|
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 15:09 Sermokala wrote:Hes registered for republicanism in the state of Florida.
That's what I thought. No way he runs in 2020. I wouldn't be surprised if he runs in one of the elections following that one.
As for the Democrats, all signs currently point to them nominating someone supremely boring and uninspired in 2020 like an Elizabeth Warren or a Corey Booker and losing. There's still plenty of time for the party to change course, but they need to start looking hard in the mirror sooner rather than later.
|
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 have to disagree with this... watch Warren speak on any subject for 5 minutes, she will list off many valid and progressive points and do so in a very concise understandable way. She can speak on any progressive issue effectively and sound exactly like Sanders...
But you would never know so because the shit media never gives her any exposure past some bulldoggy 3 second statement (taken out of context) she makes about the republicans. One day I looked up a speech cnn quoted and I watched the whole 15 min vod of the speech and she sounded amazing for the whole 15 min.
Our media is truly pathetic for what we are as a country.
Check out Freespeech.org or the show "Democracynow" for independent good news.
|
On July 09 2017 15:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2017 15:09 Sermokala wrote:On July 09 2017 15:06 xDaunt wrote:
Isn't the Rock a republican? Hes registered for republicanism in the state of Florida. That's what I thought. No way he runs in 2020. I wouldn't be surprised if he runs in one of the elections following that one. As for the Democrats, all signs currently point to them nominating someone supremely boring and uninspired in 2020 like an Elizabeth Warren or a Corey Booker and losing. There's still plenty of time for the party to change course, but they need to start looking hard in the mirror sooner rather than later.
Kamala Harris here in CA is trying to the one-term-senator-to-president thing, but she's an idiot, doesn't have Obama's charm, and doesn't have his ability to make people want to believe you even when you're lying. She'll be there though.
I suspect the party higher ups want an eastern or Midwest politician though, and it probably will have to be a woman... so I'm curious to see what inter-party squabbles there are. Booker is about as inspiring as Warren, so that will be boring. It's gonna be crazy over there, seeing who can out identity-politic the others.
|
Just out of curiosity, which female politician you guys could see becoming a good POTUS candidate?
|
United States42689 Posts
They'd have to be mad to run another woman. This last election has established pretty clearly that no matter the qualifications or experience of a female candidate a significant portion of the country will hate her on principle, assume that she's running just because she's a woman, see her as a symbol of out of touch liberal elites trying to signal how progressive and virtuous at their expense, claim it's just identity politics, insist she's too weak and lacks stamina, insist a woman simply can't do the job etc.
The Democrats need to run a candidate who is completely impervious to any possible accusations of them being out of touch liberal elites virtue signalling with identity politics. Which of course means they need to actually start playing identity politics, only the identity is going to be an old white, heterosexual Christian male. Anything else and they're just feeding into the ignorant narrative of middle America.
|
On July 09 2017 17:57 KwarK wrote:
They'd have to be mad to run another woman. This last election has established pretty clearly that no matter the qualifications or experience of a female candidate a significant portion of the country will hate her on principle, assume that she's running just because she's a woman, see her as a symbol of out of touch liberal elites trying to signal how progressive and virtuous at their expense, claim it's just identity politics, insist she's too weak and lacks stamina, insist a woman simply can't do the job etc.
The Democrats need to run a candidate who is completely impervious to any possible accusations of them being out of touch liberal elites virtue signalling with identity politics. Which of course means they need to actually start playing identity politics, only the identity is going to be an old white, heterosexual Christian male. Anything else and they're just feeding into the ignorant narrative of middle America.
While I don't deny the well established misogyny in American culture, not all of that was just because she was a woman, plenty of that was unique to Hillary and her campaign. It doesn't do anyone any favors to pretend it's all the same.
That said, running an old (like mid 50's really), white, hetero, Christian cis-male would certainly make things easier for a generic candidate. The fundamental realization Democrats need to make is that they need to play less for the reasonable Republicans and more for the disillusioned left.
|
Ruined my coffee. Nevermind.
|
lol^
I'd prefer that Warren remain in the Senate, but as far as candidates go, she'd make a fine president.
|
On the women politician question, I'm partial to Nina Turner and Tulsi Gabbard, neither are perfect, but if I was picking a preferred woman, they'd both place ahead of Warren.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 09 2017 17:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Just out of curiosity, which female politician you guys could see becoming a good POTUS candidate?
The wording on that makes it tough to answer since "good POTUS candidate" does conflict a fair bit with who I'd like to see in office. But hey, let's throw out a few names.
Tulsi Gabbard is one I like. She's an odd one but I would vote for her.
Warren is a huge maybe. I criticize her for being a one-trick pony but I would definitely give her a chance at redemption if she sought to run seriously.
