There's no way in hell she'll enter the race, but I can't imagine what her play is here.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+28
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I'm going to think that it's not her, but those 2 people close to her hoping that she will.
But, if that trial balloon brings about some more meltdowns, it might be worth it. Let the republican crazy machine focus on Hillary while the other Democrats just keep doing their thing.
There's no way in hell she'll enter the race, but I can't imagine what her play is here.
It's Marlon Brando in On The Waterfront material right here. Lets be real, anyone that can make it to the Presidential race has a bit of an ego. It's normal, and that's all this is. She's like anyone else (Romney, McCain, etc) that lost the race for presidency - they coulda been a contender President. She's probably also thinking about how (in 2015 terms) fucked up Trump's presidency is, and how it might be a 'lock' for the Democratic candidate.
What if we just started responding to every Hillary comment about the primary with a calm and measured "Mrs. Clinton, will you please shut up."
Because she keeps turning out to be right, damn it!
(And I say this as someone who absolutely values/ appreciates your posts Spooly!)
The sad truth is that the bad guys won here. They spent the better part of longer than two decades vitriolically ranting at her to the point where there's entire generations of people who don't like her and don't know why. It's unfair. She's right. But that's the world we live in right now. And she does better good for the causes she believes in by not talking and not getting the hackles up of those who dislike her and don't know why.
I'm going to think that it's not her, but those 2 people close to her hoping that she will.
But, if that trial balloon brings about some more meltdowns, it might be worth it. Let the republican crazy machine focus on Hillary while the other Democrats just keep doing their thing.
Yeah, I can't imagine her actually considering it.
The closest I can figure is "well, if Bernie dies of a heart condition, and Biden is incapacitated, and Warren is in a plane crash..." etc.
Fencingsax on
+3
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure how Gabbard plans to win the Democratic primary by... running against a woman who isn't even in the race.
Is this news? I literally pointed out her spokesperson corrected everyone like the next day and said she was saying Republicans not Russians. Like 2 days and 7 pages back. And I was quoting the fucking NYT itself while doing that since they reported on it.
This whole thing is just weird.
It's not weird.
It's people allowing their dislike of Clinton to rise to such irrational hatred that it clouds their otherwise good judgement. I was there too, back in '08, when I drank the Flavor-Aid and thought the PUMA people were anything more than astroturfed GOP bullshit.
Don't believe me? Head on over to hillaryis44.com which was originally an anti-Obama, pro-Clinton site, but currently identifies itself as:
From premier pro-Hillary Clinton website in 2007 To strong President Trump support website in 2017
It's not just bullshit garbage, it's obvious bullshit garbage.
I'm not sure how Gabbard plans to win the Democratic primary by... running against a woman who isn't even in the race.
On the one hand, it generates news stories about her that aren't about proven wrongdoing on her part (even though she is definitely being boosted by Russia, and seems to legislate and pontificate in ways that Russia likes) and media coverage is what a candidate at 1% needs to have even a slice of a chance.
On the other hand, stirring up division within the Democratic Party is exactly what Russia wants. Maybe she's hoping for more support from them going forward, after she loses the primary.
I do not think it has escaped Hillary that the media's religious hatred of her, and the decades of successful demonization, rather ruin her chances at this point.
While I do hope that she's tapped as a resource when useful, Murdoch and friends have been pretty successful in putting up that particular barrier.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
Gabbard wants to be in the spotlight and especially in the spotlight as a persecuted outsider
Entirely this. There's no point in being baffled, or exasperated, or even going at her on the issues. It is wholly transparent political opportunism and nothing more. I cringe at how much attention this is getting because even critical media coverage is considered a win if you're her campaign right now.
+8
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
That whole article just seems like a bunch of moderates looking for someone, anyone, who can save them from Warren getting the nomination.
This quote amuses me.
Some of the more moderate and lower-polling candidates, such as former Maryland congressman John Delaney, fault the Democratic National Committee for creating a system in which candidates who are already well known or have base-pleasing views have a massive advantage.
Moron.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
That whole article just seems like a bunch of moderates looking for someone, anyone, who can save them from Warren getting the nomination.
This quote amuses me.
