So, not really contributing to this thread, just ranting. Gotcha.
I think I like the “Robespierre” comment better.
You have to realize that no matter which side is doing the purging, it’s always the eager ones like you who eventually get purged. Look at history and tell me I’m wrong.
Moderating:
This is quite enough, given several of your other posts in thread. DO NOT suggest extra-legal actions, especially murder, no matter your personal anger. You have over a half dozen posts touching on this, and have blown past a specific mod note to stay on topic by @Aspenglow in June, and another one by me on September 1st. Take the hijack to one of the threads I listed, or the Pit, but avoid any suggestion of extra legal action. Any more such posts like this will result in a Warning and a probable thread ban.
Again, all, please stay on-topic or use the other threads I suggested unless discussing a candidate’s stated stance on Trump.
Never mind. I got the message.
Thank you.
New question.
Of those who are long shots, who do you have on your radar to keep an eye on?
I’m looking at Ruben Gallego. Won a red state (Arizona). Hispanic big tent guy. And while South Carolina is first Nevada and New Mexico are pretty soon after and he could surprise. He’s on the circuit stumping for others in early states …
I wonder if Gallego’s crypto patrons could hurt him. Dems, and the public at large have really turned on tech bros.
I’d put Spanberger in the sleeper pile. She’s a southern governor that is an absolute beast in general elections, she’s term limited, and specifically has experience pushing a Republican predecessor’s appointees out of government. She’s also done some pretty great work at ending tax breaks for Data Centers.
Any signs that she is interested? I mean didn’t she just start her first term this year? Seems soon to leapfrog.
As to the cryptocurrency bit. I’m predicating my outside chance on AOC having the Progressive wing pretty much locked down, and they’re the ones who place that high on their list. He’s instead scrambling for the center left and can get on the short list there with good performance in those states? I don’t think he runs if Kelly does, so the scenario is predicated on that. And also that no center lane person is clearly way ahead in the lane after South Carolina, so a poorer showing there doesn’t disqualify.
I think we should keep our eyes on these two as a pair. Too bad they kind of look alike…
Talarico is running against the evil Ken Paxton in Texas. Talarico’s platform is basically an old school, liberal Democratic POV, “Love your neighbor.” I saw him on Rachel Maddow a few weeks ago [link below] and he was great. Unfortunately, he looks about 12 years old, so low marks in the gravitas department.
Ossoff and Talarico to Share Fund-Raising Event in Hollywood
The event with the Georgia and Texas Democrats will be hosted by Shonda Rhimes.
Ossoff and Talarico to Share Fund-Raising Event in Hollywood - The New York Times
Two of the top Democratic fund-raisers this cycle are teaming up for a finance event with some big Hollywood names.
James Talarico, the Democratic Senate nominee from Texas, and Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia are headlining a fund-raiser on Thursday evening in Los Angeles, according to an invitation seen by The New York Times. The invite describes the event as “Two Visionaries, One Night,” and the hosts are the Hollywood showrunner Shonda Rhimes; Damon Lindelof, the co-creator of the show “Lost”; and his wife, Heidi Lindelof.
Tickets run from $1,000 to $27,000, but those in the two lowest tiers are already sold out. Mr. Talarico’s involvement in the event was previously reported by Politico, but the fund-raiser now includes Mr. Ossoff as well. Donations are to be evenly split between the two Democrats’ separate fund-raising committees.
Joint fund-raising events are not uncommon, but this one features the two top Senate Democratic fund-raisers this cycle. Mr. Ossoff has raised $77.3 million for his campaign, and Mr. Talarico has raised $68.6 million for his.
…
The article doesn’t tell you much about Talarico, but watch for his name in the news. He’s pretty impressive.
James Talarico, Democratic candidate for Senate from Texas, talks with Rachel Maddow about not taking the bait on culture war issues Republicans use to try to pit Americans against each other, and the efforts he’s making to reach out to his state’s large Black constituency, as well as the immigrant community being terrorized by ICE.
