John O. Brennan’s been on the anti-Trump speaking circuit quite a bit these past couple years. Maybe that crusty old spook is planning something. Sure, he has that time he voted for a commie in the 70s, but it was largely a priest cute. And a former head of the CIA becoming president isn’t without precedent.
I struggled very hard to understand what you meant here before realizing that it was probably an autocorrected attempt to write “protest vote”.
Probably one of the more interesting autocorrect fails I’ve ever done, but yep, you are correct.
Mitch Landrieu.
Ignore him, disrespect him at your (our) country’s peril.
As a fan of The Shield, I would vote for him. Make the Strike Team Great Again!
Stockdale was supposed to be a temp place filler for Perot but he ended up being on the ticket for good.
For those who don’t want to bother with that link, continue not bothering with it. It’s just a story about who’s getting more media attention. Which is completely meaningless, because most of the media attention at this stage consists of “Who’s getting more media attention?”.
here is an article on Avenatti putting together a team of advisers to use if he runs
Avenatti can’t win. Period. If it’s a choice between two crazy people, voters will pick the one presiding over a good economy and no wars. Assuming that’s the status quo in 2020 of course.
I’m not sure why any Democratic voter would trust Avenatti in any case. Does he have any history of fighting for progressive causes?
One candidate the Democrats should seriously consider if he runs - Michael Bloomberg. He’s a Democrat again, and can use his ex-Republican cred to pull in independents and moderate Republicans.
And hey, it would be the battle of two New York media and real estate giants. He would take away all of Trump’s talking points.
Maybe you can get a thoughtful Silicon Valley billionaire to run. Someone like Tim Cook, if by then he’s tired of making huge money at Apple.
If you run one of the usual left-leaning political subjects like Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden or Julian Castro, Trump will crush you. People are getting tired of identity politics, which is why you got Trump in the first place. You need someone who can address the issues that matter to the majority of Americans.
And above all, you need to shut up the ‘open borders’ wingnuts on your side. If it’s not clear by now, immigration is clearly a third rail issue, and Democrats are on the losing side of it. Just look at Europe, where open border policies have resulted in the rise of far-right politics in just about every country. Trump is killing the Democrats on immigration.
I know! We had the most charismatic and popular Democrat in a century – Hillary Clinton – and Trump still edged her out, barely. If we put a wet blanket with decades of concerted Republican attacks against him like (gasp!) Cory Booker, what hope could we possibly have?
If there’s anything I learned from 2016, it’s that random predictions about who will “crush” who are definitely worth taking seriously. 
THe fundamentals matter more than candidate quality, but I’d still be wary of a) someone with a lot of baggage before the campaign even starts, and b) someone who is an elitist who is easy for Trump to attack with his populist appeals.
Fortunately, I think only Warren is vulnerable to Trump, and even worse for her, she’s proven that Trump can goad her into doing things she doesn’t have to do. She disqualified herself, IMO, Not from being President, but for running aginst someone like Trump. You can’t have a candidate who will basically be played like a fiddle by Trump.
Bloomberg has no chance of the nomination, has no following among those who vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses, and would the best example possible of how to misread the mood of the electorate with a candidate who completely turns off both many democratic voters whose turnout would be needed while failing to appeal to, well, virtually anyone.
“Moderate Republicans” have made their bed. The party did not fracture. It is the party of the far right conspiracy nuts and they are willing to ride in the back seat since it travels down some streets they wanted to go to.
“Independents” who voted Trump will not be attracted to Bloomberg’s fiscally conservative middle. They’d be more likely to be swayed by an economic populist arguing for a different sort of change.
Aventii and his grandstanding is a large part of why we have Kavanaugh on SCOTUS and some renewed energy within the GOP ranks.
Yes, us Dems always should take advice from hardocre Repubs. :rolleyes:
This means we should start getting him ready for the run!
Trump won on a platform of literally nothing other than identity politics.
It is true that to win in 2020, Democrats need to understand what sort of sane person votes for Trump and pick a candidate who appeals to that base.
No, that doesn’t mean trying to out-clown the Clown or to out-hate the Hater-in-Chief. But we aren’t looking for some anti-Trump either. Nominating Elizabeth Warren is identical to saying “We want 4 more years of Trump.”
I agree that Bloomberg and Avenatti are names put forth by those trying to sabotage the D’s. Bloomberg may be a fine man, but would this Jewish man take votes away from Trunp and the haters? It is to laugh. (Most Trumpists don’t even know Ivanka is a Jew. Those that do excuse her because her Daddy wuvs her hot ass so very very much.)
And Avenatti? Even the Pizza Man and the somnolent “brain surgeon” were never more than jokes — on a Republican stage where being confused or ignorant is considered a Plus. And now someone like Avenatti is being touted for the Democratic candidacy? We laugh because it hurts too much to cry.
But who, then? I’d prefer an older experienced guy. But only Joe Biden comes to mind. He’d be 78 years old when inaugurated for his first turn.
“Eighty is the new seventy”? Fine, but look at the history of 70-year old Presidents:
[ul][li] Before Reagan and Trump, Eisenhower was the very first President to ever be in office at age 70. And he was a young 62 when first inaugurated.[/li][li] Before Eisenhower, only five men aged 59 or more were ever elected to a first term of President. (Adams, Jackson, Harrison, Taylor, Buchanan.)[/li][li] When Bush-41 was inaugurated at age 64, he was older than all but two prior first-inaugurees (Harrison, Buchanan). Removing the “first” stipulation adds only three names (Jackson, Eisenhower and, by just a few days, Truman).[/li][/ul]
Thus we’re not being asked to believe “Eighty is the new seventy,” We’re being asked to believe “Eighty is the new sixty.”
I was pushing for Biden vigorously 2½ years ago but he was younger then … and the sitting Vice President. Bernie Sanders is even older than Biden. And at his best, Bernie makes a better mascot than a leader.
By process of elimination, some in the thread may be zeroing in on Mitch Landrieu. Is he the one? Maybe — I’m afraid have no obviously better suggestion to offer — but at least one New Orleanian doesn’t think so.
No question even before this last horrific act that there is a significant thread of Jew hatred rising. Sorry to be so matter of fact about it but well, it happens. No shock to me. It is always around the corner.
But those who support Trump and are Jew haters are not going to be won over. They hate other “others” as well. They are not the balance in any election.
He’s unelectable because of his positions.
I think I’m pretty safe with that one. What is Avenatti’s base?
Which is why Democrats shouldn’t play that game. They do know what the word “minority” means, right? It means if you play identity politics with the minority vs. the majority, majority wins every time.