Most days the “all you had to do was not be batshit crazy” thing applies, and more than fairly to many Dem candidates. I don’t know too much about this guy but thus far from what I’ve heard he checks the smart and not batshit crazy box.
I will give him that. He isnt a lunatic. That said, the bar is pretty damn low when not being insane is the standard to beat. No wonder they are pushing a mayor from a 100k town.
I don't know how more obvious it has to be. She has repeatedly said she has no interest, doesn't like it and there's been no movement towards her running for office in any regards. It's not happening.
Most candidates fall by the wayside without so much as a whimper. 10 of the 20 candidates for the Democratic nominee are white men, which is disproportionately larger than their population in America, and 14 are white, which is about right on average. Guys like Swalwell don't catch on because they don't have the charisma or ideas to catch people's eyes. It's nothing new, at all. You keep pushing this straight white male victimization bullshit because you are so used to seeing white male authorities that you mistake the gains by others to be oppression against those traditionally in charge. You mistake people whose influence in politics has been limited or virtually invisible wanting to be heard and accounted for as creating a "sin" to be a white man. You mistake a political group having a wide diversity of groups and individuals as wanting to reflect this diversity in their leadership and politics as wanting to exclude a group who has dominated them for generations. So, you're wrong. It's not relevant to most Democratic voters to not have a straight white male. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ic-voters-diversity-doesnt-matter/3544178002/ But, of course, you can't really see past your nose, so you'll probably continue to believe this idea in which being a member of a class of people still decidedly in charge of things they've controlled for centuries is a disadvantage because it now falls below 100% control and others are looking for a piece of this pie. You feel entitled to this attention, power and support given to your preferred group. Must be really scary for you.
Yes, of course, I’m talking about his sexuality, because it is an immediate and sizable detriment to his candidacy, and to a significant portion of people across many demographics. I’m talking about political expediency here, GCB, lest you resume unproductively flailing in having taken personal offense. I’m not speaking to what is just, right, best or how the world should be, but as to how it is, instead. That we’re not 5 years removed from when gay people were denied the ability to be legally married, I’m sure that now seeing a gay person as a major national candidate, and with such momentum, must border on the surreal. And that he has legit chops - as an intellectual, a veteran, and who is as likably charismatic as he is eloquent - surely presents bounding hope. He’s got a lot going for him, albeit early on, and which have nothing to do with his being gay. I certainly don’t think that you support him solely because he’s gay, or I would say exactly that, and not give one whit what you or anyone else thought about it, or however much offense it caused to occur with anyone. I trust that you believe that. But I’m also being honest in saying that the world is filled with liberal white men who share similar traits and strengths, but who aren’t gay, and who neither you nor anyone else has ever heard of, and for many and good reason. Usually, because they aren’t suited or ready for any bigger stage or larger stakes. These will certainly get him a seat at the table, but it won’t do anything to help him win. And as his being gay will cause as much harm as good - at absolute best, and being as optimistic as I can possibly be - he needs to get his positions set, announced and begin pushing them. Being gay, while understandably important to you and the GLBT community, needs to be a footnote at the end of a long resume filled with many other smart, tangible and beneficial positions that appeal to a significant portion of the populace. If the best positioning is why Trump won and has thus far been impenetrable, and despite his many, glaring and nonsensical shortcomings - surely, it can provide the same push and protection to Pete, so that his sexuality becomes relatively unimportant to most, in comparison. After Trump, I won’t ever again rule anyone out, be it Crazy Joe, Heels-Up Harris, Sparta Corey Booker, IP, GAHLEE, etc. It’s entirely and absolutely possible that Pete could be the next POTUS. I think it incredibly unlikely, but I won’t immediately rule him (or anyone else) out, either. He’s damned sure well ahead of where Trump was at this same time four years ago. I don’t know that I’d necessarily brag about exceeding that incredibly low bar, but it’s still important to note. If he’s to be a serious candidate, Pete must now and expertly use this current attention to build as much momentum as possible, and while he has an unfettered opportunity to stand out in a field which is absolutely clogged with all manners of poseurs, fakes, phonies, dumbasses and perennial losers. Fortunately, for both him and those like you who support him, he’s not the first to encounter similar issues, such as these. With that, here’s a perfect template for how he should deal with the questions and concerns surrounding his sexuality, and which will be addressed, be it at a time and place of his choosing, or not, IMHO:
just curious: how many election cycles of her not running for President would it take for you to admit you are wrong? Or is this the sort of ass-hattery you take to your grave?
All this shit just makes me respect the great outlaw Josey Wales. Josey Wales said, governments don’t live together; people live together.
Egomaniac? Why? What makes her one? She's been exceptionally clear she doesn't like politics and I'll wager anything she won't run for office at any point in her life. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/419414-michelle-obama-why-im-not-going-to-run-for-president Obama cited a number of reasons during the appearance at the girls club, according to the Post, including giving her daughters a break from a heavy security presence. "My path has never been politics," she said. "I just happened to marry somebody whose passion was politics. Just because he likes it doesn’t mean that I like it!”
This is a very thoughtful and reasoned take. I don't take issue with any of it and will add I do not believe Pete would even be in this position were it not for Trump's election. Many arguments against him would have tripped him at the starting line pre-Trump, but his election changed the game. We're now in a completely different political world and pretty much nothing will surprise me. Great clip, btw.
You seriously think there was any chance she’d run immediately following her husband and against Hilary? If she doesn’t run for office by 2028 we can assume she’s not interested. Don’t think for a second she’s not the dems bailout plan this time around either.