Some of the more moderate and lower-polling candidates, such as former Maryland congressman John Delaney, fault the Democratic National Committee for creating a system in which candidates who are already well known or have base-pleasing views have a massive advantage.
Moron.
Exactly what does he think would be an appropriate solution?
One that doesn't deplete DNC resources by having them spend money on promoting lesser known candidates, or those with views outside the "base-pleasing". Elsewise, their national profile and media attention tend to feed into each other.
Because we already had what, 23 candidates. If the DNC props up lesser known candidates, then you'll have even more declare. And there's already way too many.
If you can't generate the funds, and don't have the profile, and don't have base-pleasing views(seriously, that's a fucked answer, "the people I need to get me elected are apathetic to, or dislike, my views"), maybe you should work on improving your capacity to do so BEFORE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
Delaney is obviously suffering from sour grapes that people didn't think he was as awesome as he (and a negligible percentage of the electorate) think he is.
If he hasn't already done so (honestly can't recall if he's still running, there's like six, and only Inslee stood out), then he needs to just fuck off, and realize he doesn't get to go to the front of the line anymore just because he's an inoffensive middle-aged white hetero man.
That whole article just seems like a bunch of moderates looking for someone, anyone, who can save them from Warren getting the nomination.
This quote amuses me.
Some of the more moderate and lower-polling candidates, such as former Maryland congressman John Delaney, fault the Democratic National Committee for creating a system in which candidates who are already well known or have base-pleasing views have a massive advantage.
Moron.
John Delaney channeling some Seymour Skinner there pretty solidly. He doesn't want to admit to himself he's not that popular, so he's pitching a fit and hoping he'll get on some news shows so he can whine about it.
He's refusing to consider he may be out of touch, so the DNC screwing him is what's wrong. Just a massive, massive pity-party for himself, that's all this is. I mean, really, John, did you think you had a chance in hell of the nomination against Warren/Biden/Sanders? Just nod politely, bow out gracefully and support the nominee like you're supposed to instead of just screaming and pouting the rules aren't fair because others are doing better.
"Candidates that are well-known or have base pleasing views have a massive advantage"? Of course they do, you goose. That's the whole point of an election. You're just salty that Old Generic White Man #9834 isn't the flavor of the day any more.
Looks like "Ugh let's just eat dinner at the same place, at least no one dislikes it" is still on the path to win unless Warren and Sanders figure something out (they should).
Looks like "Ugh let's just eat dinner at the same place, at least no one dislikes it" is still on the path to win unless Warren and Sanders figure something out (they should).
The fact that people are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks (I mean, a Hillary Clinton run? Seriously?) says very bad things about the overall strength of this field. A WaPo article is giving the inside look and...is fairly bad
When the 2020 Democratic presidential contest kicked off earlier this year, the massive field was hailed as the most diverse in history, with candidates who spanned the ideological spectrum and offered enough in a broad buffet of options to excite any voter. But after 10 months of campaigning and 15 hours of nationally televised debates, another emotion is rising: anxiety.
Party leaders and activists are citing weakness in all of the leading contenders, including former vice president Joe Biden, who has been forced on the defensive about his family’s ethics, performed haltingly in debates and set off alarms with his poor fundraising. They also fret that the two other top-ranking candidates, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), are too liberal to win a general election. Other candidates have had moments to shine, but none yet have fully transformed that into anything approaching momentum.
Oprah Winfrey, an early backer of Barack Obama who was initially enthusiastic about former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke, has repeatedly begged Disney chief executive Bob Iger to jump into the race. Hillary Clinton, according to two people close to her, has not ruled out jumping in herself, a sign that she is hearing similar dissatisfaction.
“You can imagine much stronger candidates,” said Elaine Kamarck, a Democratic National Committee member. She pines for Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who declined to run, or an outsider such as retired Adm. William H. McRaven, who oversaw the 2011 raid that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
John Coale, a major donor to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, was more blunt. “They don’t have anybody who can win the general [election],” he said.
Emphasis mine, the first bolded paragraph pretty much summarizes the problem. Biden? Heh. Sanders and Warren? Too liberal. The rest? lol.
I can't think of anyone who would de-excite me more than Bob Iger.
