|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 09 2017 11:30 LegalLord wrote:
The moment Clinton stops being relevant, I am prepared to never talk about her again. Contrary to popular belief, though, that has yet to happen. The Clintonites are doing their best to leverage the badness of Trump to try to keep that movement alive. Thankfully, fewer and fewer people are buying that shit as time goes on.
By far and away, the most I see of people talking about Hillary these days is when I see you reintroduce her to the conversation.
|
On July 09 2017 12:24 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2017 11:30 LegalLord wrote:
The moment Clinton stops being relevant, I am prepared to never talk about her again. Contrary to popular belief, though, that has yet to happen. The Clintonites are doing their best to leverage the badness of Trump to try to keep that movement alive. Thankfully, fewer and fewer people are buying that shit as time goes on. By far and away, the most I see of people talking about Hillary these days is when I see you reintroduce her to the conversation.
I know there are people who would prefer that she never come up. She is relevant, though. She represents the branch of the Democrats that refuses to change and thinks they can coast on Trump.
Though you might notice that I generally talk about Democrats with Clinton as a side-mention. That tends to be the side-mention most noticed, however, and made out to be the entirety of the point made.
|
On July 09 2017 11:44 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2017 11:26 farvacola wrote:On July 09 2017 11:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Even taking all of those things into account I still can't see how Clinton isn't unambiguously liberal, especially in the American context. I don't think it has ever been controversial for a Democrat to talk tough on crime, right? Biden surely isn't more liberal and people seemed to not see that as a problem.
It just feels like people really want to be upset about the Clintons. The kind of stuff they have thrown at that family, you would have thought they publicly murder puppies or something. (or run illicit child trafficking rings in the basement of pizza parlors).
That she seemed conservative in the context of Sanders, who branded himself as a self-proclaimed socialist, sure. But this hardly means that she's not liberal enough.
People just seem to hold a grudge against Clinton and I've got no idea why. Hillary just happens to be the current face of the movement in the party started by politicians like her husband. To the extent that the Clintons and players like them try and stifle change in and around grassroots Democratic Party consensus building, they deserves the criticism they get. Past that, folks interested in moving forward need to get on from talking about Clinton lol. I don't like the rhetoric of "stifling change", the specific persona of Clinton aside, it's legitimate to be centrist-ish Democrat right? They're justified to defend their position within the party given that they're probably just as large as the emerging progressives or larger? It sounds almost vanguard like, as if everybody has to step aside so that the progressives can step up and kick off the revolution
Democrats are standing in the way at the moment. If Democrats stopped pushing the "centrist" idea they could pick up a lot more progressives than the centrists that would suddenly think Trump is the best option.
~4 of 10 REPUBLICANS support single-payer/a government option. But Democrats would rather try to appeal to the Republicans who don't want single-payer. Their strategy of peeling of "reasonable Republicans" is categorically dumb and a terrible direction forward. I don't know how anyone could actually advocate for this as a good idea or a positive direction for the party or politics at large.
EDIT: I as much as anyone wish Hillary never came up again, but that would be neglecting that by all indications Democrats look to want to run her (or a surrogate for her) in 2020. Simply ignoring it like Hillary supporters have been saying since she lost isn't going to change her influence on politics or specifically the Democratic party moving forward.
|
Haven't checked betting markets or anything, but I would have guessed the smart money for the 2020 Democratic nominee is Elizabeth Warren. Is she a "surrogate for Clinton?"
|
On July 09 2017 13:28 ChristianS wrote:
Haven't checked betting markets or anything, but I would have guessed the smart money for the 2020 Democratic nominee is Elizabeth Warren. Is she a "surrogate for Clinton?"
The most common betting site I know of has these odds :
Donald Trump 2/1
Mike Pence 15/2
Elizabeth Warren 15/2
Michelle Obama 14/1
Cory Booker 16/1
Bernie Sanders 18/1
Joe Biden 18/1
Kamala Harris 20/1
Paul Ryan 20/1
Marco Rubio 20/1
Michael Bloomberg 22/1
Hillary Clinton 22/1
Trey Gowdy 25/1
Kirsten Gillibrand 25/1
Catherine Cortez Masto 25/1
Andrew Cuomo 25/1
Mark Zuckerberg 25/1
Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson 25/1
Al Franken 25/1
Bill de Blasio 33/1
Julian Castro 33/1
Nikki Haley 33/1
Mark Cuban 33/1
John Kasich 33/1
Jeb Bush 40/1
Tammy Duckworth 50/1
Mitt Romney 50/1
Ivanka Trump 80/1
Formatting got a bit screwy so it's not quite in order, it's just from paddy power
edit : Fixed formatting. I would say the smart money right now, is in not putting any money on an election that's over 3 years away.
|
I'm sorry but Warren simply is not a good candidate for 2020. She has shown that she doesn't have all that much substance beneath her surface-level appeal. She would have a hard time of it all.
|
Yeah, prediction markets for elections right now are going to be far from useful. The amount of information is so small compared to the amount of information that is going to be gained in the future.
