Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Putin's Impeachable Puppet vs The Rise of BootyWalker & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mooka said:

 

You're equating the American public with the Democratic party here.

 

Does the Democratic party want America to see a diverse range of ideas? I doubt it.

 

Nor do they want a tough primary. They want all the money to go to one candidate. 

 

They could always prove me wrong though.

 

I would make a distinction between the institutional Democratic Party and the rising grassroots democrats that retook the House in spite of little help or money from the Big D Democrats.

 

There are a lot of machine politicians that want a unified single track election with their thumb on the candidate, didn't we see how well that works? Gimme that ole time knockin on doors-blue collary-actually talking to people-OMG actually listening to people kinda democracy........

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LD0506 said:

 

I would make a distinction between the institutional Democratic Party and the rising grassroots democrats that retook the House in spite of little help or money from the Big D Democrats.

 

There are a lot of machine politicians that want a unified single track election with their thumb on the candidate, didn't we see how well that works? Gimme that ole time knockin on doors-blue collary-actually talking to people-OMG actually listening to people kinda democracy........

you can take your democracy and get out, commie.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Dems get rid of SuperDelgates?  

 

I'm not sure I'm really feeling the notion that Democratic Party refuses to listen what the people want just because they gave the 2016 election to Hillary.  Barack was the ultimate "this is what the people want versus what establishment wanted" candidate back in 08 when he had to fight off Hillary tooth and nail.  

 

Obama got elected twice President by the way.  2016 was a colossal mistake that ya, I do believe the DNC heard loud and clear.  R-E-L-A-X.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Didn't Dems get rid of SuperDelgates?  

 

I'm not sure I'm really feeling the notion that Democratic Party refuses to listen what the people want just because they gave the 2016 election to Hillary.  Barack was the ultimate "this is what the people want versus what establishment wanted" candidate back in 08 when he had to fight off Hillary tooth and nail.  

 

Obama got elected twice President by the way.  2016 was a colossal mistake that ya, I do believe the DNC heard loud and clear.  R-E-L-A-X.

 

And I'd kinda agree but let's see the results of it all before declaring some victory. The Democrats are very factional, they really are a big tent kinda cluster**** and god luvvem that's who they're supposed to be, the party of everybody else after the money barricades itself in the gated community of the Repubs. Over time different factions rise and drive the party one way or another, we've seen that happen, now we're seeing other imperatives drive it in different directions. I'm good with that actually but's lets not pretend that there is some grand overarching plan, I've always found that Will Rogers' aphorisms resonated with me.....

 

  • "I'm not a member of any organized political party.... I'm a Democrat."
  • "Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they'd be Republicans."
  • "There is only one redeeming thing about this whole election. It will be over at sundown, and let everybody pray that it's not a tie, for we couldn't go through with this thing again.

    And, when the votes are counted, let everybody, including the candidates, get into a good humor as quick as they got into a bad one.

    Both gangs have been bad sports, so see if at least one can't redeem themselves by offering no alibis, but cooperate with the winner, for no matter which one it is the poor fellow is going to need it.

    So cheer up. Let's all be friends again. One of the evils of democracy is you have to put up with the man you elect whether you want him or not. That's why we call it democracy." DT #1953, Nov. 7, 1932
  • "If you ever injected truth into politics you have no politics" WA # 31, July 15, 1923
  • "Politics has got so expensive that it takes lots of money to even get beat with nowadays." DT #1538, June 28, 1931
  • "Politics pretty quiet over the week-end. Democrats are attacking and the Republicans are defending. All the Democrats have to do is promise "what they would do if they got in." But the Republicans have to promise "what they would do" and then explain why they haven't already "done it."

    I do honestly believe the Republicans have reformed and want to do better. But whether they have done it in time to win the election is another thing. The old voter is getting so he wants to be saved before October every election year.
    " DT #1917, Sept. 26, 1932
  • "This country has gotten where it is in spite of politics, not by the aid of it. That we have carried as much political bunk as we have and still survived shows we are a super nation." DT #1948, Nov. 1, 1932

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LD0506 said:

 

And I'd kinda agree but let's see the results of it all before declaring some victory.

 

 

Fair, again, I'm typically the optimist here, but I completely get the pessimism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Fair, again, I'm typically the optimist here, but I completely get the pessimism.

 

And that's part of your charm, I have gotten far too old to muster a whole lot of optimistic hope (trust me, I am WAY past my expiration date) but I admire idealistic optimism and the passion of youth the same way I marvel at the Cirque du Soleil, it's fascinating, I'd never do it but I am thrilled that someone can.

 

On the other hand, I don't really consider myself overtly pessimistic either, I believe we are capable of better, much better, and even if I don't live to see it I can root for it coming to pass, but it is like the conversations in the Stadium about the potential for rookies, yeah, sounds good but I'm gonna have to see it on the field.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Didn't Dems get rid of SuperDelgates?  

 

I'm not sure I'm really feeling the notion that Democratic Party refuses to listen what the people want just because they gave the 2016 election to Hillary.  Barack was the ultimate "this is what the people want versus what establishment wanted" candidate back in 08 when he had to fight off Hillary tooth and nail.  

 

Obama got elected twice President by the way.  2016 was a colossal mistake that ya, I do believe the DNC heard loud and clear.  R-E-L-A-X.

 

When we talk about how much in disarray the Dem party is in, I sometimes think we forget how much it took for Hillary not to win.  If not for the Russians and Hillary just being nothing short of lazy in a couple states, they're on a 12 year run in the WH right now.  It really took a lot of things to go wrong.

Edited by justice98
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/sizing-2020-house-and-senate-landscapes

 

Quote

Democrats start out with 235 House seats to 199 for Republicans, with one vacant seat due to the disputed outcome in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District (a special election is likely to follow). This means that the GOP will need a net gain of either 18 or 19 seats, depending upon the outcome in North Carolina.

