Sadly, l think Shapiro would be destroyed by the suicidal element of the Palestinians who will cut their privates off if they think it will harm a Jewish person. These are the folks who at least minimally helped Trump win Michigan last fall.
The Decline of the DNC II
- Thread starter CrimsonJazz
- Start date
Mark Cuban and Jon Stewart? Seriously?
EXCLUSIVE: Buttigieg, Booker, and AOC Lead 2028 Democratic Primary Field Without Harris in the Race
New more precise polling from Zeteo and DFP shows no candidate holds a dominant lead – a contrast with other surveys that have shown Harris ahead.zeteo.com
2028 National Democratic Primary:
Kamala Harris 18%
Pete Buttigieg 14%
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 12%
Cory Booker 12%
Gavin Newsom 8%
Josh Shapiro 5%
Tim Walz 4%
J.B. Pritzker 4%
Gretchen Whitmer 4%
Jon Stewart 2%
Amy Klobuchar 2%
Andy Beshear 2%
Mark Cuban 2%
Chris Murphy 1%
Wes Moore 1%
Stephen A. Smith 0%
Jasmine Crockett 0%
Raphael Warnock 0%
Shawn Fain 0%
Just go ahead and cement us in Republican autocracy...
This would be a wild day.
Pollster Nate Silver calls Ocasio-Cortez most likely to be 2028 Democratic presidential nominee
Progressive lawmaker Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is the likeliest person to be the Democratic Party's 2028 presidential nominee, according to pollster Nate Silver.www.foxnews.com
AOC just needs to stay in her lane. She might get the nomination but would be trounced in November.
She is 35 and in her fourth term. She could probably keep that seat for another 50 years unless NY population decline gets her gerrymandered if state loses more seats.
If she challenges Schumer in 2028 she is an idiot. Wait until 2034 and see if he retires then. Even if he hangs on until 2040 (he is 90 that year) she will just be 51. Or if Puerto Rico gets statehood go home and run from there.
But she will do worse than Harris as the presidential nominee.
She is 35 and in her fourth term. She could probably keep that seat for another 50 years unless NY population decline gets her gerrymandered if state loses more seats.
If she challenges Schumer in 2028 she is an idiot. Wait until 2034 and see if he retires then. Even if he hangs on until 2040 (he is 90 that year) she will just be 51. Or if Puerto Rico gets statehood go home and run from there.
But she will do worse than Harris as the presidential nominee.
Amusing to me how when Bernie and AOC run around this country "mad" it's supposedly "good" but Trump does it, and it's somehow "bad." It also rings kind of hollow given "oligarchy" is nothing more than their $10 word for "rich billionaires", who actually supported their party more last election.
And their solution? The $50-90 TRILLION spending spree known as "the Green New Deal." Good luck on that attempt to turn us into Venezuela. (Yeah, I know, he says Denmark - but you don't see them moving to Denmark, either, even though it's supposed to be so great).
Our best candidates (since TV at least) were optimists pushing towards a better tomorrow: JFK, Nixon (yes), Reagan, Bill Clinton, Obama. Dubya went there from time to time, though he had the difficulty of trying to do that in time of both peace and prosperity (it came easier the 2nd time, ironically after 9/11). This "angry candidate" schtick - Al Gore went down this path and it looked like a guy reading a script - is a tired cliche', and other than the obvious (Trump), it doesn't usually work (and I don't think it would have worked in 2016 had his opponent not had the fakest smile this side of a house of ill repute).
I agree but not crazier than trump
True. Cuban is out of his mind and the closest comparison to trump.
Another one I never took seriously was "Michelle Obama." Apparently, they've gotten the memo and aren't polling her any longer.
I used to see on other sites people were certain she was going to run. Despite the fact she is publicly apolitical and doesn’t make many public statements or appearances beyond traditional First Lady stuff. I always saw her focused on raising her daughters and not interested in running for office. But people who say she is think she’s a dude so take it with a grain of NaCl.
I could see Stewart or Cuban running. I actually like Cuban based on just seeing him on TV. Never watched Stewart’s show but he has always come off as a bit of an ass to me. I don’t know anything about Cuban’s politics but Stewart seems pretty liberal so the MSM will love him as will those who were upset we elected a reality TV star twice.
I didn’t like Trump in his USFL days and my position never changed.
I know Rick Wilson is (was) a GOP consultant, but those folks are all friends with each other off the camera (it's pro wrestling). And he was saying a decade ago that Michelle Obama loathes politics, is basically supporting her husband, and couldn't wait to get the Hell out of DC. He told them to abandon the pipe dream that they could talk her into running, even though he personally liked her and thought she had a lot of positive political assets.
