(01-23-2017 08:27 AM)Deluge Wrote:  It'll probably be Elizabeth Warren.

She didn't run last time because she didn't think she could ever beat Hilary, but now she's seen how many people loved Bernie and she knows she'll be able to get those same people behind her. After what happened in 2016 the Bernie voters are mad as hell and will be further galvanized under President Trump. It's just hard to imagine a centrist like Hilary getting picked again, and Warren is the leading progressive and will be Bernie's anointed successor. One one hand, she has the populist economic message, anti-elite credentials and poor heartland upbringing that could appeal to the rust belt voters who went for Obama twice and then swung to Trump. But I don't see her winning.

Unless they're following on from a 2 term President of the same party it's quite rare for a first term President to not get re-elected. Plus I just don't see enough middle aged white working class men voting for an old liberal lady whose not super charismatic. Unless Trump really fucks up I'm assuming he's going to be in for 8 years. Incumbency is a huge electoral advantage.

This is my near identical prediction. Woman and Bernie-ite is exactly what's up their alley.

After the godfather dust post, this one was a real analysis.

godfather, that was wonderfully amusing though, I must say

probably won't be until Warren's 8 years after Trump that it all unravels ... enjoy yourselves (responsibily) until that time, our days are numbered

Plot twist: Paul Ryan escapes the bear's clutches, remains butthurt, cucks out hardcore by defecting to the Democratic party, runs against Trump in 2020, gets thumped harder than Bill did for lusting after Ivanka, begs for forgiveness, but is fed to a family of grizzlies instead.

(01-23-2017 03:41 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 08:27 AM)Deluge Wrote:  It'll probably be Elizabeth Warren.

She didn't run last time because she didn't think she could ever beat Hilary, but now she's seen how many people loved Bernie and she knows she'll be able to get those same people behind her. After what happened in 2016 the Bernie voters are mad as hell and will be further galvanized under President Trump. It's just hard to imagine a centrist like Hilary getting picked again, and Warren is the leading progressive and will be Bernie's anointed successor. One one hand, she has the populist economic message, anti-elite credentials and poor heartland upbringing that could appeal to the rust belt voters who went for Obama twice and then swung to Trump. But I don't see her winning.

Unless they're following on from a 2 term President of the same party it's quite rare for a first term President to not get re-elected. Plus I just don't see enough middle aged white working class men voting for an old liberal lady whose not super charismatic. Unless Trump really fucks up I'm assuming he's going to be in for 8 years. Incumbency is a huge electoral advantage.

This is my near identical prediction. Woman and Bernie-ite is exactly what's up their alley.

After the godfather dust post, this one was a real analysis.

godfather, that was wonderfully amusing though, I must say

probably won't be until Warren's 8 years after Trump that it all unravels ... enjoy yourselves (responsibily) until that time, our days are numbered

The important thing to remember about Warren is that the progressive Democrats were begging her to run before Bernie showed up. All the Bernie people are actually ex-Warren people. So you can bet your bottom dollar that they will come back to her in droves, and she'll win more votes from Democratic women who voted for Hilary because she's a woman, and some more centrist Democrats who were turned off by Bernie calling himself a Socialist.

A lot of the Democratic base were disappointed when Obama didn't or couldn't deliver for them, and feel seriously aggrieved after what Hilary did to Bernie and yet still couldn't beat Trump. These people are mad as hell are their numbers within the party are growing every cycle, and will only grow faster in the next 4 years. So it's difficult to imagine anybody but Warren being the nominee unless she chooses not to run.

You guys suggesting a White Male candidate for the Dems must not be paying attention to what's happened on the Left. We might not see a White Male presidential nominee for the Dems ever again. People point to Sanders and the success he had attracting the many white working class and progressive types, but he couldn't even win his own primary! Identity politics rules the Democrats, so it will be someone non-white, female, and probably on the younger side relatively speaking.

I am going out on a limb here, but I will say Jerry Brown. I know he's "too old." But something like that won't stop him from running. Jerry is still pretty spry and alive for his age. Plus, he absolutely, positively hates Trump. These two factors alone could motivate him to run again.

Michelle Obama won't run.

It was easy to see Hillary was obsessed with public office as First Lady as she interjected with policy making. She tried to get a failed health care bill going as well. It was obvious that she wanted some seat in elected office in the future.

Michelle Obama just going to chill. I can't even see her doing TV or anything like that. I am sure Oprah would give her her own TV show on her network but I don't even get the vibe she would take that freebie.

She just going to chill and make cash of speaking.