+13
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
This is really more reflective of how rich, vapid, selfish and easily rattled the democratic elites are. All three of the front-runners are ahead of Trump in states that matter. Not much risk of a brokered convention. D voters are decently happy with the field.
+5
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
jeez biden has all these actual problems, and these other candidates aren't liked
maybe just maybe they need to get over what they think of as 'too liberal to win an election'. whether they do it because 2016 shows they don't know shit about what's electable or because they have no choice I don't really care. wake the fuck up.
"Too liberal to win an election" feels less like a weakness of the candidates than a bias on the part of whomever is talking. By every poll almost the whole Democratic field is beating Trump in the general, and while it's totally too early to take polls very seriously what evidence for the unelectability of Warren or Sanders is being presented? They're too liberal? The Dems would be better off with someone they know killed a guy one time so people know they aren't a sissy? It's not particularly compelling..
jeez biden has all these actual problems, and these other candidates aren't liked
maybe just maybe they need to get over what they think of as 'too liberal to win an election'. whether they do it because 2016 shows they don't know shit about what's electable or because they have no choice I don't really care. wake the fuck up.
We live in an oligarchy and two of the top candidates are attacking the wealthy. Can’t have that.
The Democrats will lose if they reach to the middle
I could still see Biden cross the finish line in a damp-squib sort of way, but yeah, overrulling all three of them for someone else would not be great.
I do earnestly appreciate that Sanders and Warren aren't trying to poison each other's wells, and hope that keeps up.
+2
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Looks like "Ugh let's just eat dinner at the same place, at least no one dislikes it" is still on the path to win unless Warren and Sanders figure something out (they should).
"Too liberal to win an election" feels less like a weakness of the candidates than a bias on the part of whomever is talking. By every poll almost the whole Democratic field is beating Trump in the general, and while it's totally too early to take polls very seriously what evidence for the unelectability of Warren or Sanders is being presented? They're too liberal? The Dems would be better off with someone they know killed a guy one time so people know they aren't a sissy? It's not particularly compelling..
Also: fuckin Bob Iger lol.
Is also the ghost of McGovern stalking the halls, FWIW:
The push for liberal purity is one that raises warning flags for the Rev. Joseph A. Darby Jr., an influential black pastor in South Carolina. He said he fears a repeat of the “McGovern situation,” referring to the 1972 presidential election that pitted liberal Sen. George McGovern against incumbent Republican Richard Nixon.
He “was the great white hope,” Darby said. “He was the one that everyone went with because he was so wonderfully progressive, and he got his butt beat at the polls. I don’t want to see a repeat of that.”
But he’s also bothered by Biden’s poor fundraising.
“I don’t know if it’s a lack of hustle or what, but it’s a concern,” Darby said. “Running for office ain’t cheap these days.”
The fact that people are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks (I mean, a Hillary Clinton run? Seriously?) says very bad things about the overall strength of this field. A WaPo article is giving the inside look and...is fairly bad
When the 2020 Democratic presidential contest kicked off earlier this year, the massive field was hailed as the most diverse in history, with candidates who spanned the ideological spectrum and offered enough in a broad buffet of options to excite any voter. But after 10 months of campaigning and 15 hours of nationally televised debates, another emotion is rising: anxiety.
Party leaders and activists are citing weakness in all of the leading contenders, including former vice president Joe Biden, who has been forced on the defensive about his family’s ethics, performed haltingly in debates and set off alarms with his poor fundraising. They also fret that the two other top-ranking candidates, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), are too liberal to win a general election. Other candidates have had moments to shine, but none yet have fully transformed that into anything approaching momentum.
Oprah Winfrey, an early backer of Barack Obama who was initially enthusiastic about former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke, has repeatedly begged Disney chief executive Bob Iger to jump into the race. Hillary Clinton, according to two people close to her, has not ruled out jumping in herself, a sign that she is hearing similar dissatisfaction.
“You can imagine much stronger candidates,” said Elaine Kamarck, a Democratic National Committee member. She pines for Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who declined to run, or an outsider such as retired Adm. William H. McRaven, who oversaw the 2011 raid that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
John Coale, a major donor to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, was more blunt. “They don’t have anybody who can win the general [election],” he said.