In 2028, Israel will be about two years into full-on ethnic cleansing, with the support and backing of the Trump administration:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/defence-minister-israel-katz-palestinians-gaza-9.7330886
(TL:DR version as CBC articles won’t preview here for some reason: Defense Minister Israel Katz is just waiting for US approval on the “Disengagement 710” plan, where 1.86 million (source) Palestinians will be removed from Gaza over the next seven years.)
Despite this, Democrats will find a way to blame their nominee for the situation, no matter who that person is. There’s nothing anyone (particularly a Democrat!) can do to change it and anyone who tries to say or do anything is going to piss off some crucial voting bloc somewhere. They can either choose the Palestinians and spend all their campaign funds fighting off AIPAC or they can choose the “I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a genocide… on the receipts for the weapons we sold them it specifically said not for use in a genocide” side and lose their progressive support because progressives will never not be mad about this. The whole thing is an albatross for Democrats, forever.
Not a bad choice at all.
The thing with “Government should be run like a business!” people is that the candidates saying that are invariably terrible businesspeople, and who proceed to ruin government by doing things that no sane business would ever do. Like, consider deficit spending: You take absolutely any business, at all, and offer them the opportunity to borrow money at an interest rate of a fraction of a percent, and they’re going to first borrow as much as they can, and then figure out what to spend it on. And yet, the “Government like a business!” crowd then immediately follows in the next breath with “Stop deficit spending!”.
On the topic of Ossof and Talarico, we really need to see how this cycle’s Senate races go, first. If we end up with a 57-Democrat Senate, as the most optimistic models project, then sure, we can run either of them. But if, as is much more likely, we remain within a couple of seats of a tie, then we’ll need every Democratic senator we can get to stay where they are. You could still run a Senator from a state like New York or California, where you can count on the replacement being another Democrat, but Ossof’s and Talarico’s replacements will almost certainly be Republicans.
I have noted this- whenever the GOP is in control, they are not concerned at all about the deficit (which they massively contribute to) - but when the Dems are running the show, all of a sudden the Republicans get all concerned about it. Strange that. 
Yes, if it is really close. In Georgia, the Governor appoints, then we wait until the next General election. Texas is similar, but if the vacancy occurs in a odd numbered year- one without a General election- a special election must be help. There are some other minor issues due to timing in both cases.
I’m not sure I see the wisdom of finally flipping a Texas Senate seat after all these attempts, just to vacate it after two years and let Greg Abbott put a Republican back in.
Even in a special election, in Texas or Georgia, the Republican would still almost certainly win. Both of them might win their elections, but they’re also both superb candidates for their states, facing weak opposition, and even with that, they’ll both be close at best. Take away any of those circumstances with a new race, and it’s an unacceptable risk.
That is true, I mean Paxton is a terrible candidate. Talarico got lucky.
IMHO, you are correct. She would be a strong November candidate.
The only weakness there is that, before being governor, she was a member of the House of Representatives for six years. That means six years of votes that oppo research can look through to find something unpopular.
This last is why, if it is important to win, you should nominate a governor rather than a senator. Members of congress always made now-unpopular past votes. Unfortunately, given how important it will be for the Democrat to win, few primary voters will look at it that way.
Another problem, in terms of her being able to win nomination, is that a lot of base Democrats (in my view, mistakenly) think the U.S. is a sexist nation that won’t elect a woman.
If you like power enough to run for governor, you like it enough to run for president, so long as it doesn’t look to be a complete waste of time (and maybe even then). If she suddenly started getting talked up enough – say, if there was a big, nationally publicized, disaster in Virginia that she handled well – Spanberger would be highly likely to run.
Virginia governors are put at a disadvantage by the bar on consecutive reelection on top of the odd-year offset term. They can’t try getting reelected then jumping up in Year 6, it’s either run immediately after getting elected governor, or run after leaving office.
True, but the Democrats need to find electable Presidential candidates. Probably too soon for Talerico, but he looks promising for the future.