Cuban sat next to me in a Cracker Barrel about 15 years ago, and I left him alone, but he basically comes across in person out in public like the sports fan who won the lottery and bought the team but also knows he doesn't know how to RUN the on-field team. Plus, he IS quite self-aware; I know a lot of folks get huffy and self-righteous about admitting to personal prejudice - which Cuban did - but I also know people more aware of their prejudices (and we ALL have them, folks) are more apt to try and make sure they don't act on them, too. Cuban strikes me (most of the time) as down to earth.
What's funny is this so-called business genius paid $10 million for a USFL franchise that:
a) was worth a little over half that
b) had lost $30 million its first year of operation
c) was so "not valuable" that the judge in the USFL-NFL case (Peter Leisure) said while sustaining an objection, "I'm sure the jury knows the difference in price between a USFL franchise and an NFL franchise."
Bill Simmons absolutely mocked him on that ESPN 30-for-30, saying Trump was the kind of guy "all the Beamers that he wanted were sold out, so he goes to the next dealership and says he wants a Saab. And then he complains about the Saab he wanted." And I'm no more a fan of Bill Simmons than I am Trump btw.
Supposedly Pete Rozelle gave a directive that Trump would never be allowed to own an NFL team.
That may eclipse creating the Super Bowl in listing his contributions to the sport.
That may eclipse creating the Super Bowl in listing his contributions to the sport.
I don't know that he would have had to do that; as Rozelle pointed out multiple times both before and at the trial, it requires approval by 3/4 of the current ownership, meaning seven "no" votes would shoot you down in 1986. Trump kept telling the lie that Rozelle had wanted him to have a franchise, and Rozelle kept pointing out that even if he had said that (which he strongly denied), he didn't have the power to do it anyway, it would be up to the other 27 owners.
But I do recall reading somewhere that Rozelle said that as long as he or his family members were associated with the NFL, Trump would never be in the league - and he allegedly even pointed his fist into Trump's chest, knowing what an egomaniac the guy is.
28 owners in 1986, meaning 8 could keep him out
Leon Hess - NY Jets
Mara family - NY Giants
Robert Irsay - Colts (Trump had been saying he could have bought the Colts any time he wanted)
Jack Kent Cooke - Washington - Rozelle's wife had been married to Cooke's son first
Edward De Bartolo Jr - San Fran - his dad was a USFL owner, so it's firsthand "no, son, don't"
That's five I'd be willing to bet right now wouldn't have approved, and I can't imagine the Rooney family (Steelers), Art Modell (Browns/Ravens), Lamar Hunt (Chiefs), Bud Adams (Houston, who knew the co-owner, Argovitz, from the Generals), Ralph Wilson (Bills), the Halas/McCaskeys (Bears), or the Sullivan family (Patriots before Kraft) would have voted in his favor.
I honestly think it would have been a 26-1 vote against Trump - with Al Davis dissenting and then whining about what a great thing it would be to have Trump as an owner but this big conspiracy was keeping it from happening.
No, just misogynistic.
I'm two minds on this. A lot of Dem congresscritters are well past their use by date, so replacing them is probably a good idea. At the same time, the DNC has demonstrated time and again that they can make any bad situation worse. If they go from being comically ineffectual to actually destructive, particulaarly during the reign of Trump, I'm not sure the nation can survive.
My guess is that all of the people being challenged in the primary will have someone coming at them from their left flank. I can’t imagine Hogg pushing more centrist candidates.No, just misogynistic.
I'm two minds on this. A lot of Dem congresscritters are well past their use by date, so replacing them is probably a good idea. At the same time, the DNC has demonstrated time and again that they can make any bad situation worse. If they go from being comically ineffectual to actually destructive, particulaarly during the reign of Trump, I'm not sure the nation can survive.
This could push the Dems further left which isn’t what we need. We need both parties to track back to the middle not push further to the fringe.
No, just misogynistic.
What's sad is how much I agree with everything you said. I used to think we could survive two terms of any horrible President regardless; I'm not convinced of that any longer. We USED to have a point where folks would call out their own "side."
I agree in the abstract with Hogg's point. I also agree that both sides (SWIDT?) have some aging dinosaurs that need to be retired. But one risks doing what happened to Blanche Lincoln in 2010, when the unions got all huffy and forced her into a primary. She won and then she had to run from a position of weakness. Granted, that seat was eventually going Republican anyway, but she might have gotten another term out of it. I didn't care for her, but I saw her rise through Arkansas politics firsthand, and she was one of the most skilled politicians I've ever seen at addressing almost ANY issue and convincing everyone in the room with opposing views that she agreed with them. (She was being compared political skills wise in state to Bill Clinton in 1995, and her personal life was free from his clutter).