Emphasis mine, the first bolded paragraph pretty much summarizes the problem. Biden? Heh. Sanders and Warren? Too liberal. The rest? lol.
News flash a bunch of old rich white people don't like the people who want to raise their taxes
Also I always thought liberal ideas were pretty popular if you described them without attaching existing labels to them. So it would be less a case of "too liberal" and more "not communicating", which I think the Lefties can't really be accused of?
The fact that people are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks (I mean, a Hillary Clinton run? Seriously?) says very bad things about the overall strength of this field. A WaPo article is giving the inside look and...is fairly bad
When the 2020 Democratic presidential contest kicked off earlier this year, the massive field was hailed as the most diverse in history, with candidates who spanned the ideological spectrum and offered enough in a broad buffet of options to excite any voter. But after 10 months of campaigning and 15 hours of nationally televised debates, another emotion is rising: anxiety.
Party leaders and activists are citing weakness in all of the leading contenders, including former vice president Joe Biden, who has been forced on the defensive about his family’s ethics, performed haltingly in debates and set off alarms with his poor fundraising. They also fret that the two other top-ranking candidates, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), are too liberal to win a general election. Other candidates have had moments to shine, but none yet have fully transformed that into anything approaching momentum.
Oprah Winfrey, an early backer of Barack Obama who was initially enthusiastic about former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke, has repeatedly begged Disney chief executive Bob Iger to jump into the race. Hillary Clinton, according to two people close to her, has not ruled out jumping in herself, a sign that she is hearing similar dissatisfaction.
“You can imagine much stronger candidates,” said Elaine Kamarck, a Democratic National Committee member. She pines for Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who declined to run, or an outsider such as retired Adm. William H. McRaven, who oversaw the 2011 raid that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
John Coale, a major donor to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, was more blunt. “They don’t have anybody who can win the general [election],” he said.
Emphasis mine, the first bolded paragraph pretty much summarizes the problem. Biden? Heh. Sanders and Warren? Too liberal. The rest? lol.
John Coale may have donated to Dems in the past but these days he's very concerned that Trump's rights to due process are being violated.
Karmack laments Obama's failure to reach out to Congress to help pass legislation. Which, you know, lol.
"Party leaders" keep trying to go with people they personally like and haven't demonstrated what makes them more capable beyond that. I'm especially not impressed by what might as well be an editorial in which 17 people are asked their opinion of the current field.
articles like that are very suspect because they talk in generalities with no evidence to back up the claims, and then the specifics are like, well, we talked to a donor (greta van susteren's husband, lmao) and someone from the brookings institute and
it comes across as wealthy/elite/old/centrist/whatever democrats complaining that Biden isn't catching on and they don't like Sanders or Warren
Posts
But, if that trial balloon brings about some more meltdowns, it might be worth it. Let the republican crazy machine focus on Hillary while the other Democrats just keep doing their thing.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
It's Marlon Brando in On The Waterfront material right here. Lets be real, anyone that can make it to the Presidential race has a bit of an ego. It's normal, and that's all this is. She's like anyone else (Romney, McCain, etc) that lost the race for presidency - they coulda been a contender President. She's probably also thinking about how (in 2015 terms) fucked up Trump's presidency is, and how it might be a 'lock' for the Democratic candidate.
The sad truth is that the bad guys won here. They spent the better part of longer than two decades vitriolically ranting at her to the point where there's entire generations of people who don't like her and don't know why. It's unfair. She's right. But that's the world we live in right now. And she does better good for the causes she believes in by not talking and not getting the hackles up of those who dislike her and don't know why.
Why?
Yeah, I can't imagine her actually considering it.
The closest I can figure is "well, if Bernie dies of a heart condition, and Biden is incapacitated, and Warren is in a plane crash..." etc.
just roll out a red carpet for Trump's second term while you're at it
Some folks just wanna watch the world burn
...I regret to inform you that PUMAs are real.
Do you think Tal knows? Bog standard suicidal ideation.
On the one hand, it generates news stories about her that aren't about proven wrongdoing on her part (even though she is definitely being boosted by Russia, and seems to legislate and pontificate in ways that Russia likes) and media coverage is what a candidate at 1% needs to have even a slice of a chance.
