2020 Democratic Nominee

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You’re still operating in a world where standards are applied equally to both parties? You’re adorable.
The GOP is slavishly devoted to a man who does or reveals something disqualifyingly stupid/unethical 2x a day, every day....but will devote 5,000 hours of Fox coverage, and coordinated internet attacks, on a dem who had an overdue library book back in 78.
“LIBRARYGATE!” We need senate hearings to get to the bottom of this!
Warren will be destroyed because that’s what the GOP is very good at - destroying people over things that pale in comparison to the open and obvious sins of their God. But those aren’t sins, because God can’t sin. QED. And there you have it.

While this is true, I think most are discounting the offensive capabilities of Warren.  She doesn't fuck around with the "When they go low, we go high!' shtick.   She's pretty good at putting her opposition on the defensive. 

The American people love a fighter and she is as fearless as they come.  That's probably her biggest asset that separates her from the Beto/Biden/Bernie softies. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26835]

The Democrats need somebody who's funny and has a bit of a mean streak. Not only is amusing or charming rascality an effective inoculation against petty scandal (See Bill Clinton), but the most` effective thing a Democratic nominee could wield against Trump is laughter. Joe Biden would have been perfect. 

Warren has the mean streak, she's just not funny. Beto is funny but seems to lack edge. I like Harris and Klobchar better against Trump as of now.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[Brisketexan 106873]

The Democrats need somebody who's funny and has a bit of a mean streak. Not only is amusing or charming rascality an effective inoculation against petty scandal (See Bill Clinton), but the most` effective thing a Democratic nominee could wield against Trump is laughter. Joe Biden would have been perfect. 

In the bigger picture, this is how to deal with trump (this is for the 2020 dem candidate, and for the rest of us). Laugh at him and his supporters. Don’t attack them and make them defensive/counterattack. Laugh at them and make them embarrassed. Because they fucking should be. They’re a fucking joke. “I’m not going to respond to that because it’s not serious. Enough with a joke of a presidency. This country needs a real president.”

[happyfunball 481]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The Democrats need somebody who's funny and has a bit of a mean streak. Not only is amusing or charming rascality an effective inoculation against petty scandal (See Bill Clinton), but the most` effective thing a Democratic nominee could wield against Trump is laughter. Joe Biden would have been perfect. 

Warren has the mean streak, she's just not funny. Beto is funny but seems to lack edge. I like Harris and Klobchar better against Trump as of now.

Agree on mean streak. I think likability doesn't have to mean funny but helps. Warren definitely needs to be able to be charming and would help if funny

[Bozo_Casanova 26835]

It's also particularly devastating to this president, who doesn't mind being accused of anything but is terrified and crippled in the face of shame.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26835]

1 minute ago, happyfunball said:

Agree on mean streak. I think likability doesn't have to mean funny but helps. Warren definitely needs to be able to be charming and would help if funny

Funny defuses mean as a character flaw. It exploits a cognitive bias - if you say something mean but I laugh, I'm less inclined to think you're mean because that would make me mean, too. The president actually made great use of this during the GOP primary. He's funny, so he got a pass for all kinds of things. 

[Chuckie Finster 23037]

6 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

Agree on mean streak. I think likability doesn't have to mean funny but helps. Warren definitely needs to be able to be charming and would help if funny

I guess this is where I was going with my earlier posts.  Warren is a lot of great things, but "charming" isn't really one of them.  

(Aside: it's very, very hard for a successful, older woman to appear "charming" to mainstream America.  Not really Warren's fault, but it's important that Democrats realize this.)

[atomheartbevo 90632]

1 hour ago, TexArcher said:

I wonder how much the Dems are talking to each other and making a global game plan. 

As in, let's put Warren out there first, since Trump won't be able to resist taking racist shots at her and it'll dominate the early election cycle news.  Then when America is tired of that, we'll come in with Kamala or Beto and hammer him on the issues, possibly with a stock market that's struggling in '19.

 

Warren would make a helluva stalking horse for Trump, and would buy the Dems time to organize and get a solid machine together.  

[GSU&UT 1799]

Y'all are going to fucking kill each other looking for this mythical perfect Democratic candidate Meanwhile the same rules don't apply to Trump or literally any other Republican.

