Yes.. The Dems do have some intelligent guys who could slide down the middle.
It is gonna be a mess though, I'm afraid we are conducting a real time experiment in whether or not we need a functiong Federal government...
The Decline of the DNC IV
- Thread starter CrimsonJazz
- Start date
- Status
It is gonna be a mess though, I'm afraid we are conducting a real time experiment in whether or not we need a functiong Federal government...
Y'all better prepare yourselves. The Democrats are about to pull one of their many experiments that winds up giving them someone who cannot possibly win the general election (more often than not).
In their attempts to bend over backwards to APPEAR to be fair, they are going to require there to be 4-5 "early primaries" distributed among the four major geographic areas of the USA. (This is not a bad goal, but wait until you see the execution of it).
And I'm not saying what any psephologist not afraid of being called a racist won't say, the black vote is the most reliable and necessary bloc of votes for a Democratic candidate to win the fall election. And thanks to Jim Clyburn's influence, the South Carolina primary was the first SANCTIONED primary in 2024 and is expected to be the same in 2028 (let's face it, New Hampshire is too damn white).
And guess who is likely to win that one and get the momentum out of the starting gate if the SC primary is first unless she and Cory Booker split the black vote? And if she does, tell me who in the party is going to have the stones to come right out and say she cannot win in the Fall?
Kamala Harris as nominee would have 2-3 assets (she's attractive, she's the one candidate that can appeal to "experience", and she has been in two Presidential campaigns previously, which may help her know what NOT to do better than the gaffes others commit. She may have one more, the ability to say "I told you so" from 2024).
She would also have an 18-wheeler full of liabilities, including being stuck with everything bad in the Biden administration. She's still got a Jewish husband, which is gonna go over really well with the kamikaze Arab vote in Michigan, how the hell is she going to answer the question from a journalist saying, "Your party's post-mortem said you lost because of racism and sexism, do you agree?", she lacks the feel for the audience of a Reagan, Bill Clinton, or Obama (or Taylor Swift), and the brutal truth is she was a prosecutor in a party that hates prosecutors.
And her name recognition is going to draw early money, too, unless some billionaires pool their money behind one "get Kamala out" candidate.
If SC goes first for the Democrats, there is better than 50% chance she winds up the nominee.
In their attempts to bend over backwards to APPEAR to be fair, they are going to require there to be 4-5 "early primaries" distributed among the four major geographic areas of the USA. (This is not a bad goal, but wait until you see the execution of it).
And I'm not saying what any psephologist not afraid of being called a racist won't say, the black vote is the most reliable and necessary bloc of votes for a Democratic candidate to win the fall election. And thanks to Jim Clyburn's influence, the South Carolina primary was the first SANCTIONED primary in 2024 and is expected to be the same in 2028 (let's face it, New Hampshire is too damn white).
And guess who is likely to win that one and get the momentum out of the starting gate if the SC primary is first unless she and Cory Booker split the black vote? And if she does, tell me who in the party is going to have the stones to come right out and say she cannot win in the Fall?
Kamala Harris as nominee would have 2-3 assets (she's attractive, she's the one candidate that can appeal to "experience", and she has been in two Presidential campaigns previously, which may help her know what NOT to do better than the gaffes others commit. She may have one more, the ability to say "I told you so" from 2024).
She would also have an 18-wheeler full of liabilities, including being stuck with everything bad in the Biden administration. She's still got a Jewish husband, which is gonna go over really well with the kamikaze Arab vote in Michigan, how the hell is she going to answer the question from a journalist saying, "Your party's post-mortem said you lost because of racism and sexism, do you agree?", she lacks the feel for the audience of a Reagan, Bill Clinton, or Obama (or Taylor Swift), and the brutal truth is she was a prosecutor in a party that hates prosecutors.
And her name recognition is going to draw early money, too, unless some billionaires pool their money behind one "get Kamala out" candidate.
If SC goes first for the Democrats, there is better than 50% chance she winds up the nominee.
Pulling defeat from the jaws of victory... I see no way that Harris can win.
I dont know who the people are that make these decisions for the rest of us to vomit over, but absolutely none of them have any concern for our country.
The Democrats are foregoing the opportunity at real power for potentially years by pushing a centrist candidate. But, no, we want to chase after petty identity objectives that literally solve none of the issues facing this country by all Americans...
