Who should run for the Dems?

Brainster said:
Ruben Gallego, who just won a Senate seat from Arizona, is making a trip to Iowa, a traditional visit for those planning on running. The article notes that Pete Buttigieg and Tim Walz have also spent time there. Son of immigrants, raised by a single mom, managed to get into Harvard, served in the Marines including a tour in Iraq. Has worked his way steadily up the political ladder--Arizona State Assembly, Congress and Senate. Definitely the kind of bio that will sell.

He does have some negatives. He was formerly a member of the House Progressive Caucus. Some might think that's a qualification, but the fact that he ditched the label says otherwise. He ran for the Senate on eliminating the filibuster; he's been quiet about point since the GOP took the Senate.
Click to expand...
I loved John McCain's bio but a fat lot of good that did him. Kerry too. Both had impeccable military service records. Maybe the only time I seriously considered voting for a Republican (2000, not 2008 mind you). Charisma seems to trump (no pun intended) having a good biography on paper. They'll find some BS to smear his military service like they did with Tim Walz and Kerry.
 
Puppycow said:
I loved John McCain's bio but a fat lot of good that did him. Kerry too. Both had impeccable military service records. Maybe the only time I seriously considered voting for a Republican (2000, not 2008 mind you). Charisma seems to trump (no pun intended) having a good biography on paper. They'll find some BS to smear his military service like they did with Tim Walz and Kerry.
Click to expand...
Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth, would you prefer someone who hadn't been in the military? Someone with a crappy bio?
 
Brainster said:
Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth, would you prefer someone who hadn't been in the military? Someone with a crappy bio?
Click to expand...
No, but I'm pointing out that it doesn't seem to matter much to voters. Clinton, Obama, and Trump. None of these guys had military records. Trump even dared to criticize McCain for getting captured, and while I was one of those who thought voters would be repelled by that, it didn't seem to matter.

So, everything else being equal, having a military record is good, but it doesn't seem to correlate well with winning presidential elections lately.
 
I hate to say this. But I'm afraid of the minority candidate. While it makes no difference to me. I'd rather the Democrats chose a white heterosexual male. The emphasis on breaking barriers makes if more difficult to win.
 
It's less a question of Gender/Race at this point and more about NOT Democratic Party Establishment and Big Donors.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
It's less a question of Gender/Race at this point and more about NOT Democratic Party Establishment and Big Donors.
Click to expand...
I don't know what it is. I never thought in a million years Trump would appeal to voters. The only thing in my view that explains this is this bigotry and sexism that seems inherent in rural America. So the Dems start in a hole.
 
I believe that's a misconception.
What I see is far less a bigotry/sexism vs PC/inclusivity devide and more an Establishment vs Outsider one: when polled in a non political way, most people are fine with racial and gender equality - it's the belief (trained in pavlovian style by the right wing media) that Being PC is being forced by The Government on you, with punishments for non-compliance.

The Left and the Right, if they even exist, are unified in a rejection of the Old Boys Club principle of Washington of dealing with lobbyists and big donors.
Clinton and Harris made themselves very much the Defenders of The Old Ways against the chaos engine Trump, and enough voters thought that any change is better than none, because no change can come from what passes as The Center in US politics.
Obama managed to style himself as an Outsider and won handily besides his chromatic shortcomings.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I believe that's a misconception.
What I see is far less a bigotry/sexism vs PC/inclusivity devide and more an Establishment vs Outsider one: when polled in a non political way, most people are fine with racial and gender equality - it's the belief (trained in pavlovian style by the right wing media) that Being PC is being forced by The Government on you, with punishments for non-compliance.

The Left and the Right, if they even exist, are unified in a rejection of the Old Boys Club principle of Washington of dealing with lobbyists and big donors.
Clinton and Harris made themselves very much the Defenders of The Old Ways against the chaos engine Trump, and enough voters thought that any change is better than none, because no change can come from what passes as The Center in US politics.
Obama managed to style himself as an Outsider and won handily besides his chromatic shortcomings.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The old outsider/insider dichotomy simply is a myth. There are always insiders and outsiders that change constantly. It is the nature of politics.

Trump has his insiders as much as anyone else. Trump won the last election because of inflation and the sexism and bigotry he peddles. Walz, Harris were no more insiders than Trump is.