[babysdaddy 2731]

I know you guys don't want her to have this label but she does and it looks worse after releasing that stupid test "The woman that lied about her heritage to achieve minority status which helped her advance her career."  I'm not saying any part of that is true, it's just what her label is to anyone that doesn't pay attention/post on political boards.  Any attempt at explaining any of that to the mainstream kinda gets lost.  That little line will be used to hammer her by Trump to minorities and could depress turnout. 

 

Want 4 more years of Trump, give the nom to Warren.    

[Degenerate Gardner 4157]

4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Breaking: Warren launches exploratory committee

And somewhere in Russia, a meme factory belches smoke as the Warren division gins up.

The Dem field can thank Elizabeth Warren for serving as a lightning rod for Trump's public rage.  She's bound to draw much of his ire, though there's still more than enough to go around.

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Degenerate Gardner

[JimmyJames 12271]

The overarching criteria if trump is running is who can the dems nominate who will win. And that is the person who has the most appeal to the closest and most important swing states: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. 

Politics is war but it’s sometimes not all that complicated, so long as your only focus is winning. 

You choose someone else you risk calamity, another 4 years of trump madness. Not worth it. 

[atomheartbevo 90632]

Warren won’t lose any states that Hillary won.  

Trump basically lost over 55 electoral votes last month.  All Warren has to do is hold three of those four states that told the GOP to fuck off.  And the Republican governors and legislators in a couple of those states have acted like such complete shitheads towards the voters, that Trump ain’t getting them back.  

That’s  all before Trumpenomics really kicks in for those states. 

If I were a Democrat, I’d be uneasy about her unless she makes known her running mate choices.  

But the GOP is trying hard to push MI/WI/PA even harder to the Dems, and same with Arizona to a lesser extent.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Bottom line:  Messaging wins 

Messaging is why Trump was seductive enough to win the nomination over the big money Republicans.

Messaging is why Bernie gave Hillary a run for her money despite being an old white dude who wasn’t even a democrat.  

Lack of messaging is why Hillary didn’t resonate enough.

And the two candidates with the best messaging I see right now are Beto and Warren.  

Age, gender, experience, policy, and even money plays second fiddle to good messaging in today’s political battlefield. 

Maybe other candidates will emerge with competitive messaging. We shall see.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Celery Man 21093]

Warren is Stannis

[Biff Tannen 46150]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

In the bigger picture, this is how to deal with trump (this is for the 2020 dem candidate, and for the rest of us). Laugh at him and his supporters. Don’t attack them and make them defensive/counterattack. Laugh at them and make them embarrassed. Because they fucking should be. They’re a fucking joke. “I’m not going to respond to that because it’s not serious. Enough with a joke of a presidency. This country needs a real president.”

I've been saying this.  You don't debate him, you laugh at him and treat him like he is a waste of everyone's time, because he is.

[Larry T. Spider 1747]

25 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I've been saying this.  You don't debate him, you laugh at him and treat him like he is a waste of everyone's time, because he is.

I think you devote about 20 seconds to laughing him off as an embarrassment then immediately turn to positivity and hope. People are looking for that right now and they will vote for the guy selling it. Biden and Beto would be the best at this IMO. Preference would be Biden announcing his candidacy with Beto at his side as his running mate. Put him to work in every coffee shop in the Midwest for the next two years and sail into the whitehouse.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Last post on page.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[bad_teammate 13496]

If you find yourself lamenting that a female candidate isn't "funny"... stop.

[Degenerate Gardner 4157]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

When did the GOP elephant add red Russian stars on its back?  At best it's a clueless choice at this particular time.

A red star, five-pointed and filled (★), is an important symbol often associated with communist ideology,

particularly in combination with hammer and sickle.

It has been widely used in flags, state emblems, monuments, ornaments, and logos. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_star

GOP wears Daddy's tattoo to show everyone who it belongs to.

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Degenerate Gardner

[Bozo_Casanova 26835]

If you find yourself lamenting that a female candidate isn't "funny"... stop.

Oh noes here comes the problematic language police to chide me. Unfortunately a presidential campaign is literally a popularity contest, and people will look past flaws if they think a person is funny. Elizabeth Warren public persona is to her disadvantage because she’s got some issues that humor would help defuse.

Sorry.