The Democrats are foregoing the opportunity at real power for potentially years by pushing a centrist candidate. But, no, we want to chase after petty identity objectives that literally solve none of the issues facing this country by all Americans...
Is everyone in politics a scumbag? Is there one decent person?
This community note, tho......ouch!
The parties primary process is dominated by the extremes of both parties. A candidate that could win the general hands down can't get to the general. If AOC runs she may very well win the nomination. That's a real possibility. Can the Reps. come up with a way to get a not Trumpian figure through the primary. I doubt it. The first party to sanity wins and both are running in circles.
I can see her doing well in a primary. A centrist can't get the nomination for the Dems. and I don't think one can for the Reps. either. AOC could suck all the air out of the room like Trump did in the primaries. They had to pretty much cheat to keep Bernie at bay in 2016, and I think the primary electorate is considerably more to the left than they were in 2016. Everyone had to quit on the same day to stop Bernie in 2020 as well. Anyone think they can run that play again? I don't.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed House Bill 106, decriminalizing spreading HIV
“To Illinois after a Governor Pritzker signed a new law that decriminalizes spreading HIV. Now the new policy officially repeals a law that was passed back in 1986”
The signed by Governor Pritzker eliminated the HIV-specific criminal statute that made it a felony for someone who knew they had HIV to engage in activities like unprotected sex, sharing needles, or donating blood without disclosure
This is the Democrat Party
“To Illinois after a Governor Pritzker signed a new law that decriminalizes spreading HIV. Now the new policy officially repeals a law that was passed back in 1986”
The signed by Governor Pritzker eliminated the HIV-specific criminal statute that made it a felony for someone who knew they had HIV to engage in activities like unprotected sex, sharing needles, or donating blood without disclosure
This is the Democrat Party
Boy, the original “Shoney’s Big Boy” model is a damn good one. Ah, Illinois, you fail me.
The Presidency?
Or the nomination?
She "could" win the Presidency with a perfect storm: an economic cataclysm, the Republican candidate choosing a horrible mediocrity (you know, like Harris herself in 2020) and dying before the voting began, maybe 2-3 other things. Nobody is "that" unelectable, not even Barry Goldwater.
But I agree with you the odds are strong against such a scenario, too.
The presidency... I could easily see her winning the nomination.
And yes, she could win the presidency, but it would require at least 7 turnovers and the starting QB going down on the opening drive!
The Bernie Kook wing of the party is priming this argument:
"We're told we need a centrist. But we nominated Gore over Bradley, Kerry over Dean, Hillary over Bernie, and we lost! But when we ran Obama over Hillary, we won!"
The one time in the last 50 years the Democrats were MATURE about their nomination process was 2020, when they did choose the one "this guy can win" candidate over the Fringe Caucus (Sanders, Warren).
One thing that's difficult to know is how big a fool someone is going to make of themselves when running. The pressures of running for President and the traps the scumbags set for each other - circulate a negative story that has at most a kernel of truth, and if the opponent doesn't respond, it becomes part of who they are, but if they DO respond, it takes on a life of its own - most people are not ready for this. And no matter how superstar a candidate looks on the resume, we can't know these things in advance.
I think AOC would - all things being equal - fall flat on her face in an epic failure. Her entire schtick is little more than branding, she has almost no REAL WORLD experience with her election at such a young age, and her entire sales pitch is victimhood, meaning when she runs into trouble, she's likely to fall into "it's because I'm a Latinx woman," and America doesn't elect a victim (if you don't believe me, ask Hillary).
Let’s face it, her fame in the party is entirely that she fills in every box in the classic democratic identity politics, manual: female, not white, from the northeastern United States, college graduate from a somewhat prestigious school, and shamelessly socialist.
Plus - as Rick Wilson has been warning them for years - her numbers outside of her deep blue sea district are upside down, and the "fake tough talk from Queens" not only has been co-opted by the current President for a decade now, but she bobs her head like a valley girl and looks more like bartender fending off a pass from a drunk creep than a President. Do people not realize they have already calibrated the bombs they intend to throw it her and hope that she is the nominee? If one particular book is to be believed, Lee Atwater was in a Little Rock in 1989 digging up dirt on Bill Clinton, whom he feared was the guy who could knock off bush in 1992.