Gabby Giffords and Tammy Duckworth are two "sympathy vote" candidates who seem reasonable enough. They have enough attention to have a chance, they would just have to make their candidacy stick.
From the Republican side, the most reasonable name being thrown around is Nikki Haley. Personally I think she's doing a kind of bad job at the UN but I think she could get the kind of broad appeal she would need to be a good candidate.
I'll admit I had to reach a fair bit to get a list of five names. But part of that is that prominent male politicians are far more numerous, and I would still have trouble finding five good male choices for president in 2020. I very much disagree with the implicit idea that misogyny would sink any possible female candidate - it's just very clear that Hillary was the wrong choice, and being a woman doesn't somehow explain all her badness or the common perception thereof away. Billy Clinton for example has all the same baggage as she does - and it's not his maleness that gets him more popularity, but more so his intrinsic charm and charisma.
|
I've always been of the thought that if the common voter cannot see themselves in you, you will not get their support.
|
A true work of art this compilation video. Amazing music, great direction
|
The President of the United States, everyone.
|
On July 09 2017 22:47 NewSunshine wrote:The President of the United States, everyone.
I'm getting more and more convinced this entire presidency is some kinda avant garde performance act. It's just too far out to be real.
|
On July 09 2017 22:47 NewSunshine wrote:The President of the United States, everyone.
Yes, he is.
What am I missing? there is nothing special at all in that video.
|
On July 09 2017 17:57 KwarK wrote:
They'd have to be mad to run another woman. This last election has established pretty clearly that no matter the qualifications or experience of a female candidate a significant portion of the country will hate her on principle, assume that she's running just because she's a woman, see her as a symbol of out of touch liberal elites trying to signal how progressive and virtuous at their expense, claim it's just identity politics, insist she's too weak and lacks stamina, insist a woman simply can't do the job etc.
The Democrats need to run a candidate who is completely impervious to any possible accusations of them being out of touch liberal elites virtue signalling with identity politics. Which of course means they need to actually start playing identity politics, only the identity is going to be an old white, heterosexual Christian male. Anything else and they're just feeding into the ignorant narrative of middle America.
Joe Biden?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It's unrealistic given our current crop of shitty politicians, but I would really be quite partial to the Democrats running someone under 70.
|
On July 09 2017 23:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2017 22:47 NewSunshine wrote:The President of the United States, everyone. Yes, he is. What am I missing? there is nothing special at all in that video.
I suppose that's the saddest part of it all.
|
On July 09 2017 23:30 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2017 23:19 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2017 22:47 NewSunshine wrote:The President of the United States, everyone. Yes, he is. What am I missing? there is nothing special at all in that video. I suppose that's the saddest part of it all.
I'm serious, what is that video supposed to show?
"Here is a countries leader, shaking hands with other country leaders. Here he is posing for photos with other country leaders like every single summit ever".
There is nothing unusual or out of the ordinary that I see.
|
On July 09 2017 22:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2017 17:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Just out of curiosity, which female politician you guys could see becoming a good POTUS candidate? The wording on that makes it tough to answer since "good POTUS candidate" does conflict a fair bit with who I'd like to see in office. But hey, let's throw out a few names. Tulsi Gabbard is one I like. She's an odd one but I would vote for her. Warren is a huge maybe. I criticize her for being a one-trick pony but I would definitely give her a chance at redemption if she sought to run seriously. Gabby Giffords and Tammy Duckworth are two "sympathy vote" candidates who seem reasonable enough. They have enough attention to have a chance, they would just have to make their candidacy stick. From the Republican side, the most reasonable name being thrown around is Nikki Haley. Personally I think she's doing a kind of bad job at the UN but I think she could get the kind of broad appeal she would need to be a good candidate. I'll admit I had to reach a fair bit to get a list of five names. But part of that is that prominent male politicians are far more numerous, and I would still have trouble finding five good male choices for president in 2020. I very much disagree with the implicit idea that misogyny would sink any possible female candidate - it's just very clear that Hillary was the wrong choice, and being a woman doesn't somehow explain all her badness or the common perception thereof away. Billy Clinton for example has all the same baggage as she does - and it's not his maleness that gets him more popularity, but more so his intrinsic charm and charisma.
From the low bar of Trump appointment performance thus far, Haley's done great.
Dems are still stuck on stupid if they blame Hillary's loss on her status as woman. It's the remnants of the post-election messianic complex she's obtained. Any woman can outperform by running a traditional message campaign (not doubling down on this group-that group identity politics), show passion and voice, and not be proven a untrustworthy liar throughout her political career.
Dems have a weak field again for 2020. Seriously, good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