[Guest Lobo]

Ali Wong does 7 minutes of Elizabeth Warren as a disney character.  And it fucking kills every time!  You gotta see her at the Village UNderground because the HUlu special doesn't do it justice.  

[Hank Kingsley 21733]

She can be a good candidate and needs to make amends with some on the left.  Just apologize and clear up the statements regarding Native American heritage. She was never going to receive a single vote from a Republican anyways.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Republicans calling anyone an out of touch fraud is as rich as it gets.

[Guest Lobo]

I don't agree with it, but I think she was going for (though very poorly) a "outta touch East Coast elitist asshole" thing.  While I loved "The West Wing", Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and LBJ were many things...but East Coast Elitist Asshole was not among them.  Remind me again, when a POTUS candidate's boarding school or college really came into play during a general election in the last 50 years?  

[GSU&UT 1799]

5 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I don't agree with it, but I think she was going for (though very poorly) a "outta touch East Coast elitist asshole" thing.

"Out of touch" is basically code for "you must appeal to rural/suburban white mostly uneducated Americans." 

[David Dennison 19500]

10 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I don't agree with it, but I think she was going for (though very poorly) a "outta touch East Coast elitist asshole" thing.  While I loved "The West Wing", Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and LBJ were many things...but East Coast Elitist Asshole was not among them.  Remind me again, when a POTUS candidate's boarding school or college really came into play during a general election in the last 50 years?  

41 an 43 were pretty darn close: Andover, Yale, and Skull and Bones.

[Larry T. Spider 1747]

I would agree with 41. 43 had a Texan vibe.

[Guest Lobo]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

41 an 43 were pretty darn close: Andover, Yale, and Skull and Bones.

We know that now.  But that was a dominant narrative in the general election.  It came to hurt both Bush candidates during their re-election efforts, but it was not a damming indicator for them leading up to their general elections.  If it was at least, I guess I missed it since I think they both won.  

[Pescado_Rojo 19583]

5 hours ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

And somewhere in Russia, a meme factory belches smoke as the Warren division gins up.

The Dem field can thank Elizabeth Warren for serving as a lightning rod for Trump's public rage.  She's bound to draw much of his ire, though there's still more than enough to go around.

 

It's already started. My two pet Trumpkins on FB have been blasting the Warren memes all day. They must be hot off the presses. 

[atomheartbevo 90632]

6 hours ago, Larry T. Spider said:

I would agree with 41. 43 had a Texan vibe.

Manufactured.  

If you go back and look at W’s history, his first election in the 70s, he lost because he came across as a fast-talking East Coast liberal who’d rather be in a Mercedes than a pickup.  Kent Hance did a number on him, and he learned quite a bit about ditching the East Coast persona and coming up with a Good Ole Boy persona instead.  

Took him some time - W was still a fast-talker with big words in ‘94, but he had it refined by the time 2000 came around.  

[Bama Chick 28596]

I like this Texas vibe.

[atomheartbevo 90632]

15 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I like this Texas vibe.

Much better hair than Donnie.

[Satchel 6982]

13 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Nonsense. she was nearly beaten by a 74 year old Independent Socialist with no money and no party insider support. Biden would have crushed her and Warren probably would have beaten her close. 
She was more of a sure thing in 2008, which she was beaten by an inexperienced black man named Hussein. She creates dumb scandals. She hires bad staff. She runs bad campaigns. Democrats don't like Hillary Clinton and leftists can't stand her. She's a really bad candidate. 

She creates dumb scandals and somehow manages to work her way through an email "crisis" and Bengazhi to garner more votes than anybody in presidential election history, with the exception of BHO in 2008. 

[atomheartbevo 90632]

9 hours ago, Satchel said:

She creates dumb scandals and somehow manages to work her way through an email "crisis" and Bengazhi to garner more votes than anybody in presidential election history, with the exception of BHO in 2008. 

She was running against the worst candidate the Republicans have ever ran.  

Biden would have gotten more votes than her.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26835]

She creates dumb scandals and somehow manages to work her way through an email "crisis" and Bengazhi to garner more votes than anybody in presidential election history, with the exception of BHO in 2008. 