 

Democrats will be defending 31 seats in districts that voted for Donald Trump in 2016, but equally important, there was about a 7-point boost for Democrats in the overall popular vote in House races from 2016 to 2018. Whether that persists is anyone’s guess. Republican pollster Glen Bolger points out that the House has now changed parties under four consecutive presidents: in 1994 under Bill Clinton, 2006 with George W. Bush, 2010 with Barack Obama, and now 2018 with Trump.

 

Though all these swings occurred in midterm elections rather than in presidential years, this Democratic majority is still precarious given the volatility of American politics today and the growing proclivity of straight-ticket voting. One thing worth watching is this geographic sorting that we are seeing, with Democrats dominating in urban and suburban districts and Republicans winning small-town and rural constituencies. The challenge for the GOP is that there are more of the former than the latter.

 

The Senate, currently split with 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats, would seem to be up for grabs given that Republicans have 22 seats up next year to just 12 for Democrats. Democrats would need a four-seat net gain if the GOP retains the presidency, three seats if Democrats prevail. But this ratio is a bit deceptive. The 22 GOP seats up doesn’t quite match the exposure Democrats had with 24 seats up in 2018, and the vast majority of the Republican seats up are in solidly-to-strongly GOP states; none are deep in enemy territory for the GOP. Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and Susan Collins of Maine are the only two GOP incumbents up in states that voted Democratic in the 2016 presidential race; Colorado voted for Hillary Clinton by 5 points, Maine by 3 points.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kamala Harris is tough, experienced, and knows her stuff.  I think she can handle the national stage.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2019 at 10:19 AM, justice98 said:

There's a classic "How we wish things were" vs "how things actually are" in presidential politics going on.

 

I appreciate the idealism, but it's like having an open competition at QB with a draft pick, journeymen, and UDFAs and hoping for the best.  Dont expect to win many games.

 

That's why he would need a younger running mate to fill in the gaps.

 

It's basically a reverse Obama.  He didnt pick a person just like him, he picked somebody completely different.  An older veteran to bridge and cover for his deficiencies.  And it worked.  Obama brought his people, Biden brought his people, got 2 terms out of it.

 

If Obama didn’t have Biden, he’d be hosting a show on vh1.

1 hour ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Julian Castro is making it official today.

 

Good man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2019 at 2:12 PM, justice98 said:

 

When we talk about how much in disarray the Dem party is in, I sometimes think we forget how much it took for Hillary not to win.  If not for the Russians and Hillary just being nothing short of lazy in a couple states, they're on a 12 year run in the WH right now.  It really took a lot of things to go wrong.

 

Lazy Hillary vs hard working trump. Hillary only managed to win by 3 million (counted votes) - only managed to get as many votes as Obama had 4 years prior, she only managed to top 65,000,000 votes, despite Comey, Russia, voter suppression - in an election few thought would be competitive — ...because she is lazy. 

 

 

F63F437E-1A5B-4E19-8E1A-6E8B1CAB93C3.gif

On 1/9/2019 at 12:07 AM, Renegade7 said:

Didn't Dems get rid of SuperDelgates?  

 

I'm not sure I'm really feeling the notion that Democratic Party refuses to listen what the people want just because they gave the 2016 election to Hillary.  

 

 

15E5FC84-889D-4B1E-BF2A-FB8240E8B942.gif

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

Looking forward to her bull**** reasons for being an Assad loving stooge.

 

This has come up before and I don't think 'loving' is right word, but she screwed up her explanation and this is probably her last chance to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether the Dems like it or not, the amount of money their candidates can raise; will dictate who will actually still be in the race, once voting starts.

 

2019 will see everyone get in.  For many, it's just to get their name out there for future runs or for possible positions in a Dem administration. For others, it's just to promote an issue they care about. For the real contenders; 2019 will be about getting the voters to know them, getting an edge over their rivals and raise money.

 

Since California and Texas have their primaries on March 3, 2020; you need to raise a lot of money early.  Early voting in those states is even earlier; so early that NH and Iowa may move their primary/caucus to an early date.  There maybe 20-30 announced candidates but once we get to actual voting; that will dwindle quickly.  

 

I expect any remaining minor candidate to be gone after NH,IA,NV and SC.  Heading into Super Tuesday: March 3; I expect only the big names to be left.

 

Of the 5 declared candidates now, only Elizabeth Warren is one with the potential to be there next winter.

 

The Dem race can go 3 ways.  Someone catches fire and racks up wins and becomes the nominee.  Since the delegates are allocated proportionally, a bunch of candidates rack up delegates and this gets decided at the convention.  One other possibility,  the votes gets split among many reasonable  candidates and someone unelectable is able to win the nomination.  Basically, what happen to the GOP with Trump in 2016. Reasonable candidates cancel each other out and someone to far to the left is able to take the nomination.

Edited by Rdskns2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In a letter sent out to Arizona GOP officeholders — including newly appointed U.S. Senator Martha McSally — the head of the state’s Republican Party warned them that they are not allowed to criticize President Donald Trump.

According to a report by E.J. Montini of the Arizona Republic, GOP Chairman Jonathan Lines fired off an email demanding allegiance to the embattled president while at the same time saying the party is a “big tent” that allows for differences of opinion.

 

 

https://www.salon.com/2019/01/05/arizona-gop-chairman-warns-state-republicans-theyre-not-allowed-to-criticize-president-donald-trump_partner/?fbclid=IwAR0zcmzjQgH0bfWieeH8gT-sHgT8X5abqxSdY3J64dwaznlPYPOalBpYggE

  • Haha 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.