Who you think was wearing the pants in the relationship (lol) when Obama was working as a community organizer making no cash ruining bingo nights in the hood. She was a layer as well and she was paying most of the bills when Obama running bingo nights. I remember reading for a while she was footing the mortgage on their Chicago home for a while. That is likely why she tried to leave him. Women don't like being the breadwinners.

(01-27-2017 02:34 AM)kosko Wrote:  Who you think was wearing the pants in the relationship (lol) when Obama was working as a community organizer making no cash ruining bingo nights in the hood. She was a layer as well and she was paying most of the bills when Obama running bingo nights. I remember reading for a while she was footing the mortgage on their Chicago home for a while. That is likely why she tried to leave him. Women don't like being the breadwinners.

Obama has no functional frame. That's not really a surprise to anyone here, I'd hope.

(11-10-2016 09:56 AM)Dantes Wrote:  Booker is going to be the next big name for the Dems. I met him a few times. Really cool guy...athlete, charismatic and a player in his own right.

Still incredibly early, but Booker is my early candidate. I have met him on a few occasions as well, before he won Newark mayor. Dantes and I have discussed this, and Booker on a personal level is legit. I really think his charisma and personality will resonate on a national level. It was clear his aspirations were the big time and I think Senator of NJ weren't his limit. As far as his negatives, people had high hopes for him as Newark mayor, but as soon as he took office, he was already looking to the next step.

I'm going to throw Tulsi Gabbard out there. I actually do have some respect for her for the following reasons:
1. She saw what a shit-show the DNC had turned into last summer and jumped ship from her position within the party. She knew they were fucking Sanders, and she stayed loyal even when he didn't.
2. This
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...met-assad/

It's iffy whether or not she violated The Logan Act. But the fact is, while all the other politicians sat in DC she went to go see what was happening on the ground in Syria. While all the other whining women in congress were having their bullshit march last weekend she met Assad face to face.

When she returned, she threw the entire political establishment right under the bus. Nation building neocons and marxists alike.

Quote:Rep. Gabbard declared after her trip, “The U.S. must stop supporting terrorists who are destroying Syria and her people. The U.S. and other countries fueling this war must stop immediately. We must allow the Syrian people to try to recover from this terrible war.”

Quote:Gabbard did not inform Democratic leaders of her decision to meet with a dictator against whom the State Department, under President Obama, sought a war crimes investigation.

Quote: My visit to Syria has made it abundantly clear: Our counterproductive regime change war does not serve America’s interest, and it certainly isn’t in the interest of the Syrian people.

As I visited with people from across the country, and heard heartbreaking stories of how this war has devastated their lives, I was asked, “Why is the United States and its allies helping al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups try to take over Syria? Syria did not attack the United States. Al-Qaeda did.” I had no answer.

I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government.

Bonus points, the Talmudic press is having a temper tantrum over her actions.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...assad.html

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/316430...-lawmakers

I see that her skin isn't the greatest, but something about her makes my balls tingle.

(01-27-2017 08:50 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  It's iffy whether or not she violated The Logan Act.

She's a Hawaii politician. Whatever the Logan act is, I'm sure she broke it. It probably low on her list of laws broken.

(01-27-2017 08:50 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  I see that her skin isn't the greatest, but something about her makes my balls tingle.

Generations of fried breadfruit and Newport's will do that. Hopefully she stays in the gym for a while, because no women hit the wall harder than Samoans.

I'm on the fence, but a lot of people want her to run. With the way Hawaii politics have gone the last few years, the vetting process might really trip her up, even with her military service.

You have to be in the right pockets to get elected out here.

Aloha!

if Bruce Springsteen ran for the democrats in 2020 it would be awesome but I suspect he's more into working class issues than identity politics unlike present day leftists.

The Logan Act is a law that prohibits unauthorized persons from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the US. It's unlikely that she did because she's not in a position to wield any influential power.

Her father co founded a nonprofit called "Stop Promoting Homosexuality America".

The very nature of politics makes it appeal to people who are crooked as fuck, I doubt she's an exception. If Clinton got within spitting distance of the White House with her known level of corruption, it's unlikely that Gabbard's corruption will do much harm.

She was also the second democrat to meet with Trump and his transition team right after the election.

(01-27-2017 10:37 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  Her father co founded a nonprofit called "Stop Promoting Homosexuality America".

Mike Gabbard will be a huge problem if Tulsi runs. The gay thing is bad on a national level, but he's still getting elected here.

He decided to stop being a republican because he wanted to be in the majority.