Now....COULD she win a primary?
Sure.
But my suspicion is that the “fake tough girl” act will not play well in the Democratic Party in South Carolina. In folks, I will never defend the racial animus of southern whites against Black people, but those of you who have a lot of friends are probably well aware of the fact that a substantial chunk of Hispanics and blacks don’t look very highly upon one another as well.
No, nobody in the party is going to say it, but that’s been part of their problem with reality.
The question which must be asked of a Democratic candidate - can he/she beat Vance, because he will be the nominee. In the end, the result may depend more on the economy than on the nominees...
Considering how radioactive both parties have become, I think this is more true than ever. We are fast approaching an election system whose outcomes are determined more by arbitrary metrics than anything else.
Whilst I can see a scenario by which Harris wins the presidency... AOC is 100% unelectable barring the greatest political fail in history by the Republicans. Vance would easily beat her, so that seems very unlikely.
Why is this still a thing?
This has become the same type of cliche as "the Republican racist Southern strategy" canard - there's a tad bit of "evidence" here and there but it's hardly a proliferative truth, but it becomes one somehow in the discussion.
The Democrats have nominated the more "conservative/centrist" candidate more often than not since 1972. Yes, McGovern is the prototype for "nominated someone who couldn't possibly win the election," but let's spot them the one year since the entire primary system as applied that year was brand new to everyone.
1976 - centrist Carter over all of the liberals
1980 - incumbent Carter over liberal Ted Kennedy
1984 - see below
1988 - see below
1992 - Clinton was probably the most conservative Democrat in the race, both by politics and promises
1996 - no contest
2000 - centrist Gore over liberal Bill Bradley
2004 - okay, Kerry is a liberal, but he's not as far to the left as Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich
2008 - Obama was probably more liberal than Hillary, but he didn't run (for the most part) as a liberal
2012 - no contest
2016 - Hillary was more centrist than Bernie Sanders
2020 - Biden was more centrist than Sanders or Warren (among others)
2024 - no "real" contest
So for all of the "a centrist can't win the nomination" for the Democrats, the evidence comes down to three races: 1972, 1984, and 1988.
Now, I'm not DENYING that their nominees haven't been liberal - when compared to the Republican nominee, maybe in some cases when compared to the electorate as a whole - but they've been within a reasonable reach of the center, too. That leaves Mondale and Dukakis.
Mondale's problem in 1984 wasn't "really" his liberalism. His problem was that he was the one candidate the Democrats could nominate that allowed Reagan to run the "compare my four years with his." Yes, he won the nomination by kowtowing to the liberal special interest groups more than any candidate ever, and he got clobbered but not because he was thought to be a bad guy. Indeed, Reagan's own biographer pointed out that very few voters actually disliked Mondale, they just thought he was going to raise their taxes because that's what he'd promised.
As far as Dukakis, yes, he was an extreme liberal - what else can you call a guy who thinks first degree murderers deserve weekend furloughs and who still defends them after one commits rape while out on furlough and disappearing for ten months? - but he didn't "really" win the nomination because he was a liberal. He won it because Al Gore and Richard Gephardt SPLIT the white Southern moderate vote, Jesse Jackson got the blacks, and Dukakis got the liberal vote from close to the center to the extremes. Paul Simon and Bruce Babbitt were goofy looking guys in the TV era, and Gary Hart, well, enough.
I know it's common to say, "the Democratic candidate is a socialist out of touch with mainstream America," but that hasn't REALLY been the case.
Kamala Harris was without question an extreme liberal (quick - anyone tell me any of her positions on issues other than abortion, which she almost seemed to want to be a cheer at the ballgame, and bailing out protestors at the George Floyd riots), but that has nothing to do with why she got handed the nomination. She got handed the nomination because she was the only one who could use the millions upon millions already in the till. That and the Congressional Black Caucus would rather have lost with Harris than won with Gretchen Whitmer.
- Status
Trending content
Latest threads
-
-
-
ESPN: NCAA opened Ole Miss probe after Dabo complaint
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: The American's top teams, and UConn, will look bra...
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
Fender and the "S-Shaped" guitar body- Started by Slowpoke Catracho
- Replies: 6
-
ESPN: Pro Football HOFer Warner gets N. Iowa hall nod
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0