Trump oozes bigotry and hatred out of every pore. He has been selling his vile division toxin from day one and never slowed down. Xenophobia has been winning elections forever. And nowhere does that sell more effectively than in rural America where all their neighbors are white. White rage is a very real thing.
 
Also negative on Walz. Too nice. Election needs someone a bit hard. Needs to lead legislation to cut presidential powers. Limit the effect of executive orders to 3 months. And can't just pass the same one. Make the fate of most orders to automatically go to congress. Scrap it or pass a law.
 
acbytesla said:
I disagree. The old outsider/insider dichotomy simply is a myth. There are always insiders and outsiders that change constantly. It is the nature of politics.

Trump has his insiders as much as anyone else. Trump won the last election because of inflation and the sexism and bigotry he peddles. Walz, Harris were no more insiders than Trump is.

Trump oozes bigotry and hatred out of every pore. He has been selling his vile division toxin from day one and never slowed down. Xenophobia has been winning elections forever. And nowhere does that sell more effectively than in rural America where all their neighbors are white. White rage is a very real thing.
Click to expand...
all true, but Trump truly is an Outsider were it counts, able to just decide to break with decades or even centuries of US norms and laws and then do it. The people around him are Outsiders, drunks, groupies, FOX and NEWSMAXX single-opinion generators, none of which would normally get anywhere near the levers of power.
Harris might not have been an Insider, but she sure tried to play the part.

I would argue that Trump's appeal doesn't solely rest with him saying the quiet part out loud, but him being able to get away with it. People are just so eager for things not to return to the way they were before, because that way sucked for most of them. Doesn't mean that they actually do want him to brutally deport their friends, neighbors and loved ones.

My point is that "getting back to normal" is not a winning strategy. Doing things differently is.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
all true, but Trump truly is an Outsider were it counts, able to just decide to break with decades or even centuries of US norms and laws and then do it. The people around him are Outsiders, drunks, groupies, FOX and NEWSMAXX single-opinion generators, none of which would normally get anywhere near the levers of power.
Harris might not have been an Insider, but she sure tried to play the part.

I would argue that Trump's appeal doesn't solely rest with him saying the quiet part out loud, but him being able to get away with it. People are just so eager for things not to return to the way they were before, because that way sucked for most of them. Doesn't mean that they actually do want him to brutally deport their friends, neighbors and loved ones.

My point is that "getting back to normal" is not a winning strategy. Doing things differently is.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but the devil is in the details. IMV, Trump is the ultimate insider. The billionaires bros President that doesn't care about anyone, but them.
 
Last edited:
I agree - trump and all the rich guys who are not allowed to fail anywhere but up are the True American Insiders, and have always been.
But they spend decades using the media they bought to pretend that they are opposed to, and not controllers of, the political class.
 
Mark Kelly apparently paid a visit to some South Carolina lawmakers. Since the Palmetto State is likely to be an important early primary state, it makes sense to cultivate some friends there. Although I am not a huge fan, he's another Arizona Senator with a helluva bio. However he is also bald, and the last president to win despite being follicly-challenged was Dwight Eisenhower. Obviously Ike was very much a special case. Since then, Richard Nixon had more hair than Humphrey and McGovern, and Obama had more than John McCain. Everyone else in the TV era seems to have had a reasonable lawn up top.
 
The person most likely to win. This is a crisis, so we might have to settle for somebody who is not our ideal.
And I never cease to be surprised that so many otherwise smart people buy into the lost tribe school of politics;That there is a vast hidden left wing vote out there waiting for the right candidate to come along.
 
Tero said:
Also negative on Walz. Too nice. Election needs someone a bit hard. Needs to lead legislation to cut presidential powers. Limit the effect of executive orders to 3 months. And can't just pass the same one. Make the fate of most orders to automatically go to congress. Scrap it or pass a law.
Click to expand...
They don't need to new legislation: they just need to take back a lot of the power they have ceded over the years to the POTUS.
And frankly, the Dems are to blame too for this mess. They have ceded powers to the POTUS when he was a Demoracti they never should have ceded.
And I very skeprical that this will go beyound rhetoric. Each party screams about the abuse of power by the POTUS when they are in opposition, but clam up when one of their guys is in power.
And a major reason for this ceding of power is simple: Cowardice. Congress Critters don't like to take stands on hard issues, easier to pass the buck to the white house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom