I think Warren shot herself in the foot with the DNA thing: "See? I'm 1/1000th Native American." I don't know how the whole thing started, and Trump's Pocahantas thing is stupid and grotesque (like everything else about him), nor do I care how it started, but she should have just left it alone.
If you think racism will ever "end", I think you are in for a really long term disapointment. My point is, if you try to push to hard, you're going to end up with Donald Trump part 2. Tell me how that will be for your goal. Human nature is human nature, unfortunately. Tilting at windmills doesn't appeal to me. Possibly I misestimate the state of the collective psyche, but I think the signs are pretty clear.
What I've been saying. I've been watching liberals jumping up and down with all the female and minority and non-straight-non-gender-conforming candidates, and I just shake my head. Not because I have anything against any of those candidates. It's great for them, great for women and minorities, etc, and no skin off my nose. But (despite claims from conservatives to the contrary) being a minority or a woman is a handicap in a general election. And when your party has lost all 3 branches of the federal government and most of the states too, it's hard to play with a handicap too.
Hm. Not that I disagree with you at all ( the results of elections are the results, of course...) ...but then, I suppose my next question would be: ...why, exactly, is being part of or in support of one of those groups a hindrance in a general election? ...have my own ideas, as usual...but I am curious as to why you think this is so...
I think people have an instinctual deference to markers of power that cause unconscious preferences. Like the way, since the advent of tv, the taller candidate seems to have an advantage. Anything that makes you look like an alpha -- height, physical presence, whiteness, maleness, wealth -- is going to attract votes on the margin from all kinds of voters, even if they don't identify with those attributes themselves. Works in business too.
The same could be said for your side, except your side effectively weaponized crazy. Your brand of crazy is in traditions and nostalgia, much more effective.
Ah. Okay. ...soooooo.... ...what you're telling me is that mankind shouldn't have bothered learning to walk upright, and not dragged our knuckles out of those caves looking to club as many potential mates and enemies over the head as possible...and pretending for all these years that we aren't really anything more than savage beasts looking for the first excuse we can run across to scratch our primordial itches... ...tribalism, in the modern vernacular... ...I might have known...!
Respectfuly, you seem awfully scandalized by thing that seem like basic facts of life to me. Human cognition is a cobbled together kludge sitting on top of a lizard brain like Windows 3.1 running on DOS. It's pretty indisputable as a biological fact. If you want people to be enlightened logic machines, you're going to need a major hardware redesign.
I tend to think that Robert Francis O'Rouke will for sure run, it's why he's not planning on sharing any of that 40 mil he just raised despite knowing he has no chance in the Senate race. When he opened up about what his policies actually were, his race ended in Texas and his presidential race began. He knows he could never win a state like Texas, he's not even looking to sway Texas voters anymore. He's looking for nationwide Democrats to look at him as the next Obama.
If the Dems try to nominate a candidate considered "safe" that inspires nobody, they will deserve to lose again. They must let the process play out so the nominee will be vetted, tested and proven. It must be a legitimate open contest, unlike 2016. Obviously minority candidates are at a clear disadvantage. However, a woman candidate could actually increase their chances of winning. Whoever gets the nod, they must be able to inspire the base, bring together various factions of the party and have appeal to true independents. They must find their voice during the nomination process without riding the crazy train. Will this happen?
Have they changed the way the superdelegates are set up? The superdelegates appear to have a lot of power in the Democrat party.
That is false. She was already hired before ever listing her Native American heritage. Stop spreading falsehoods.
Someone on this message board was arguing that UPenn law school isn't elite. They had to try to make that argument because their premise was that Warren couldn't become a proffesor at an elite law school without her Native American claim. They had to succumb to the "UPenn law isn't elite" because there was objective documented proof shown in a Boston Globe article that explicitly showed that she applied to the UPenn Law proffesor job as a "white/Caucasian" only and chsnged it THREE YEARS AFTER being hired. So as usual, instead of changing one's mind from new information, people just move goal posts. Posters like @Commodore will regurgitate this premise about Warren needing false credentials like hive mind zombies. The dean of Harvard law could tell him to his face that Warren wasn't hired based on "native American heritage" and he will still regurgitate the same line the next day like a machine.
Some have made comments about age when it come to some of the more mature candidates. What is your biggest concerns with older candidates?
