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.
Chuck Todd and a number of left leaning mass media voices have turned on Bernie Sanders in what appears to be a harsher and less biased (protective) manner than what some people might have expected:
NBC's Chuck Todd unloaded on Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Thursday, with the "Meet the Press" host asking how the potential 2020 presidential candidate can run the country if he "can't manage" his own campaign. The comments from Todd come after female staffers on Sanders's 2016 presidential campaign have issued a series of sexual harassment allegations against top male campaign staffers, leading the senator to apologize on Thursday.
Todd took exception to the senator's answer while responding to the clip, asking if it could "derail his chances of another presidential bid. "Boy, that is a tough answer to defend because of course, if you are running to be the president of the United States, if you can’t manage a campaign, how do you manage the country? ... That's a tough answer to defend."
"Politically speaking, no potential 2020 candidate has had a worse start to 2019, it looks like, than Bernie Sanders," he later added.
This is really interesting. Of course some of these same people blame Bernie for weakening Hillary Clinton by running against her so aggressively and so effectively during the 2016 Democrat nominating process. Of course to be fair, that was his job at the time and it was exactly what both of them signed up for. Nevertheless, some of these left leaning politicos and media types believe Bernie contributed significantly to Hillary's loss in the election and are apparently concerned that he could do it again in 2020.
Among Democrats and Republicans alike, much of the activist base can be broken down into two categories: Ideologues and "Just win" pragmatists. Personally, I regard myself as more of an ideologue, which Bernie Sanders clearly is as well. This is why so many people on the Democrat side support him.
But after Trump's win in 2016, there are many Democrat voters who are of the "Just win" - by any means necessary - perspective. These voters are surveying the primary process and asking what could keep the Democrats from defeating Trump in 2020 and at the top of that list is candidates forcing the party and its voters too far to the left. The number one most likely source of such a disaster would be - you guessed it - another late finish in the Democrat primary by Bernie Sanders.
Personally, I like Bernie, although I would never vote for him. He appears to be sincere and I believe that he believes in what he is selling, regardless of how spectacularly wrong he is. At least he is not just trawling out a lot of focus group created platform ideas, the way a lot of these other candidates surely will. Bernie appears to be the real thing. And many Democrat voters appear to like Bernie and agree with his ideas.
So it will be interesting to see how much effort the pragmatist establishment types exert to try to undermine Bernie leading up to the debates this starting this summer. In fact, could it be that 78 year old Bernie Sanders is effectively pressured out of the contest and decides not to run? Personally, I hope he does run, and moreover, I would love it if he wins the nomination for the Democrats.
But first he has to run. Will Bernie run again? I am hoping so, but when I see stuff like this, it makes me start to wonder.
Representative Tusli Gabbard (D-HI) published an op-ed in "The Hill" accusing Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and other Democrats of having "Weaponized religion for their own selfish gain." Of course there is no question she is right. But this is a very bold move from a 37 year old congresswoman who has just announced that she will run for the Democrat presidential nomination, who is probably more famous for her surfing pictures than any sort of political achievements, at least so far.
Gabbard, who announced Friday that she has decided to run for president in 2020, made headlines and provoked an irritated response from Hirono earlier in the week by implicitly accusing the senator and other Democrats in an op-ed published in The Hill of having “weaponized religion for their own selfish gain” in their questioning.
While Gabbard did not mention Hirono by name, her fellow Hawaiian clearly saw the op-ed as friendly fire. Hirono, an outspoken critic of President Trump, returned fire in a statement that dinged Gabbard for giving ammo to Trump’s right-wing allies.
Gabbard spokeswoman Lauren McIlvaine in a statement to The Washington Post said Gabbard will “always fight for religious freedom and oppose religious bigotry — no matter where it comes from or to whom it’s directed. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard respects Senator Hirono,” McIlvaine said. She added that “no nominee for public service should be disqualified, either directly or indirectly because of their religion or religious affiliation.”
{More at the link}
What Gabbard is complaining about is the practice of Senate Democrats trying to disqualify Republican judicial candidates because they are unapologetic, openly practicing Christians. Tulsi Gabbard is a practicing Hindu, so it is not Christianity she is defending, but the constitutional right to free expression of religion, including her own. As she correctly realizes, if Christianity is allowed to be marginalized under the umbrella of non-compliance with the Democrat left's "Political correctness" and "Identity politics" orthodoxy, then it is just a matter of time before all religious expression is effectively banned by people serving in these roles. Which is a spectacularly unwise and bad idea.
Anyway, Gabbard is pushing back against the Democrat left's "Political correctness" and "Identity politics" agenda, just as she enters the presidential race. In fact she was not going to win the nomination this time around anyway, and literally everyone knows it, including her. What she is doing is building her own brand, which could become very interesting in some future presidential contest, maybe in 2028 or 2032, or afterwards. She is very young, after all.
Clearly Representative Gabbard woman is marching to the beat of a different drummer. As a result, it appears that she needs to be categorized in the "Other" category. Gabbard will not win this time around, but she is positioning herself in what could be a very politically fruitful manner in the years and decades to come.
Nate Silver has published an extremely wonky analysis of the currently anticipated field of Democrat candidates, and concludes that Kamala Harris and Beta O'rourke may have more upside that Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, the last two being probably the two current frontrunners in most people's minds.