There is a rail construction project going on that has a massive presence in his district. The rail has turned Hawaii politics into a massive cesspool because of all the bribe money going around. Not just from the construction and rail companies, but from the opposer's as well. Everybody's in on it. Car dealers are bribing people.

In Hawaii, its business as usual. If someone is running for president, people are going to tear them apart.

Tulsi also has the religion problem. I doubt many christian conservatives are going to vote for her because she's some Hindu offshoot.

I saw her somewhere I forget, and she was posing with Dog the Bounty Hunter. She was taller.

Aloha!

(01-27-2017 09:45 PM)catoblepa Wrote:  if Bruce Springsteen ran for the democrats in 2020 it would be awesome but I suspect he's more into working class issues than identity politics unlike present day leftists.

Are we talking about the same Bruce Springsteen who had the sheer asshole gall to cancel one of his own concerts in North Carolina because he was butthurt about the state's bathroom laws?

Quote:GREENSBORO, NC – On Sunday afternoon, a digital ad for Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band was still on display on the side of the Greensboro Coliseum Complex. However, the parking lot was empty -- a sad sight for fans of who've been waiting weeks or even months to see “The Boss” in concert. The list of people impacted by Bruce Springsteen's choice to cancel his concert is growing. Non-profit organizations will miss out on selling concessions at the coliseum. Employees are out of a job for the night. The city is missing out on tens of thousands of dollars in hotel room fees and restaurant tabs! Plus, the coliseum is losing a total of $100,000 due to the cancelation. None of those organizations will cash-in because Sunday's concert was called off. The coliseum sold 15,000 tickets for the Bruce Springsteen show and Mayor Nancy Vaughan said 50% of which were from out of town. However, “The Boss” announced on Friday that he was canceling the show because of his beliefs against House Bill 2. Governor Pat McCrory passed House Bill 2, more commonly referred to as the "Bathroom Law," in March. The law states that men and women must use restrooms according to their biological sex. In a statement obtained by WFMY News 2, Springsteen said “It's time for me and the band to show solidarity for those freedom fighters.” The decision has gained support and opposition both locally and across the country. Some fans are praising the singer’s decision to stand up for something he feels strongly about. Others are criticizing Springsteen for taking a stance that comes at the expense of his fans.

Freedom fighters???

And for an encore he had no problem with doing three concerts in Italy, which also doesn't acknowledge degenerate rights.

You do remember who wrote the paean to buttfucking, Philadelphia, don't you?

The guy uses the tax loopholes of the rich while pretending to give a shit about the working class. His interest in where he came from only goes so far as how many of his CDs he can get them to download, and -- like all Leftie hypocrites -- until he gets caught, he's happy to do deals with slave-labor organisations like Walmart. He did nothing against offshoring or the TPP, which was a big cause of the destruction of the working class America he's been whining about since roughly the Born to Run days.

(01-27-2017 12:33 PM)Crisp Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 09:56 AM)Dantes Wrote:  Booker is going to be the next big name for the Dems. I met him a few times. Really cool guy...athlete, charismatic and a player in his own right.

Still incredibly early, but Booker is my early candidate. I have met him on a few occasions as well, before he won Newark mayor. Dantes and I have discussed this, and Booker on a personal level is legit. I really think his charisma and personality will resonate on a national level. It was clear his aspirations were the big time and I think Senator of NJ weren't his limit. As far as his negatives, people had high hopes for him as Newark mayor, but as soon as he took office, he was already looking to the next step.

I agree with this. The progressives might go after him because he's in the pocket of big business, but Booker is savvy and can handle people much better than Hillary Clinton could. His being a centrist and not much for identity politics distances him from the lunatic fringe, which may help him win back the blue collar voters ... though I see that being more likely in 2024.

(01-27-2017 09:45 PM)catoblepa Wrote:  if Bruce Springsteen ran for the democrats in 2020 it would be awesome but I suspect he's more into working class issues than identity politics unlike present day leftists.

They will never run a white male again, unless he's Jewish or gay.

(01-28-2017 02:57 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

(01-27-2017 09:45 PM)catoblepa Wrote:  if Bruce Springsteen ran for the democrats in 2020 it would be awesome but I suspect he's more into working class issues than identity politics unlike present day leftists.

They will never run a white male again, unless he's Jewish or gay.

I'm sure Bruce Springsteen would gladly take it up the ass in Times Square if it provided him with just a few more % dollars or attention.

Tulsi doesn't have the support of the Dem establishment, if the events of the last week are any indication. She could be the Sanders-type to peel off those voters, but she doesn't seem to have the "wow" factor to push it in do-or-die election cycle. She's also from Hawaii which is pretty distant from most of America so regionally I'm not sure what her appeal would be. Trump would stump her worse than Hillary.

