U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-18-2017, 06:18 PM
 
10,366 posts, read 8,359,306 times
Reputation: 19114

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dashrendar4454 View Post
Trump colluded with Russians? When?
When did he not?

Now, back to the topic at hand. Although discussing Trump's apparent fondness for and closeness to the Ruskies is certainly more timely and urgent at present.

 
Old 07-19-2017, 06:13 AM
 
16,682 posts, read 9,060,505 times
Reputation: 6741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travel Crazy View Post
Great, I can smell it a mile away.
Another one intentionally groomed and with the red carpet laid out for her to rise the ladder.
Let's check her fund-raising donations over time.....I'll bet George Soros or his surrogates have funded her way.
Another Manchurian....no thanks.
Before Hillary even conceded, Van Jones was singing Kamala Harris' praise on CNN for 2020.

The DNC and MSM colluding to rig the primaries for Hillary was a massive *middle finger* to American voters by the establishment.

If the DNC and MSM pull the same kind of stuff it will only help Trump.
 
Old 07-19-2017, 06:27 AM
 
3,333 posts, read 4,304,543 times
Reputation: 2202
I truly doubt she will run for President. I think she will be more in line with a Warren type who wants to pull the party in their direction.


The thing to remember about the 'major Clinton donors' is that she was a foregone conclusion in the last two competitive D primaries. So a hoard of people backed her that were not necessarily Clinton donors but Democratic donors. She also tended to demand loyalty form donors- meaning no donations to multiple candidates. That bit her in the ass last year when new donors felt their opinions/priorities were not going to be heard over existing donors. In 09 it bit her in the ass because it greatly narrowed the field of canidates and meant that Obama and Edwards had a bigger share of non-Clinton voters available in Iowa where they both beat her and set the tone for that year's primary.


Back to topic- I think Harris is simply trying to fill a leadership vacuum in the party. As a CA senator she is going to have a lot of sway since that is such a large Democratic base and home to a lot of political donors. So spreading her footprint is a natural move.
 
Old 07-19-2017, 06:39 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles (Native)
25,257 posts, read 15,257,337 times
Reputation: 12099
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
Before Hillary even conceded, Van Jones was singing Kamala Harris' praise on CNN for 2020.

The DNC and MSM colluding to rig the primaries for Hillary was a massive *middle finger* to American voters by the establishment.

If the DNC and MSM pull the same kind of stuff it will only help Trump.
Agreed.

And no doubt they will try to pull the same stuff.

Dems hate Trump speaking out against the media all the time because they know it's true what he says about the media.
 
Old 07-19-2017, 06:41 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles (Native)
25,257 posts, read 15,257,337 times
Reputation: 12099
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrpeatie View Post
I truly doubt she will run for President. I think she will be more in line with a Warren type who wants to pull the party in their direction.


The thing to remember about the 'major Clinton donors' is that she was a foregone conclusion in the last two competitive D primaries. So a hoard of people backed her that were not necessarily Clinton donors but Democratic donors. She also tended to demand loyalty form donors- meaning no donations to multiple candidates. That bit her in the ass last year when new donors felt their opinions/priorities were not going to be heard over existing donors. In 09 it bit her in the ass because it greatly narrowed the field of canidates and meant that Obama and Edwards had a bigger share of non-Clinton voters available in Iowa where they both beat her and set the tone for that year's primary.


Back to topic- I think Harris is simply trying to fill a leadership vacuum in the party. As a CA senator she is going to have a lot of sway since that is such a large Democratic base and home to a lot of political donors. So spreading her footprint is a natural move.
Interesting post, but the only thing was it made me think of Clinton's ass..
 
Old 07-19-2017, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Kansas
19,187 posts, read 14,944,669 times
Reputation: 18248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharks With Lasers View Post
Why shouldn't they nominate the best candidate, regardless of these factors?
"Best" seems to be an issue for the Democratic Party.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taratova View Post
A typical liberal pick.... they will never learn.
I was hoping Trump would have a challenge, but I'm happy to see him be handed the victory on a silver platter again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dashrendar4454 View Post
do you really think she is the best candidate?
They thought Hillary Clinton was the best candidate, so...........

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18436572 View Post
Skin color... check
Gender... check

Yep, she's qualified!

