not what the country and the Dems need now.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the Democrats have an abundance of good candidates.  All of them have something positive to offer the country - and the world.  But I do hope that Bernie Sanders and especially Joe Biden do not run.  It is time for some younger blood.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jakeem said:

People want passion and fire from their presidential candidates, not pleasantries and snowflakes, writes @EdMorrissey. That's why Amy Klobuchar's presidential campaign is doomed. https://bit.ly/2E4m4oj 

DzoR4MpXgAA9hh0.jpg

 

16 hours ago, jakeem said:

Obama is laying low in 2020, but still looms over the Democratic field:

Cory Booker: "Obama 2.0"

Kamala Harris: "the female Barack Obama"

Beto O'Rourke: "Barack Obama, but white"

Joe Biden: Obama's No. 2

Xjj4GRD1?format=jpg&name=600x314

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Princess of Tap said:

Jakeem's posts copied to this thread by PTrap without comment.

 

Klobuchar's campaign is far from doomed and she does not lack fire and passion.  Trump has "fire and passion."  What she does have is qualifications to do the job and is electable.  What she lacks is being a media darling.

Booker, Harris and O'Rourke are not clones of Obama.  Far from it.  Obama campaigned on things to the left of center.  Booker, Harris and O'Rourke are campaigning on issues way, way left of center.  I voted for Obama twice, but would not vote for Booker, Harris or O'Rourke.

Incidentally, Obama's legacy has been greatly reduced by the GOP victories between 2010 and 2016.

 

7 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

IMO the Democrats have an abundance of good candidates.  All of them have something positive to offer the country - and the world.  But I do hope that Bernie Sanders and especially Joe Biden do not run.  It is time for some younger blood.  

The Democrats do have some good candidates, but are they electable?  Several are not.  It is time for younger blood, but the candidates need to be mature enough and smart enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us