2017: Whither Democrats?

Elizabeth Warren has charisma but she is not young. But I think the Democrats need younger fresher leaders, folks like Sen. Brooker or Rep. Adam Schiff (who I thought was in his 40s but is actually 57) as a former Republican, I could imagine voting for this guys or Tulsi in 2024.

But let’s be real looks matter Paul Ryan is really fit and looks younger than his 47 years. Mike Pence looks like VP out of central casting.

If you don’t have look like Chris Christie, then you need to be a helluva of speaker like he is.

Neither Shirley Chislom, nor Anne Richards are going to win any beauty contest, but they were riveting speakers, and this from somebody who found Anne to be hyper-partisan. They both had charisma.

Finally. let’s look at last two Democrat President. Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama. Young, handsome, and gifted speakers, (Clinton often talked too long). We are talking charisma to spare with these two guys. There is grand canyon worth of difference between their charisma and Hillary’s.

I’ve never been a fan of Mitch, but I don’t get a vote for Senate a majority leader. I assume he is a very good political operator in the same way that Pelosi is. I was delighted when Ryan replaced him as the face of the Republican party.

You guys are funny. You want a list.

Orrin Hatch
Robert Menendez
Ben Cardin
Lieberman

Charisma isn’t really required. I am just tired of hearing it every time a polarizing woman from our government takes the stage. It’s not a criticism equally applied. It just isn’t. Our House and Senate isn’t made up of a bunch of Hollywood stars, nor should it be.

I do think Dems benefit from younger candidates who can’t be attacked as easily. This is why I think Kamala Harris has a real shot if she runs- she’s got the best resume of the younger Dems. Tulsi has too much baggage- though I can see her having a Bernie-like run through the primaries (and I really think she’ll have problems with minorities)

The big thing is avoiding establishment Dem, as Trump will be establishment by 2020 and folks will be sick of that.

For Democrats in the 21st century, the perfect is truly the enemy of the good.

Ya, that article’s correct… it was why it was so ridiculous when the bernie bros were all “Ossoff isn’t a real progressive!”

Well no shit, dumbfuck. He’s not a fucking socialist, because socialists won’t win in Georgia.

But Harris is a Senator. That’s literally as Establishment as you can get without being President.

Clearly what Dems really need to do is nominate a complete outsider with no political experience. That’ll shake things up!

A lot of civil rights defense attorneys think she’s a monster. Hard to find out why because she’s in the news so much that parsing through it all is a nightmare.

I’m assuming it’s some stuff she did while a prosecutor.

I think Bernie’s as good as it’s going to get. I haven’t seen anyone inside or outside Congress as confident, articulate and spontaneous on a day-to-day basis when also standing in front of a camera as Bernie, and I don’t think there will be in 10 years.

They are all pretty nerdy, IMO. Boyish even.

The GOP without Trump:

Again, this is a short term strategy, not a long term one.

You cannot tell people to shut up and vote for the official DNC candidate long term because you’re telling them there will never be reform. Spoiler warning, it is never time for change as far as the Establishment is concerned. There is always a threat you need to put off reform for.

If you want their vote, then earn it. A politician doesn’t earn my vote just because i self identify as a Democrat. I don’t owe them my vote. I personally did vote for Hillary, but it is my choice and not the DNC’s.

Not to mention we tried holding our nose and voting for the Establishment pick and she lost.

Mark my words, the Democratic party is going to take the previous election as a message that America is not ready for a female president. Then they are going to appoint a Democratic candidate that is basically “Hillary but male.” They will lose to Trump, again.

No man.
You are saying to be practical.

You vote for the best option. Even if they aren’t perfect. Because the alternative is worse.

This is how democracy works. You don’t get your ideal candidate all the time.

Or, you know, ever.

Unless you live in Connectistan or the People’s Republic of California, of course ;-)

There’s absolutely no reason why, in a democracy, anyone should ever for an instant expect to get their own personal ideal candidate.

(In fact, there’s no reason to expect that in any political system, unless it’s a dictatorship with you in charge. And even then … I wouldn’t want to live under a dictatorship that had me in charge. I’m lazy and erratic, and my speeches are really boring!)

Have a friend who is as liberal as it gets who is an attorney in California who I think would vote for a ticket of Trump and Ted Cruz over Kamala Harris. She definitely has some problems there.

I voted against her because she was/is against pot legalization. In California.

(She was running against another Democrat.)

I honestly don’t get how folks are still against legalizing weed.

I recognize and respect both you and ShivaX as quality posters. But I am unhappy with the context of your posts.

“Kamala Harris is a monster. At least, she is a monster according to some people I know. I have no idea why they hold this opinion.”

If you want to offer content or evidence regarding why Harris was a bad prosecutor, please do so. But more than 10% of Congress is made of former prosecutors. In the absence of additional content, this just sounds like further proof that successful female Democratic politicians are called unqualified for reasons that their male colleagues get a pass for.

I’d also like to know what the beef is with Harris. She’s the bee’s knees as far as I’m concerned.

I doubt anyone in government really cares. It’s just a way to pander to old people.

-Tom

It has nothing to do with her gender. They say the same thing about Preet Bharara. And again, I can’t find any real information because searching her name on the internet results in non-stop references to hysteria and everything else she’s said in the last year (which is a metric shitload). Same goes for Bharara. And Yates.

I suppose I could try to ask them what the deal is, but as a rule prosecutors do tend to do some fucked up shit that tries to circumvent the Constitution, so that is likely a lot of it. I doubt they view any former prosecutors that fondly because they see the consequences of the bullshit they often pull.

Edit: Well he’re some stuff on Bharara.

Finding stuff on Harris is going to be trickier since Harris County in Texas has a list of fucked up shit that apparently goes on forever and never ends, but I’ll try to find something.

I suspect this is a lot of what they have against Harris:

Those all have links in the Simple Justice post.

Stuff like this doesn’t help either, but it’s more stupid politician shit:

So mostly flagrant abuse of power and not knowing how the justice system works despite being a lawyer.