- Dem
Are they stupid enough to try that again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland View Post
https://www.harris.senate.gov/content/about-kamala

She sounds okay but that's not what we need now. To be electable, the Dems have to find a pleasant, ordinary, male who is moderate. They shouldn't give the nomination to someone just because she is a woman, is black, and comes from CA.
They need to decide if they want to win or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharks With Lasers View Post
Again, why do the Democrats need to run a male candidate in order for that candidate to be electable?
At this point, I don't believe there is a Dem female that could win, that is the reason. And, Ivanka is in line to be the first woman POTUS, so they need to move on and just try to win before they are the forgotten party.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
I'm hoping they nominate Hillary again.
Oh, come on, let's make Trump work for his victory a little bit!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
OP, why do you think that means they're picking her?

More likely they were telling her not to challenge Hillary in 2020 and that in exchange they'd give her Sec. of State and help launch her in 2028 for higher office.

You don't seriously think Hillary is giving up on a 2020 run do you?
Very interesting post. I think this victory was promised to Hillary Clinton when she backed Obama in 2008 by the party, and she is determined that NO ONE will stand in the way of that promise being fulfilled. I wouldn't want to stand in the way, as I like living above ground!

Quote:
Originally Posted by dashrendar4454 View Post
this nonsense that GOP are anti woman of course is just liberal generalization nonsense of course


if anything the liberals are condescending to women in their own way. Believing women need all sorts of special treatment, and people like Hillary and Elizabeth Warren and Madeline Albright using the woman card at every opportunity as if it is some kind of shield to criticism
They'll see when Ivanka is on the ticket in the future. This last election was not anti-woman, it was anti-Hillary. I was infuriated that I was being criticized for not voting for that deplorable woman, as if I owed it to her. Crying equality and asking for such favor is the reason that I do not consider myself one of "those" women. Equality is equality all the time, not just when it serves your purpose!
 
Old 07-19-2017, 11:12 AM
 
10,780 posts, read 2,666,455 times
Reputation: 4998
Slept her way to the top. google her and former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown.

I can see why Dems like her because they choose candidates based on identity politics.
 
Old 07-19-2017, 11:30 AM
 
51,637 posts, read 41,596,877 times
Reputation: 32257
Quote:
Originally Posted by robr2 View Post
I really don't think that the conservatives in this country would vote for any woman to be the Republican nominee for President, especially someone that was strong like Thatcher. There's still a lot of "a woman's place" on the righter side of the aisle.

Remember the old joke - What's the difference between Reagan and Thatcher? Thatcher had balls.
Those claims are cheap political tripe and highly divisive.

Case in point, Hillary supporters were deemed racist in 2008 with the same tactic. That actually hurt her in 2016 as black voters just weren't excited about her and had lower turnout as they'd been jaded by the 2008 primary.

Slinging sexism, racism, socialism, communism claims and so forth at opponents is just a cheap common tactic.
 
Old 07-19-2017, 11:48 AM
 
77,877 posts, read 33,233,798 times
Reputation: 15563
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrpeatie View Post
I truly doubt she will run for President. I think she will be more in line with a Warren type who wants to pull the party in their direction.


The thing to remember about the 'major Clinton donors' is that she was a foregone conclusion in the last two competitive D primaries. So a hoard of people backed her that were not necessarily Clinton donors but Democratic donors. She also tended to demand loyalty form donors- meaning no donations to multiple candidates. That bit her in the ass last year when new donors felt their opinions/priorities were not going to be heard over existing donors. In 09 it bit her in the ass because it greatly narrowed the field of canidates and meant that Obama and Edwards had a bigger share of non-Clinton voters available in Iowa where they both beat her and set the tone for that year's primary.


Back to topic- I think Harris is simply trying to fill a leadership vacuum in the party. As a CA senator she is going to have a lot of sway since that is such a large Democratic base and home to a lot of political donors. So spreading her footprint is a natural move.
Her problem was not a lack of money. Her problem was a lack of decency.
 
Old 07-19-2017, 12:42 PM
 
6,857 posts, read 6,940,540 times
Reputation: 5704
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Her problem was not a lack of money. Her problem was a lack of decency.
Not true. Hillary's problem was 20+ years of Republicans bashing her with untrue accusations--Whitewater, Bengazi, etc. She was found innocent by the FBI (James Comey), yet the Right insists that she is guilty. The Right hates strong women and can't stand that they would have power. They were afraid of Hillary, a smart, competent woman, who would have made a far better President than the one we have in there now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:54 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top