Yep, and her electoral strategy was so poorly designed that she managed to lose to Donald Fucking Trump. Which was precisely the same strategic mistake she made in the 2008 primary when her team didn’t bother (seriously) to work caucuses for delegates early on, until the Texas “two step” caucus, when they had ringers crashing precinct conventions and (unsuccessfully at mine) demanding to be seated for caucusing. And then she mounted a pre-convention credentials fight to try to force a brokered convention when it was clear Obama not only had more delegates but that his delegates were all legitimate.

 

Gimme a break, man. She has had every built in advantage in every single race she’s entered. She’s just really bad at politics and approaches victory as a foregone conclusion.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Historically speaking, the 2016 election favored the Republicans simply because we were coming off eight years of a democratically controlled White House.

[David Dennison 19500]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Historically speaking, the 2016 election favored the Republicans simply because we were coming off eight years of a democratically controlled White House.

This is correct. 

She still blew it. Which is probably going to be a good thing in the long run.

Edited January 1, 2019 by David Dennison

[Anastasis 23715]

11 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I like this Texas vibe.

I like Beto, but nothing about that picture gives me a texas vibe. 

[6th Street 6686]

11 hours ago, Satchel said:

She creates dumb scandals and somehow manages to work her way through an email "crisis" and Bengazhi to garner more votes than anybody in presidential election history, with the exception of BHO in 2008. 

She also stupidly neglected to campaign in Michigan and Wisconsin, thus costing her the election. 

[Satchel 6982]

How is it that everybody hates her and yet she gets more votes than anybody in history, save BHO. I get some don't like her for reasons they are not clearly able to articulate, (sorta like the GOP and Pelosi) but much of it can be attributed to her being a strong, intelligent woman. There are still people who never got over her baking cookies comment.

When one considers the media covered her mails more than her documented policy positions, it's amazing she did as well as she did.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

You see, despite the fact it took multiple sophisticated international criminal conspiracies and a fucked up electoral college system to beat her, she has no one to blame but herself because she is so awful at politics and a horrible candidate. 

/blame Hillary 

[Bozo_Casanova 26835]

And why was it that close? Oh, right. Because her political, organizational, and strategic skill set were insufficient to beat Donald Trump of all things, despite a majority of Americans rejecting his candidacy.

She had one job. It was crucial. She didn’t learn a thing from 2008 and we’re all paying the price for it now.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

She was running against the worst candidate the Republicans have ever ran.  

This is also false.  

By almost every measurable metric, Trump was an amazing candidate.  He generated energy, he drew crowds, he kept his message simple, and most importantly, he kept the media spotlight on him generating billions of dollars in free coverage.

He’s is however, the worst president in American history, or he will be.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bozo_Casanova 26835]

This is also false.   By almost every measurable metric, Trump was an amazing candidate.  He generated energy, he drew crowds, he kept his message simple, and most importantly, he kept the media spotlight on him generating billions of dollars in free coverage.

He’s is however, the worst president in American history, or he will be.

 

Nah, that’s still W, sadly. A decent human being who made terrible decisions that cost millions of lives and put our national balance sheet on a permanent negative trajectory.

Trump lacks the competence to do harm on that level. He’s our worst head of state by far, but not our worst head of government.

Yet.

 

[Red Five 41703]

Hey bozo. Just out of curiosity, what do you think the 2016 EC vote would have looked like with Warren vs. Trump? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

16 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

ah, that’s still W, sadly. A decent human being who made terrible decisions that cost millions of lives and put our national balance sheet on a permanent negative trajectory.

Trump lacks the competence to do harm on that level. He’s our worst head of state by far, but not our worst head of government.

 

Bush’s damage has already been largely realized, therefore it’s easy to claim him as the worst now.  

Trump is currently undoing the global economic world order that took generations to build.  A world order that was designed to prevent global conflicts through interconnected trading partnerships based on shared values and democracy.   

The consequences of the Trump administration will ring on for decades and not for the better.  I don’t know what catastrophes await that could have been averted with reliable American leadership.  But I’m sure they’re coming because MAGA.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bozo_Casanova 26835]

Hey bozo. Just out of curiosity, what do you think the 2016 EC vote would have looked like with Warren vs. Trump? 

I think if Warren ran in 2016 she wins PA, NC, Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin, crushing Trump.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Dark horse candidate flashes hints of target voters.