For the pure-market sites, a lot of what's going on now is probably more looking to make short-term gains rather than anything else.
On July 09 2017 13:39 LegalLord wrote:
I'm sorry but Warren simply is not a good candidate for 2020. She has shown that she doesn't have all that much substance beneath her surface-level appeal. She would have a hard time of it all.
I dunno, substance doesn't seem terribly useful when it comes to winning elections. I don't know how much she's willing to go out on a limb to start prepping, though, which is the big question. I suspect she'd prefer gaining power in the DNC and the party itself, which running for president can cause quite a few problems for.
|
By 2020 Clinton has probably already assumed her ultimate form... a giant floating head...yelling at Warren: "Show me what you gooot! I wan to seee what yoouuu goooot!" - So, she better get schwifty....fast!
Jokes aside, whoever runs for the dems in 2020 can't be associated with Clinton. She's voter repellent, even though she's won the popular vote...
|
Warren or Michelle.Booker or The Rock. Those are my picks.
|
I personally expect it will be somebody not currently particularly prominent on the political scene.
Booker is just another Julian Castro, catapulted to manufactured relevance by the DNC but not actually promising.
|
On July 09 2017 13:28 ChristianS wrote:
Haven't checked betting markets or anything, but I would have guessed the smart money for the 2020 Democratic nominee is Elizabeth Warren. Is she a "surrogate for Clinton?"
Well she clearly took Clinton's side in the party, but she's probably not their first pick. Gillibrand is probably her donors pick, but she's also probably jealous at the prospect so despite the natural fit would prefer someone else personally.
While there is obvious overlap between Clinton's donors and her own interests, they can diverge where/if her donors find a better messenger for their policy. Gillibrand represents that threat. When I say surrogate for Clinton, it may be more accurate to say surrogate for her donors (potentially formally known as Hillary Clinton).
But Democrats seem to really, really, really, want to run Hillary again and are just scrambling to find a way to make that not look as out of touch as it obviously is.
EDIT: I should add that I do think Warren will be encouraged to run to split up progressive voters though, to clear room for the establishment choice.
|
Steve Bullock would be a good choice. The other Senator from Minnesota I like too (forget her name). I like Bob Casey Jr but he has the whole "my dad was the Casey in Casey v Planned Parenthood" thing. Edwards has a gubernatorial election in 2019 or I'd throw out his name.
|
|
|
On July 09 2017 14:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Warren or Michelle.Booker or The Rock. Those are my picks.
Get ready for: Trump vs. The Rock
2 debates and 1 final cage match!
Winner takes all! Let Trump smell, what the Rock...is cooking! xD
|
The Rock has the People's Elbow. No way he's losing!
I know very little about 80% of the people in that list. And only about 10% I'm vaguely familiar with through news outlets. So I'll wait until 2019 to make my choice for who to back.
|
On July 09 2017 14:11 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2017 14:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Warren or Michelle.Booker or The Rock. Those are my picks. Get ready for: Trump vs. The Rock 2 debates and 1 final cage match! Winner takes all! Let Trump smell, what the Rock...is cooking! xD
That's about as American of an election I can imagine. The Rock spoke at the RNC in 2000, and I mean The Rock, not Dwayne Johnson.
He introduced....+ Show Spoiler +
We don't deserve a democracy....
|
Maybe we'll get a tag team match: Trump + Ivanka vs. the Rock + + Show Spoiler + or -insert name here-
I'd watch the shit out of that 
edit: just to see the Rock suplex Ivanka, with Kushner at the ringside holding her purse
|
On July 09 2017 14:07 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Steve Bullock would be a good choice. The other Senator from Minnesota I like too (forget her name). I like Bob Casey Jr but he has the whole "my dad was the Casey in Casey v Planned Parenthood" thing. Edwards has a gubernatorial election in 2019 or I'd throw out his name.
Amy klobishar. Wins a section of the state that sent bachman to congress. She would win the general election pretty easily sowing up the Midwestern states like penn and ohio while rebuilding the blue firewall that was suppose to win the election for hillary. If she was picked for VP Hillary would have won.
On the other hand warren will lose the election worse then Hillary. She'll be played as an out of touch city socialist from the east coast. And then people will say shes a socialist in ads played all the time on the big banks dime.
|
Isn't the Rock a republican?
|
On July 09 2017 15:06 xDaunt wrote:
Isn't the Rock a republican?
Hes registered for republicanism in the state of Florida.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
