Yes, two years ago we still thought that Republicans could feel shame over doing terrible things. You proved us wrong.
It’s just like three years ago when we thought you guys wouldn’t be stupid enough to actually vote for Trump. You proved us wrong that time too.
My senator Amy Klobuchar is left of center. Not nearly as far left as AOC or Bernie Sanders, but she’s pragmatically on the right side of history and common sense, which is to say the center-left side.
Well, I was asking about principles, not persons, but I’ll skim Klo’s wiki page.
It seems like Howard Shultz has been dominating the news lately. In most cases, extra attention and press in a political race is a good thing, and Howard is getting exactly that. He’s more of a moderate Democratic, finding himself under assault from factions of the far left.
Who nominated Hillary Clinton to run against him? That would be the party you voted for, so please assign stupidity where it belongs.
Many people felt Trump was the better of two bad choices.
Many people were wrong in ways that were painfully obvious to those of us who were paying attention.
I’m not even sure he’s dominating this thread.
Oh, we have.
I haven’t made that mistake since the '16 election and I won’t be making it again in the future.
I’m not sure the chances are a LOT higher (538 today has a piece about how half of voters say they will “definitely” not vote for him, with others saying “probably” not), but I agree with the sentiment about 1% still being terrifyingly high.
Cosigned.
Agreed. Puts me to mind of this awesome SNL video poking fun at nervous-Nellie Dems (and I was one of them!):
ETA: I do think there’s reason to be nervous, as I’ve said before, about the huge vote totals (for a midterm cycle) Republican House candidates racked up this past November. Democrats won a big victory because our side picked up its turnout by an even more massive amount, but that’s sort of like winning a football game because your QB got hot and threw five TD passes to win a shootout 53-48. You still worry about your defense and feel uneasy going into the rematch, not sure if you can keep it up on the offensive end.
Paul Krugman had an interesting discussion in today’s Times. Not only would this help Trump enormously, but he discussed why Schultz’s policy positions would be poor. He is, for example, obsessed with debt and would reduce the deficit. By raising taxes on the wealthy? Don’t be silly. By cutting social security and medicare. Although Krugman doesn’t say so, I can guess that he is a supply sider who believes that a rising tide lifts all boats. It lifts all yachts, for sure, but swamps all the rowboats. Here is a link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/opinion/howard-schultz-president.html.
Here is a sample quote:
Seen on FB:
“The slow reveal that every under-employed billionaire is “pondering” running for president is like the end of the episode where the camera pans under the floor and reveals all the OTHER egg sacs.”
Schultz called Elizabeth Warren “Fauxcahontas” and said Kamala Harris is “shrill”.
Guess he’s figured that without any Dem-leaners going to vote for him, he needs to appeal to the Trumpsters?
In the words of the great philosopher Bugs Bunny, “What a maroon.”
MRAs, redpillers, and the idiots who went from Bernie to Trump.
He tweeted a link to a column in which the author said those things. Schultz himself did not say those things.
That is awesome. (And way too apt.)
No matter how counter-productive his economic policy proposals may be, Schultz knows that among those who will NOT vote for Trump is a sizable contingent of “Never-Ladyparts”* voters. This may include lifelong Democrats as well as Independents and more-traditional (i.e. Trump-averse) Republicans—voters for whom the prospect of a female in the Oval Office is absolutely, unequivocally terrifying.
Schultz, with that re-tweet, is clearly calling to those who believe that a female candidate—whether for President or for Veep—is intolerable.
He’s going for the “she makes me scared in my pee-pee place” voter. And he may do well thereby.
*Or was it “Ladypants”? …used earlier in this subforum and I don’t care to research it.
There’s never going to be a campaign. This is a ruse to sell his book.
If there had been enthusiastic and vocal support for Schultz manifest in the days after his announcement, I bet you there would have been a serious campaign. He has the cash to get on the ballot in all the states, and if things continued to go well, could have counted on donations from his fellow-one-percenters.
But as things turned out: yeah, at this point, probably just the book.