The article is pretty long, so I am just including two select paragraphs below, but I suspect some of you would really enjoy reading the rest of the article:
O’Rourke has one of the more obvious three-pronged coalitions: He’d hope to win on the basis of support from Millenials and Friends, Party Loyalists and Hispanics. The groups might support him for somewhat different reasons, and O’Rourke won’t win any of them without a fight, but he has a clearer path than the other Democrats we’ve mentioned so far.
The candidate who looks best according to the coalition-building model is probably not O’Rourke, however. Instead, it’s California Sen. Kamala Harris, who potentially has strength with all five groups.
If I had to pick the most likely winner right now - it is way too early, but here goes - I would pick Kamala Harris. I do not see how the Democrats can put up a white-skinned male after all the vitriol that many people on their side have targeted at this demographic. Kamala is neither white-skinned or male. So, I agree with Silver's conclusion with regards to Kamala Harris.
On the other hand, Beto O'Rourke is both white-skinned and male. Also, he appears to me to be more of a media creation built by the enormously well funded advertising and P.R. campaign orchestrated on O'Rourke's behalf and against Ted Cruz during the 2018 Texas Senate election. I know some of you do not see him this way and I will admit I could easily be wrong about this. But O'Rourke appears to be an empty suit poser to me that will not stand the test of time.
Harris however, checks all the "Identity politics" and "Political correctness" boxes for the radical activist Democrat left this time around. I could be wrong about this too, but it appears to me that this crowd puts a very high value on these factors and will be very supportive of such a candidate.
Anyway, Nate Silver has his own thoughts on all of this, which are not the same as mine. See for yourselves.
Beta O'Rourke increasingly appears to be an empty suit that has been inflated by the massive P.R. and advertising campaign put forward on his behalf during the 2018 Senate race against Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). This was put on full public display during a two hour interview he did with the Washington Post's Jenna Johnson.
There's zero question as to who the buzziest candidate -- or potential candidate -- in the 2020 Democratic presidential race is. It's Beto O'Rourke. And it's not close. But for all the excitement that the former House member from Texas has built after his near-miss challenge to Sen. Ted Cruz (R) in 2018, there's still a whole lot that people don't know about him. And more importantly, a lot that O'Rourke doesn't know.
O'Rourke on how he would address undocumented immigrants who overstay their visas: "I don't know."
O'Rourke on President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw US troops from Syria: "There may be a very good reason to do it. I don't necessarily understand -- and I've been a member of Congress for six years."
O'Rourke on the Constitution: "I'm hesitant to answer it because I really feel like it deserves its due, and I don't want to give you a -- actually, just selfishly, I don't want a sound bite of it reported, but, yeah, I think that's the question of the moment: Does this still work? Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships ... and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?"
{More at the link}
This guy reminds me more and more of Sarah Palin. He looks good, but he is just not ready. Is this who the Democrats are going to put their chips on as their nominee to try to unseat President Trump? Really?
I do not believe they will, but I know there are probably some of his supporters who still disagree.
Imagine this: A 46-year-old former congresswoman and mother of three, who just lost a Senate bid to one of the most despised incumbents, sets off on a road trip adventure to clear her head. She instagrams part of her trip to the dentist. She gives a two-hour interview to The Washington Post where she shows no real knowledge of policy.
Like a first-year college student, she pontificates on whether the Constitution is still a thing that matters after all these many years. And then she writes a stream of consciousness diary entry, where she is all in her sad and confused feelings, over ... something:
Are white males going to be effectively disqualified like this from being the nominee for the Democrats? Does their nominee HAVE TO BE a woman this time, because "Political correctness" and "Identity politics," you all?
Imagine this: A 46-year-old former congresswoman and mother of three, who just lost a Senate bid to one of the most despised incumbents, sets off on a road trip adventure to clear her head. She instagrams part of her trip to the dentist. She gives a two-hour interview to The Washington Post where she shows no real knowledge of policy.
Like a first-year college student, she pontificates on whether the Constitution is still a thing that matters after all these many years. And then she writes a stream of consciousness diary entry, where she is all in her sad and confused feelings, over ... something:
Are white males going to be effectively disqualified like this from being the nominee for the Democrats? Does their nominee HAVE TO BE a woman this time, because "Political correctness" and "Identity politics," you all?
HAHAHA! A reporter has an opinion so suddenly white males can't run.
Someone needs to alert all the white males currently running.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) announced Monday that she will be running for president in 2020. The theme of Harris’ campaign will be “For the people,” and she is expected to formally announce her candidacy in a speech on Jan. 27 in Oakland, California.
Elected to the Senate in 2016, Harris made history as the first Indian-American to serve in the body, as well as just the second black woman. As attorney general of California for six years, she was the first woman, African-American and Indian-American in that role.
Harris announced her presidential bid on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and her campaign’s logo and color scheme drawinspiration from the 1972 presidential bid of Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman to run for the presidency from one of the major parties.
As this article from the Huffington Post shows, it is pretty obvious what the basis and central theme of her campaign is going to be.
White. Male. Old. A Wall Street billionaire. At first glance, Michael Bloomberg would seem to have zero appeal in a Democratic Party where progressive populism is on the rise and activists and elites say it’s time for a woman or a person of color to win the White House.
But unlike any of the other presidential hopefuls, Bloomberg plays a dominant leadership role on two of the top issues on the minds of progressives heading into the 2020 cycle: climate change and gun control. He’s spent a decade as the nation’s preeminent financier on those issues, buying considerable goodwill in progressive circles. If he runs, those familiar with his thinking say, they’ll be the pillars of his campaign.
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.
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.
