Inevitable You-Know-Who Thread

I know this isn’t likely to be a popularly held opinion, but I think any dem with a pulse wins in November. I’ve been on team Warren since the get-go and haven’t strayed, but will happily support whomever gets the nod. I don’t feel like Trump himself poses an existential threat to the nation, but I do think the GOP does. Whatever gains a President Bloomberg makes in the direction of sanity will be easily erased by the subsequent republican administration unless the nature of the conversation in D.C. changes significantly, which is something I think Warren is particularly well-situated to accomplish.

Totally agree with Bench that being tactical about “electability” is the wrong move; if Trump is electable, anyone is.

And, FWIW, my sister, a liberal democrat, lived for a long time in New York during the Bloomberg regime–when he was a republican–and he was her favorite politician in the country. That carries a lot of weight with me.

1 Like

Abrams knows how to run a GOTV machine, which will be critical up and down the ballot. If the nominee and running mate can turn out voters, Democrats should win more than just the White House.

In other news, Texas voters will no longer be able to vote straight ticket in November. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

I wouldn’t be so sure at all. A lot of non-public research compiled by sophisticated, non-partisan firms place the odds in favor of Trump.

Just saw a poll where all of the candidates were about 8 points down in Wisconsin against Trump. Still a long way out, but the electoral map is dicey, even with a substantial national vote win for the Dem candidate.

Abrams is one of the most impressive political figures I have ever seen and if I had a magic wand I would put her in charge of everything right now. But I don’t know what she gets you as a VP pick. Is she going to win you enough of the contested states? I mean, is she going to win you ANY of the contested states?

National vote totals (and polling data) make for an easy narrative, but this is won state by state. The Democratic candidate can run up the vote totals in CA and NY, and still lose. The Democrat has won the popular vote 6 of the last 7 elections, and been president 4 out of 7 times.

The candidate has to have a path to 270, and that’s one of the many topics that’s been absent from the debates (except when the candidates force in a talking point).

Meanwhile, Trump threaded a needle with huge tail winds to eke out his win. He’s got done headwinds this time around, not least of which being that we’ve seen him in action and a lot of the fabled Obama-Trump voters don’t like what they’ve seen.

She’s extraordinarily impressive. But, you’re right, she might be better to run a campaign than be a running mate. Or just continue what she’s doing now which is a very strong anti-vote suppression effort.

Your running mate ideally should help you win a state you absolutely have to win and need to shore up. No one we’re taking about does that, and no one from the MI, PA, WI triangle springs easily to mind. It ain’t Michael Moore, that’s for sure.

Probably not, but if Bernie chose her, won and then died, well…

Saw her on the annoying Evan Smith show (I think that’s where I heard it), but it was hinted that there is one candidate she wouldn’t join as a VP choice. Of course I’ve thought about it, but have no idea who that candidate would be.

Bloomberg or Buttigieg would be my guesses. Both have issues with minority policing under their respective mayorships.

Meanwhile, Trump is already into the “I don’t know him, he didn’t work on my campaign” phase of his bullshit cycle…about Roger fucking Stone.

It’s not Bloomberg. They are buddies.

I think she would help engender enthusiasm and turnout among minority voters who might not necessarily be all that jazzed by remaining candidates.

1 Like

Of course she would, and she’d create enthusiasm among all sorts of voters, but where is that going to win? I mean, places with lots of black voters are either always going to vote Democrat or are never going to vote Democrat, regardless of the nominee much less the VP selection.

I’m not arguing against her, just trying to figure out exactly where she’ll pick up delegates. It’s impossible to know without knowing who the nominee is, clearly.

1 Like

And now we know why Trump replaced his director of national intelligence: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/us/politics/russian-interference-trump-democrats.html?auth=linked-google&referringSource=articleShare

WASHINGTON — Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, in a disclosure that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use it against him.

The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, Mr. Trump berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump cited the presence in the briefing of Representative Adam B. Schiff, the California Democrat who led the impeachment proceedings against him, as a particular irritant.

So, DNI learns that Russia is again interceding on Trump’s behalf. DNI briefs congress, as required. Trump finds out, berates and removes DNI and replaces him with another stooge. Typical.

1 Like

Wisconsin, for one. Study: Black voter turnout in Wisconsin declined by nearly one-fifth in 2016

Make her the head of the DNC, then convince Bloomberg the best use of his campaign money is to give it to her and let her use it correctly.

Perez is clearly an idiot but I’d rather see Abrams doing something more important.

And if she can win Wisconsin, I mean, obviously, sign her up.

After a scary poll last week that had Trump crushing Wisconsin, a new one came out today that shows him being beaten by the top tier Democrats.

Meanwhile, frail, walker-dependent former Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein has been found perfectly qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Oh, and Trump’s supercharged, like-nothing-ever-seen* stock market shit itself to the tune of over 1,000 points today.

  • it’s not even as good as the last 3 years of the last president.

Presidents are never really responsible for fluctuations in the stock market. They control some factors, but there are so many things that inform market performance that only an idiot would take credit for rising induces. So, of course, Trump did, so now he gets to own the down side.