No, please don't go on about the past. I hear all that. I just feel someone needs to try to justify this idea that Hillary and Bill still (as in today) exert some sort of control over the DNC. Again, I'm open to reading about it from a legit source. But no, I don't need to know about why people don't like their past behavior.
Bloomberg to donate $20 million to bolster Democrats in Senate fight Bloomberg is definitely in and will likely get support from many Democratic Senators (or that is his hope.)
He definitely wants in. I'm not 100% convinced he'll get in. He's the opposite of Trump in terms of electability. Trump won the primaries by fully embracing the crazy, whitelash of the fringe. Bloomberg would be trying to win a primary by shunning the hardcore base and being the ultimate pragmatic.
Need someone that connects with Blue Collar workers, Biden is the answer. Warren - is too ivory tower. DD
They don't. They have friends and a group of supporters/fans. They are in no way controlling the DNC.
Merkley's thinking about it. He's an odd duck in that he is a natural legislator who had to learn (is learning) how to be a politician. It's almost always the other way around and many elected officials can't turn off the political to actually do the work of governing. His best attribute is he doesn't get flummoxed. If something goes bad, he just tries a different approach even while others are freaking out. That might serve him well in a crowded field, but ultimately, I think Merkley's best use is as Dem Leader in the Senate. He could possibly be working the national scene to build cred and collect chips to make that play later. In the meantime, if things take off, well there you are.
Bloomberg is a white, Wall St type that won't play with the crazy, anti-business liberal base. Kamala Harris is a fringe left senator from the Bay Area. She's not electable.
Doesn't matter, Trump will either fix it to win or he will scrap the vote and have declared martial law
[Premium Post] The problem that the Democrats have is how extreme their base has become. The DNC recognized this problem in 2014-2015, and responded by trying to stack the deck for Hillary. Despite everything the party did to prevent the liberal base from electing an extreme candidate, Bernie the socialist STILL almost won. If the DNC tries to stack the deck a second time for an establishment/centrist candidate, then I truly believe a third party liberal candidate might spring up. That's how riled up the lunatic fringe are this time around. What the Democrats need right now is a 1992 Bill Clinton -- young for a politician, somewhat centrist, no baggage, not from a solid blue state. Does that candidate exist? Not among the choices above, that's for sure. All are from deep blue states, none are centrists. Bernie - Crazy, too old, extreme and impractical views on policies Biden - Too old, played out as a candidate and hurts the party by not developing new leaders Harris - Dumb, too ideological, no accomplishments to her name Clinton - Candidate fatigue to the max, way too much baggage Gillibrand - Dumb, too ideological, lightweight Cory Booker - Considered to be a joke at this point, molested women, can't get the righteous indignation play to work for him Warren - Terrible political instincts, not a leader, committed racial fraud by claiming Indian status GOOD DAY
I hate that I'm saying this but I really believe it to be true. Dems need to find a white midwest or southern protestant male to be their candidate. They pushed boundaries with Obama as an African American. Birtherism/the return of racism, and The_Donald are all obvious signs to me of the expected reactionary counterforce. You dont respond to unstable oscillations by destabilizing the system more with another strong push unless you want to topple the whole mess. They need to back off pushing boundaries for one cycle and go with a candidate that will feel safe to voters, especially "traditional values" type voters. After a cycle to let events settle you can start pushing cultural boundaries again. I
That's Ms. Marvel, Kamala Khan. Always the first thing that pops into my head when I hear about Kamala Harris because I guess I just don't hear that first name that often.
I tend to feel like Biden has the best chance of winning but I'm not really sure. I think if the Democrats nominate Bernie then Trump will win again. If they could find a younger person who could generate that magnetism that Obama did for the left then that would be better. A candidate like Beto without some of his issues and not coming off the heels of a loss in a Senate race.
...did that with Bill Clinton already...at least for the sake of appearances. Pushing cultural boundaries and reinforcing traditional values and such. We're going to have to, at some point in time, deal with the "return" of racism that never really went away...just got wound up in other things and allowed to incubate and fester and burst open, finally. Kind of makes me wonder, actually, how the "racists" pulled off the trick of going from a "political" identity of Democrats to Republicans under so many watchful eyes and nobody seemed to notice... These types of "political" compromises have been going on since the inception of the nation. It is a wonder that Negroes (or anybody else, for that matter) have been able to make the societal gains that they have over the past 100 years, considering how expedient it has always seemed to be to throw the "racists" a bone in order to get them to play nice for a little while... ...it's also a wonder why anybody even bothered with a "Civil War" over any of this, if at the end of the day there was going to be this wink-wink relationship about how much racism is too much racism, and from whom we're going to tolerate said "racism" from and when it's an appropriate time to be "racist" and when it's not... ...if there was never a real intention or commitment to stamp out "racism" from the nation proper (meaning, who has access to and controls the legislative and judicial processes)...because there is a fear of "toppling the whole mess" that most of us would like to avoid (as I acknowledge form what I highlighted above)...along with said toppling acknowledging the fact that much of what our society (still) is, is based on the premise that anything materially can be built on the backs of and at the expense of black people... ...it may actually finally BE time to topple the whole mess...figuratively. The good news is that we have the blueprint and the foundation already. If not for the passage of civil rights laws in the 1960s, there might not have been a generation or three of Americans who lived in a society where, in codified law at least, we are all considered equal citizens. Laws, in and of themselves, aren't going to change minds or hearts or perceptions, but they don't need to and can't be expected to do so. All a law can do is govern individual and collective behavior in our society equitably. The people living with and under those laws determine their merit and ultimate viability, if we are all agreed that (at least in some sort of moral theory) ours is still a nation of participatory, representative governance. The encouraging thing in all of this, for me, is that there is now that generation or two of people who have not had the experience of a "segregated" society in anything other than an arbitrary circumstance. "...Toppling the whole mess..." would seem to suggest that the alternative (to build something reasonably decent from the ashes) is not feasible at any time, let alone after an arbitrary "waiting" or "cooling-off" period for some people to accept a change that they would probably never embrace anyway. Those civil rights acts that were passed decades ago, by the way, were unpopular with about two-thirds of the public (in spite of the majority votes for them in the House and Senate). There's never going to be a good or right time to deal with this "racism". And those cultural boundaries have already been pushed as far as they can go un-shephered by the writ of law which we are all bound to as a nation. I know in his own inimitably stylish way, that Donald Trump has made "...giving aid and comfort to the enemy..." a stylish and palatable option to a lot of people...a vogue idea of what it means to govern a society as opposed to running a business (or a scam)... ...but if we don't take care of this stuff at some point, I believe, then Donald Trump's presidency will be looked at as the good old days of American democracy sooner rather than later...
