Why not? Look, 80 ain’t what it was when you were a kid.
Mitch.
Bitch.
Ditch.
Itch.
Hitch.
Whatthefuck is your point?
:mad:
It’s not that Kasich is a centrist. He’s quite conservative. But the thing is, that makes him pretty much unique among current Republican politicians: He’s the only conservative Republican out there. Most of the rest are Trumpist radicals. And, frankly, we need conservatives.
I don’t like many of Kasich’s stances, but at least I respect him.
I don’t respect him. He shouldn’t have run in that primary if he wasn’t running to win, and he half-assed it. He talked a big game about how uncouth Trump was, so if he wanted to be president instead of Trump, he should have tried to, you know, beat Trump. He didn’t try. He totally lacked heart in those debates. At one point in one of the debates, in his closing statement, he said something like, “I hope you vote for me…I’d really appreciate it”, in a supplicating tone that utterly undermined any stage presence he might have had. I actually laughed out loud when he said it because it sounded so pathetic. I respect people with mettle and moxie, not sad-sacks like Kasich.
Think women will get behind him?
Pay particular attention to the first segment on abortion. Also wants religion taught in schools.
We don’t need conservatives like this, IMHO.
Mitch Landrieu. President of theeee U-nited States of 'Merkuh
Kasich is a nice guy, but he’s a pussy.
America needs a lion.
Well, he’s no Democrat. He’s moderate for GOP.
I dont want Kasich, I just pointed out i can respect him. I mean this is about who the Dems would want as Prez. Not the GOP.
I only mentioned Kasich as demonstrative of Hickenlooper’s poor judgment.
I’m perfectly happy to have Kasich run as a Republican against Trump in 2020 and split that vote – so long as he does it with a different candidate for Veep.
What I question is how Hickenlooper ever thought it was a good idea to run as the back half of a bipartisan ticket that advances the views that Kashich holds. How does that help the Dems in any way? And it’s why I think Hickenlooper is a poor choice for a Democratic front runner in 2020.
I do actually like Mitch Landrieu, but he’s got a lot of name recognition to catch up on. Plus I’m sick of the notion that federal level government experience doesn’t matter. It does.
You’re completely wrong about this. At risk of rehashing a debate that’s been had a million times already, let me assert the following.
- “Rove and the Kremlin” had no significant effect on the 2016 election.
- Hillary did not lose because of lies told about her. She lost because she was a terrible candidate.
- Bernie did not lose the primary because he is too far left. He did remarkably well, given the circumstances.
- There is every reason to believe that Bernie could have beaten Trump is 2016 and could do so in 2020.
On point 1, given the 646,732,305,981 breathless articles about Russian interference over the past couple years, it’s easy to lose sight of basic facts about the matter. The amount that the Russians spent on Facebook ads in 2016 was a small fraction of a percent of what the candidates themselves, and Superpacs, and everyone else spent. There is simply no evidence that the Russian ad buys caused any meaningful number of people to change their votes. In fact, there is simply no evidence that they caused a single person to change their vote. (As for Karl Rove, I don’t why you mention him as he wasn’t even employed by Trump.)
In the early primary season, polls matching up Hillary and Trump showed Hillary leading by about 3%. On election day, she won the vote by about 3%. So neither the Russians nor anything else that happened after the primaries can be blamed for Hillary’s loss. It’s all just excuses.
On 2, do you recall any Hillary speech where the crowd was actually enthusiastic for her? Was there a single person who really liked her positions on health care, or education, or military action, or environmental issues, or criminal justice reform, or anything else? Her biggest boosters spent the entire two-year campaign season reminding us that she was female because they just didn’t have anything else to work with. She failed to offer a single policy that was worth caring about.
Trump was the least popular major-party candidate ever. Any decent candidate could have beaten him. The Democrats failed to offer a decent candidate.
On 3, it is of course true that Bernie got fewer votes in the primary than Hillary. But look at the disadvantages he had. He started with no name recognition, he didn’t take big money donations, party insiders and the heads of every mainstream liberal organization were on Hillary’s side from the start. Given those facts, Bernie’s success is astonishing.
On 4, polls from the primary season pitching Bernie against Trump showed Bernie winning. Polls from right now show Bernie winning. There is straightforwardly no reason to believe that Bernie could not win.
-
Only Trump apologists believe that.
-
Why then, did she win the primary so easy and win the popular vote? She also got close to winning the EC. Yes, indeed, i do, I saw quite a few.
-
Yes, because the GOP and the Kremlin hadn’t started their lie machine vs Bernie. In fact the opposite, they were feeding lies to bernie-bros. If they had started to hit Bernie, he would have gone down in flames. If you dont think that the Слу́жба вне́шней разве́дки (Russian CIA) could have made up a credible Communist party ID card for bernie, and found pictures of him at rallies or speeches, and gotten a few fellow travelers to say Bernie had been a commie, you are naive.
Hillary was fairly popular before the lie machine started, it was the direct cause of her losing.
Duckworth is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution. I’d love to see FoxNews rant about her “Non-Americanness” and then have the DAR rise and say, “Uh-uh. You don’t diss our members like that.”
I’m under the impression that membership in the DAR is highly-valued by some Americans.
Some of those super-PACs were the Russians. And because of the anonymous nature of super-PACs, nobody can tell how many.
Events can have multiple causes.
(a) George died in the plane crash because he wanted to go to a wedding.
(b) George died in the plane crash because he refused to fly Lufthansa.
(c) George died in the plane crash because the air-speed indicator malfunctioned.
(d) George died in the plane crash because the experienced captain was drowsy.
(e) George died in the plane crash because the stall warning was ignored.
(f) George died in the plane crash because of the law of gravity.
All of the above are true statements.
The 2016 Presidential election was very close. As soon as you write “Hillary lost because of X and not because of Y,” you are demonstrating innumeracy.
Capische?
Nah. Vast majority of the PAC money was against Trump at first. Unless of course you think the Russians were financing Clinton, Bush, and Rubio as well as Trump. Perhaps that will be the subject of your next late-night radio call-in.
Informed by today’s 538 bit I am thinking of how much room there is in each “lane” and how that will impact early races.
I see Warren as highly likely to run. That takes up a lot of the economic progressive lane and means that if others whose core support is that group the early race vote may be split. And others there won’t not run just because she is.
On the other hand the centrist lane is dominated by whether or not Biden runs. As 538 points out if he does not then Bullock and Hickenlooper likely do not.
Now of course some potentials overlap lanes some. Where does Harris fit in that dynamic?
And in the early races that determine the fundraising and media attention for the next rounds does someone who is between the centrist and progressive lanes get a following?
Obviously this is simplistic as centrist is not centrist and progressive has various flavors. A centrist can still be perceived as an outsider and a progressive as of the establishment. This is just one dimension.
Still the issue and question is: how does who else is running or not running early on split potential support and traction?
Cite?