What's ridiculous is the Democrats went through this once previously in the early 70s with similar results. (They might have before, but I'm not that old). A bunch of anti-war zealots kinda set the stage for the religious right to pull the same trick in the GOP and seize power in local areas and then try to be so absolutist that they offended everyone.
Pull a Karl Rove.
"Can that moderate win the state of X?" Yes.
Then let's help him/her. Get control FIRST, worry about the details later.
Exactly - and that's my fear.
The Republicans, though, have no core at all right now. I mean, they're not even trying to be any kind of conservative party, they're at the whims of a madman who hasn't taken his medicine. Supporting TARIFFS is supporting HIGHER TAXES and what in the world got into them to do that? They're not law and order, they're no longer even anti-Russia although they see Commies everywhere at the DNC.
There are tons of potential for the Democrats - but getting them all on board, well........
The whole tariff thing seems like a horrible “own goal”. No reason to go this hard at everyone at once. If he wanted to isolate China and go after them while working to draw others closer with good trade deals that makes sense. China needs to be punished and isolated as much as possible. They are no one’s friend.
Bear in mind the bold is an assumption based upon Trump actually telling the truth about something. I'm not saying "is" or "isn't" but the "evidence" he showed in his Perot chart was wrong.
This is why I've said Trump has no strategy - none whatsoever, he never has. Not with anything. It's reactive to whatever whim hits his sensors at the moment.
I concur with crimsonaudio - Trump isn't DUMB (this is not President Forrest Gump), and I'll add that NO, not every single idea he has is a bad one. But what I've not seen in over four decades of watching him on the public stage is ANYTHING resembling coherence in executing any kind of plan to accomplish anything. He's not Warren Buffett with finance or Eisenhower with military troops, his responses are more similar to those of a raging animal amped up on drugs.
But even that doesn't make him wrong about everything, it's just he's wrong about a whole lot more than his pro wrestling fan base will ever admit. And he's right about more than the pro wrestling fan base of his opponents will admit, too.
Remember what I said - "they won't learn anything from losing everything."
And they won't.
In this corner, we have the Mikey Palmice of the DNC, David Hogg:
When newly elected Democratic National Committee officers gathered in late March at a Washington hotel, the agenda included a brief but robust discussion of a pledge not to intervene in party primaries, according to two people who attended the meeting and a third who was briefed on it.
But there was one official, David Hogg, who never signed onto the DNC’s pledge, and he told a DNC staffer he had concerns because the group he co-founded gets involved in open primaries, according to a fourth person familiar with the conversation.
Three weeks later, Hogg called his fellow DNC officers to warn them that Leaders We Deserve, the group he co-founded, would be funding primary challenges to “asleep-at-the-wheel” Democrats in safe-blue seats.
And in the opposing corner, we have the queen of identity politics with a respectable tone, Donna Brazile:
“Officers of the DNC have signed a neutrality pledge. David did not sign…”
“My position as many of these so-called safe blue seats are seats that women and minorities finally had an opportunity to come and sit in because there were no seats at the table for us. So before you start wiping clean the menu and the plates and the seats, be very careful because many of those seats are in seats where we are.”
Ah yes.....the old "I'd rather lose an election with a non-white male than win an election with a white guy and actually have the power to do something."
Brazile - in practice - is actually smarter than her comments suggest. Back when I considered myself a sort of Republican, I'd be laughing my tail off at this version of the three-sided war where one side waits until the other vanquishes the first side and then destroys them when they're tired.
But the dumbest decision in this whole thing was the preposterous step of - as some of us here noted - putting David Hogg in any public position in the first place. You can't say "Trump hires unqualified idiots" (note: he certainly does) and then think this was a good move on the part of the DNC.
(And before anyone shows up to say it - OBVIOUSLY the appointments of such imbeciles as RFK2, Gabbard, and Hegseth are a million times worse and more relevant than Hogg's position, but it's the same flawed method and defense of same).
He was a token/DEI hire. By this I mean he represents gun violence victims. That’s fine but he should have other qualifications.
Latest threads
-
Coach Saban influencing Executive action on NIL limitations.- Started by dWarriors88
- Replies: 1
-
No. 18 Alabama’s Matchup with No. 15 Vanderbilt Moved to 7:30 p.m. CT First Pitch- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Saigon falls, 50 years ago today 4/30/75
- Started by Bamaro
- Replies: 31