Holder out? I’m genuinely surprised. But good. Like most prosecutors, I wasn’t fond of him in office, and I wasn’t fond of the idea of him in high office.
Bloomberg -- out. Hillary Clinton -- OUT. Biden and O'Rourke seem poised to jump in, but nothing official yet.
A detailed (though still not comprehensive) list of things conservatives have declared to be socialist, with citations.
if you really believe itd only take six months youre afraid of basic human decency shit like that wouldnt take six month more like 2, 3 years so your meme sucks
Kamala Harris claiming Trump donated to her campaign. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...anka-trump-donations-california-a8807421.html
I see somebody is confusing "too long; didn't read" with "too inconvenient for me to acknowledge; decided to ignore."
Good move. Brown is more valuable in the Senate. What's going on in Ohio is a generational shift. High skilled, well educated voters are leaving the Buckeye State for better opportunities. There was no guaranty Brown could deliver the state for Team Blue.
Tulsi Gabbard pushes to legalize it. More at the link. https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/07/tulsi-gabbard-pitches-pot-legalization-b
Nope. Ohio has a Republican governor, and state law doesn't require an appointed senator to be from the same party as the senator being replaced. If Democrats retake the Senate, it will be extremely tight, and Brown's seat could be the difference between 50/50 and 51/49.
Both sides do it. I've gotten plenty of TLDR from lefties on this board who are in the "too inconvenient for me to acknowledge; decided to ignore" camp.
Some notes from the brand new CNN Iowa poll. These are "likely" participants. Overall: Biden 27% Bernie 25% Warren 9% Harris 7% O'Rourke 5% No one else over 1% My take: Liz doesn't HAVE to win Iowa, just show well there. Ditto Harris and the others. Given the built in advantages of Biden and Bernie, name recognition and carry-over support from the past, it's no shame to be in third. Obviously you need to be closer to them by the time of the caucus but there are signs that's doable. Particularly if the 1%ers don't gain traction. Next is the favorable question. these numbers are - very favorable - mostly - mostly un - very un - don't know (total favorable) (presumably don't know is a proxy for "I don't know enough about them to form an opinion") ranked by total fave Biden - 45 - 37 - 8 - 6 - 4 (82) Bernie - 37 - 34 - 16 - 8 - 4 (71) Warren - 25 - 38 - 12 - 8 - 17 (63) Harris - 23 - 35 - 4 - 5 - 33 (58) Booker - 13 - 39- 9 - 5 - 33 (52) O'Rourke - 19 - 33 - 8 - 4 - 36 (52) Klobachar - 13 - 30 - 9 - 6 - 41 (43) Gillibrand - 5 - 29 - 10 - 6 - 49 (34) Castro - 7 - 27 - 5 - 3 -58 (34) No one else has broke net fave of 30 yet. Again, this to me is solid. there's a lot that can potentially go wrong with Biden and Bernie and both seem to be starting off basically at their ceiling. How the "I don't know" people come down matters, and how the others pick up any votes the Big 2 shed will be big factors This question asked for a first choice and second choice Biden 1st choice - 27 - 2nd - 19 Bernie - 25 - 13 Warren - 9 - 12 Harris - 7 - 11 Beto - 5 - 6 Klobachar - 3 -3 Booker - 3 - 3 I still think a ton of this for Biden and Bernie is familiarity.Reportedly 30% of Biden's second choice are for Bernie - that's pure name rec, or else folks just impressed with any old white guy regardless. Too liberal? too conservative? These read left to right too lib - about right - too con - not sure Biden - 6 - 70 - 14 - 10 Warren - 23 - 54 - 4 - 19 Harris - 12 - 49 - 5 - 34 Bernie - 44 - 48 - 2 - 7 Bernie’s “too liberal” rating is almost twice Warren’s - I read that as good news for her. Those looking for a liberal “but not THAT liberal” don’t seem as put-off by her. Also, he has almost no “don’t know” people to sway. On that count, Harris still has time to form a lot of opinions. There’s a question about “positive energy” vs “anger at Trump” Positive led 83-13 Skipping some stuff that doesn’t translate well to this post, check out the last question. It ask respondents to rate their satisfaction level if the nominee “X” on a scale of very/mostly satisfied, mostly/very dissatisfied, and don’t know: Straight white man: 5 - 33 - 16 - 5 - 40 Thinks country should be more “socialist”*: 15 - 41 - 22 - 11 - 11 (I hate the unqualified use of “socialist” because few know what it actually means) Holds fundraisers with wealthy: 3 - 17 - 40 - 31 - 10 Warren is on to something here. http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/03/09/rel1_ia1.pdf
CNN already tried to sabotage Bernie. CNN stacked his townhall with Democrat political operatives. This is what CNN said after it got caught: "Though we said at the beginning of the Town Hall that the audience was made up of Democrats and Independents, we should have more fully identified any political affiliations." https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...ack-the-audience-for-bernies-town-hall-l.html
I'm liking what I'm hearing from Andrew Yang. I know that he and Gabbard have no chance of winning but I still want them on the debate stage holding the other candidates' feet to the fire. Gonna donate a dollar to both their campaigns. Even though they don't have the following of Bernie Sanders they are far more articulate and argue their points more effectively. They also don't have some of the baggage of Sanders and Warren. If Bernie ends up winning I would like to see one of them as VP. I really hope Biden fucks off. His time is over. I don't trust the others. They all seem like typical politicians. Booker, Beto, Klobuchar, and Harris all feel like fakers to me.
other than the DNA thing which only linger is people indulge it (which would be a really stupid thing to do given the concrete proposals she's putting out) what baggage does Warren have? I'd argue that if you went back over the last 50 years and cataloged a list of what voters SAY they want in an ideal candidate, she checks off more boxes than anyone I've ever seen. Not a career politician, not sold out to the wealthy, has a clear record of working for the interest of the "common people", has very clear concrete policy proposals, can articulate specifically what she thinks and what she wants on any issue, doesn't build herself up by bashing the opponent, talks directly to her supporters and the inerested (as opposed to obsessive fundraising) - basically everything about her is appealing (as a candidate) Now, if - say - Zombie or someone says "I don't like her because of the wealth tax idea" or "It's crazy to break up big tech" or whatever - POLICY...meh, okay. Obviously people have wide differences about what's the best policy. That's going to happen. But baggage? There's less baggage there than is even realistic to hope for. On your other point: the lesser known folks - Yang, Buttigeg, etc - are showing a lot of talent. I'm not sure they are up to the VP per se, but one of my hopes for Warren is that her cabinet, if she won, would be basically an all-star team of actual innovators, not just folks who competently mind the store and they would be people you'd look at for something like that.
I'm not the one who posts long videos, @Nova is, but here's a less than ten minute video proving you wrong.