On the other hand, stirring up division within the Democratic Party is exactly what Russia wants. Maybe she's hoping for more support from them going forward, after she loses the primary.
Until she herself adds credence to these rumors, it's just standard irrational wharlgarbl gooseshit about Clinton.
I'll await, with baited breath, to be proven wrong.
That's what global warming is for.
I do not think it has escaped Hillary that the media's religious hatred of her, and the decades of successful demonization, rather ruin her chances at this point.
While I do hope that she's tapped as a resource when useful, Murdoch and friends have been pretty successful in putting up that particular barrier.
Entirely this. There's no point in being baffled, or exasperated, or even going at her on the issues. It is wholly transparent political opportunism and nothing more. I cringe at how much attention this is getting because even critical media coverage is considered a win if you're her campaign right now.
This quote amuses me.
Moron.
Exactly what does he think would be an appropriate solution?
One that doesn't deplete DNC resources by having them spend money on promoting lesser known candidates, or those with views outside the "base-pleasing". Elsewise, their national profile and media attention tend to feed into each other.
Because we already had what, 23 candidates. If the DNC props up lesser known candidates, then you'll have even more declare. And there's already way too many.
If you can't generate the funds, and don't have the profile, and don't have base-pleasing views(seriously, that's a fucked answer, "the people I need to get me elected are apathetic to, or dislike, my views"), maybe you should work on improving your capacity to do so BEFORE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
Delaney is obviously suffering from sour grapes that people didn't think he was as awesome as he (and a negligible percentage of the electorate) think he is.
If he hasn't already done so (honestly can't recall if he's still running, there's like six, and only Inslee stood out), then he needs to just fuck off, and realize he doesn't get to go to the front of the line anymore just because he's an inoffensive middle-aged white hetero man.
John Delaney channeling some Seymour Skinner there pretty solidly. He doesn't want to admit to himself he's not that popular, so he's pitching a fit and hoping he'll get on some news shows so he can whine about it.
He's refusing to consider he may be out of touch, so the DNC screwing him is what's wrong. Just a massive, massive pity-party for himself, that's all this is. I mean, really, John, did you think you had a chance in hell of the nomination against Warren/Biden/Sanders? Just nod politely, bow out gracefully and support the nominee like you're supposed to instead of just screaming and pouting the rules aren't fair because others are doing better.
"Candidates that are well-known or have base pleasing views have a massive advantage"? Of course they do, you goose. That's the whole point of an election. You're just salty that Old Generic White Man #9834 isn't the flavor of the day any more.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
Her play should be fucking off
And I say this as someone who believes she would have ended up being a top 10 president.
But however unfair it is, and it absolutely is, she's toxic.
Looks like "Ugh let's just eat dinner at the same place, at least no one dislikes it" is still on the path to win unless Warren and Sanders figure something out (they should).
Please be an outlier
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Emphasis mine, the first bolded paragraph pretty much summarizes the problem. Biden? Heh. Sanders and Warren? Too liberal. The rest? lol.
maybe just maybe they need to get over what they think of as 'too liberal to win an election'. whether they do it because 2016 shows they don't know shit about what's electable or because they have no choice I don't really care. wake the fuck up.
Also: fuckin Bob Iger lol.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
We live in an oligarchy and two of the top candidates are attacking the wealthy. Can’t have that.
I could still see Biden cross the finish line in a damp-squib sort of way, but yeah, overrulling all three of them for someone else would not be great.
I do earnestly appreciate that Sanders and Warren aren't trying to poison each other's wells, and hope that keeps up.
I mean it is an outlier, by definition.
Is also the ghost of McGovern stalking the halls, FWIW:
News flash a bunch of old rich white people don't like the people who want to raise their taxes
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
John Coale may have donated to Dems in the past but these days he's very concerned that Trump's rights to due process are being violated.
Karmack laments Obama's failure to reach out to Congress to help pass legislation. Which, you know, lol.
"Party leaders" keep trying to go with people they personally like and haven't demonstrated what makes them more capable beyond that. I'm especially not impressed by what might as well be an editorial in which 17 people are asked their opinion of the current field.
it comes across as wealthy/elite/old/centrist/whatever democrats complaining that Biden isn't catching on and they don't like Sanders or Warren
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3