Yes, I was referring only to Trump, not all women or even a particular woman. What I was trying to say is that the Democratic nominee needs to be handle Trump by focusing more on pushing back at Trump’s bully tactics, maybe even bully him back a little in areas that it might be particularly effective (as in Trump’s relationship with Putin) and not by being a policy wonk.
Wow!
Thanks, Banquet.
Thanks for the happy thought to end my weekend! May he have a Nurse Ratchet at his side.
The Democrats are not going to nominate any Republican. The chances are fair that it could be someone that we’re not even talking about now. “Ties to Wall Street” is not a death sentence for the Democratic nomination. I want to see someone with passion but I do not want Bernie. Give me any other leftist.
But when you use the word “bitch” in that context, it perpetuates the idea that a man being subservient to another man is being woman-like, and that being woman-like is worthy of a special level of contempt. Patsy, puppet, dog–all of those convey the same idea without perpetuating the idea that one of the most shameful things for a man to be is female.
Whoever it is, they have to not be afraid to fight back when Trump calls them stupid names. It’s ok to call him Stupid Donald or Sex Offender Donald. That “we go high when they go low” shit didn’t work so well.
…it really depends on the candidate.
If the candidate is someone like Jon Stewart then it would be entirely appropriate to call Trump “Fuckface Von Clownstick” on a regular basis. However if its someone like Tom Hanks then it wouldn’t work at all. (I’m not endorsing either candidate, although I wouldn’t mind Stewart giving it a go) Its not about “going high” or “going low” but about, as I said before, having integrity. And that means being true to whomever you were before you got the nomination. Imagine Obama calling Trump “Sex Offender Donald.” I don’t think he could do it. And I mean literally. Its not even clever. It would look like Janet trying to be mean on “The Good Place.” The words simply wouldn’t come out.
…Obama would have to use his Anger Translator.
Judging from the thread, I really think that Booker needs serious consideration. If “tied to Wall Street” is the worst we get, he’s pretty solid. As absurd as it is, I actually think he suffers from an attitude that “we already had an articulate, good looking, light skinned black guy.”
But Booker, in my opinion, has the gravitas to inspire people. As far as I know, he’s scandal free. And he’s not too old.
And he once saved somebody from a burning building - it’s gold!
Bolding is mine.
Finding a strategy that will play in Texas is irrelevant to a Democrat defeating Trump in 2020.
Finding a strategy that will win in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida is the only way Trump will be defeated in 2020. Texas remains a pipe dream.
Seeing how most Democrats STILL don’t understand that simple fact makes me more and more certain everyday that we are doomed.
Yeah, ties to Wall Street - that’s the kiss of death. I mean, if there’s anything the last election proved, it’s that the appearance of being rich and all is a deathblow.
Any talk saying any particular Democrat CANNOT beat Trump reminds me that the same was said of him and Hillary…
I read it correctly. So instead of Trump being a lackey or a foil or a lapdog, Trump is Putin’s “bitch.” IOW, being subservient to Putin makes him a female, and also a female dog.
No. It makes him subservient. Why are you reading gender or animal kingdom affiliation into it?
While I agree that that’s the original etymology, I suspect that the specific usage is in reference to prison lingo, where someone is made to be the sexual submissive of a dominant partner, possibly against their will.
Yeah that guy whose name you can’t even remember totally won over the guy that went on to become president. Go with that.
A calm, competent, moderate, centrist Dem could defeat Trump easily, IMHO. Hickenlooper or some other generic governor type. Doesn’t need to be all the way toward the middle as Jim Webb, but he needs to be clearly not a leftist, and clearly a serious person.
I doubt they will nominate someone like that, though. It’ll be Harris or someone like that, and Trump will win.(Assuming he runs, which I don’t think is a given. Pence or Haley would beat Harris, too).
Yep, we all know who can win the general election. Question is, will the Dem nominate any of those?
These kind of “we all know who would win” predictions are nuts. We don’t know. Certainly not this early. We didn’t know in 2014 about '16, and we don’t know now.
[QUOTE=chargerrich;21095862
Kamala Harris - She punches a lot of the boxes you want to see in terms of her race, gender, location (California Dollars) and I like that she was an AG.[/QUOTE]
Kamala Harris is an empty suit filled by Willie Brown. She hasn’t done much herself. Just filling those boxes shouldn’t substitute for accomplishments.
She got 62% in a state where D voters are a higher percentage of the electorate (and she ran against another Democrat; the Republican candidate didn’t make it to the general election).
She really isn’t that popular here.
When she ran for AG of CA, and her opponent was a Republican, she barely beat him. It’s rare these days to see a Democrat not win decisively in a state-wide race here.