I’d like to see whoever gets the Dem nomination to say, “Hell no I’m not debating that old ballsack. Fuck that misogynistic hypocritical dipshit.” The rightwing fake news can bleat all they want about this being cowardice while the rest of us golf clap and enjoy our blood pressures subsiding a little.
What a waste of time, debating that moron.
Oooh, better yet, say, “Sure I’ll debate the old ballsack as soon as he pays back El Paso the money he owes them.”
Look, I get that whoever we nominate Must Beat Trump or The World Will End and that consideration Is The Most Important Thing, etc.
But at some point, you gotta say, if a serious public servant who can run intellectual circles around Trump will get “chewed up” because she can’t “play the bullshit popularity game” well enough, even where many of the liberal policies she espouses actually poll well in the mainstream, then, guess what? Our electorate is broken. And a democracy with a broken electorate is gonna go to bad places.
If you want a bullshit artist, then nominate Williamson. She’s a professional.
Alstein
4584
NC has a pretty decent candidate running for Senate, though the best candidate didn’t run this time due to a newborn, and is planning for 2022 or 2024 Governor (Jeff Jackson)
Timex
4585
Yeah, that might be the case. But in that case, it still means that you gotta play the hand you’re dealt. You can’t just wish the electorate was smarter.
Of course, it may also be that after this fiasco with Trump, that the electorate will got with a smarter candidate, just as part of the see-saw effect.
I still like Pete better than Warren. I had liked Harris, but her performance in the last debate was weaker than I expected, so I dunno how well she’d do in a real race.
I’d take warren over either Biden or Sanders though, no question.
No, but it does mean that if the only way to win with a dumb electorate is to run a candidate whose chief qualification is that they are a better bullshit artist than Trump, it’s worth questioning what you’re even winning at that point.
Timex
4587
Oh no, I think you’re most definitely wrong here.
You absolutely could have a candidate who is charismatic and can appeal to the electorate on an emotional, “bullshit” level, but have them still be competent and stand for policies you support.
This, from Biden, is terrible:
“Even though they have objectionable views, democracies shouldn’t deny them entry” just endorses the false narrative about Omar and Tlaib.
Ok, if you’re saying we need a candidate who can ‘play the bullshit popularity game’ but ALSO be a serious public servant, fine. It makes me nervous when that element is elevated in importance past a certain point. Any politician needs to be charismatic, obviously. That’s human nature. But if politicians are incentivized to sling sheer horseshit like Trump does, and that becomes the norm, then again, I’d say American democracy is pretty much a lost cause at that point.
All of this also is hard for me to roll with since I don’t know in what universe Trump is more charismatic than Warren. I mean which person would you rather be in a room with for, say, more than 5 seconds? But at this point there is almost no point of connection between my experience of reality and that of the MAGAhats.
KevinC
4590
I didn’t think that was bad, let alone terrible. I didn’t get the impression at all that he was endorsing the idea they had objectionable views, just saying that even if a democratic government feels that way, they shouldn’t deny them entry. If he had said “Despite the objectionable comments made by Omar/Tlaib…” then I would agree. I’m not even picking up that as subtext, though, so just a difference in how we’re parsing it, I suppose.
I think that Warren would slice Trump to shreds… actually that she IS slicing Trump to shreds. My own impression is that Warren’s staff has been advising her against responding to every Trump tweet with a zinger (as she used to do).
I do have some concerns that a few of the “B” Team Dems wouldn’t be able to play the charisma/populist game like Trump… Booker, Gillibrand, Castro and Klobuchar, maybe. But I don’t have any doubts that Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris and Pete have the personality, charm, or humor to take on Trump directly.
All for very different reasons – Biden and Buttigieg would out-human Trump; Harris and Sanders would counter-attack him ruthlessly; and Warren would out-snark him.
Banzai
4592
Or agree to debate him but he pays 1,000,000 to the charity of your choice every time he lies.
KevinC
4593
I tihnk she would as well, but then I thought Hillary sliced Trump to shreds and it didn’t make a difference. This is a concern I have about any candidate, though.
She agrees to debate him, but no matter the question she just spouts random quotes from his '83 Friars Roast, things like "The Trump sign is like a 50-percent-off tag.” or “Sorry I missed your last wedding, I’ll make the next one,” “a grifter wrapped in a fraud perpetuated on society” or “He’s the only guy who could sleep with 72 virgins without having to blow something up,”
I thought so too at the time but this was a real eye-opener:
magnet
4597
Biden actually said “even ideas they strongly object to”, where “they” means Israel.
It’s no different than saying “Putin should not have interfered in a US election even if he strongly objected to Clinton’s ideas.”
That’s not passing judgment on Clinton, nor is Biden criticizing Omar and Tlaib. Countries like Israel object to all kinds of things that many Americans would not consider objectionable (except in the most pedantic sense).
Hahaha, everyone should watch it! It certainly changed my mind on who “won” the debates. Trump’s constant attack barrage was particularly effective.