Either way, WB

(01-28-2017 04:42 PM)Jestx Wrote:  Tulsi doesn't have the support of the Dem establishment, if the events of the last week are any indication. She could be the Sanders-type to peel off those voters, but she doesn't seem to have the "wow" factor to push it in do-or-die election cycle. She's also from Hawaii which is pretty distant from most of America so regionally I'm not sure what her appeal would be. Trump would stump her worse than Hillary.

Either way, WB

If Trump as president goes badly, Tulsi will be perfect.

She's a Samoan Female Hindu. Never had one of those as president.

Richard Spencer likes her:

Aloha!

She will need a billionaire backer if she's not going to toe the line.

(01-29-2017 05:32 PM)911 Wrote:  She will need a billionaire backer if she's not going to toe the line.

She already has them. Kamehameha Schools, which owns a big part of Goldman sachs is one of her biggest. Larry Ellison, Steve Case, the eBay guy have her in their pockets too. Then there's the Japanese and achinese real estate people that she's gotta owe favors.

She brings yuuuuge cash to the table. Her dad has a lot of the same sponsors as she does.

Aloha!

Gavin Newsom. He'll try to be the USA's Justin Trudeau.

(01-29-2017 05:38 PM)Kona Wrote:  

(01-29-2017 05:32 PM)911 Wrote:  She will need a billionaire backer if she's not going to toe the line.

She already has them. Kamehameha Schools, which owns a big part of Goldman sachs is one of her biggest. Larry Ellison, Steve Case, the eBay guy have her in their pockets too. Then there's the Japanese and achinese real estate people that she's gotta owe favors.

She brings yuuuuge cash to the table. Her dad has a lot of the same sponsors as she does.

Aloha!

If anything about the last election cycle taught us anything, it's that literally none of this matters. At least when Trump is in the contest. So, Trump beat Clinton who had all of this times 1000, but suddenly Tusli, who has zero name recognition or accomplishments to her name is going win the Dem primary? And then beat Trump in the general?

Avenatti will run. I don't think this thread mentions him. Unfortunately, his brand – at this point basically a reckless hatred – will appeal with democratic voters who just want to see someone lash out at Trump.

This guy is really unprincipled, and I fear that he would be a disaster for the country.

Avenatti failed the mob in the Battle of Kavanaugh. He's done as a force on the left.

At this point anyone with any idea is deluding themselves. It's going to be a painful circus this coming year and not one I'm looking forward to. If you thought the 2015 Republican search was a clown car, you've seen nothing yet.

Some of the names I've seen floating around....

1. Elizabeth Warren - Goofy 1/1024 Pocahontas' brand is dead and this election delivered terrible results for people too far to the left. She's done as a viable contender unless there's a recession or something.

2. Cory Booker - Spartacus killed his brand in the Battle of Kavanaugh. He's a laughing stock. And as we've seen, blacks don't flock to the polls just because you're black or they would have done it with Gillum and Abrams.

3. Kamala Harris - Didn't do as much damage to herself as Booker did in the Battle of Kavanaugh. Possibly a viable contender, but can still easily tip over into the outright crazy territory in the next year or so. Again, the far left in this election was beaten badly. It just doesn't appear that way on the surface. Can she exercise self-control not to veer there?

4. Beto - That he came so close in Texas should send some alarm bells off. With him the media demonstrated that they can still create a ghost in the machine, since I don't actually believe he's above average charismatic on his own (correct me if I'm wrong). Could be a threat ordinarily in getting female votes, but not only did he lose and run too far to the left, more importantly, he's a white male. That's almost persona non grata on the left now.

5. Joe Biden - Probably too old and he didn't have success as social proof in this cycle. Also a white male.

6. Bernie Sanders - Probably too old and again, this election rebuked self-avowed socialists. Also a white male.

7. Michael Bloomberg - Zero charisma but has a well-known brand and unlimited money to get his message out. Smart and successful. Could well be a potential threat to get a lot of people in the center who are tired of this political polarization. However...he's a white male and not insane, which is a double whammy against his prospects. A white male that also isn't insane isn't welcome in the Democratic Party.

8. Sherrod Brown - The only Democrat with success in Ohio (the rest of the party got crushed there). He could be a threat because he's very popular with Trump's working class base. But he's also not particularly exciting. And he's, again, a white male.

There are more names out there, for sure. There's going to be dozens. I'm sure this thread will get more activity then.