Well I think you’re wrong. The difference is, I don’t call you or your ideas “silly.” I think a white guy from the south with a high-ranking military career would be an asset in getting the votes needed to take down Trump. Hence suggestion of McRaven. Disagree all you want but take your fucking patronizing jabs somewhere else.
Ok.
I dont want the Dem party to be a absolute gun right party. I want them to recognize that the 2nd Ad is the law of the land, and propose moderate things, like instant ID, banning bump stocks, etc.
The news? Manipulated and is of course one of the reasons for mass shooting so people can get their fame. We could ban all coverage of shooters names. But that would push vs the 1stAd, eh?
In our memory there have been six Democrat Presidents. Four of which have been White Southern Boys. The Dems have done very well with white southern boys.
With the exception of JFK, who we must admit was a outlier, all successful Dem candidates have been from the Rust belt or the South.
Thus the idea of running a Californian or a Easterner is wrong.
Note that Biden is a rustbelter.
So in order to win, we need a white southerner or rustbelter. And a black veep, who certainly shoudl be female. Even tho I think Harris is a cruddy Pres candidate, she wouldnt be bad as Veep. Duckworth would be fine also. Hirono?
Biden (Or Kaine)/Harris or Duckworth
White/black
Old/young
Rustbelter/ CA or more rustbelt.
Moderate/ progressive.
Giffords isn’t anti-2nd Amendment. She’s for reasonable limits and safeguards. Plus, she’s at the bottom of the ticket, so Biden’s views are the more important. Although she is important with the older Biden considering we’d probably want her to take charge in 2024 (oh my God, that year sounds like a time where we should have flying cars! Surreal…).
Anyway, I was just gonna suggest Duckworth as a potentially even better option. Good lefty cred as well as military cred, probably won’t lose the Dem. seat if she runs, woman, and a minority. Mm, I like it.
Ok, sounds good.
If this were true, we would HAVE more gun control and we would have had it 10 years ago. Anyway, gun control, gun rights, whatever you want to call them, they shouldn’t be an issue in this upcoming election, any Democrat who gets asked about them should answer the way Steve Bullock did in that video. The word “ban” should not ever come up. If it’s introduced by an interviewer or debate moderator, a good politician should be able to deflect it and move on to something else.
Also nobody should ever utter the words “Tim Kaine” ever again, unless there’s, like, a cave filled with gold guarded by a genie who asks you for the password, and the password for some reason is “Tim Kaine.” He is not going to be President, he’s not going to be Vice President…in discussions recollecting the 2016 election, I’ve had numerous people literally not be able to remember his name.
Very much unlike McRaven, whose name is so badass that it actually sounds like a villain in a 90s action movie…or some kind of twisted McDonald’s menu item, but let’s not even go there. He definitely has possibilities, I think. Look, if he won the nomination, how many Democrats are really - I mean really - going to say, “you know, he’s not exactly the kind of candidate I would prefer, so I think I won’t vote in this election”? None, that’s how many. On the other hand, he probably would be able to sway some conservatives away from Trump.
There’s no way in hell that McRaven could get “swiftboated”, he’s not like John Kerry, a guy who had a relatively brief stint in the military and then joined the anti-war movement. McRaven is a SEAL Admiral, he was the commander of Joint Special Operations Command for two years, you cannot get more credentialed than that. But does he even want to run for political office?
Also, on a different topic, I don’t think that a candidate has to come from the Rust Belt or South, to appeal to the Rust Belt or South. Where did this idea come from? Trump isn’t from the Rust Belt or the South, but he appealed to them. As long as someone is a good speaker, can get people energized and make them feel like he cares about them and wants them to have better lives, and has charisma, he can influence any demographic of people, regardless of where they live.
I admit that LeBron running for President is a silly suggestion. It was meant in response to the suggestion of Dwayne Johnson. And my point, however badly made, was not that LeBron will be ready for the job in two years, if ever, but that a beloved local figure from a Great Lakes city like Cleveland makes sense demographically. Find me the equivalent of LeBron in politics.
But Happy laid out a case for McRaven and it was basically that Happy didn’t know what he even stood for, but liked how he gave a speech. Wow.
Anyway, I’m sorry. It really doesn’t matter that he’s from Texas. I think this thread has us chasing the wrong premise.
At this point, there are probably two things that can beat Trump: Trump himself or economic downturn. The election will be a referendum on the incumbent.
So, don’t nominate the candidate that can somehow persuade voters to vote Democrat; the challenging candidate in the general may be almost irrelevant to the final tally. Instead, nominate the candidate who can if victorious nurture a good enough state of affairs that it brings credit to the Democratic Party. Nominate the candidate whose legacy wins future elections.
What do you mean by that?
I mean that in the USA, Presidential elections generally follow the economy. Trump would have to be really alienating to voters to even lose if the economy is in expansion the next two years, and I hope he is nowhere near charismatic enough to win if it goes into contraction.
The election won’t be won by picking the right candidate (although the wrong candidate, like a Barry Goldwater, might lose an election). It will be decided by swing voters’ optimism or pessimism about the incumbent.
:eek: :smack:
So, he’s an assassin. Because that’s what SEAL teams are. Assassins for Uncle Sam. Not soldiers, not marines, only technically sailors; rather, surgical strike forces. Assassins, just under a fancy label. Y’all want to run an assassin, and a commander of assassins.
What would this nomination gain you? How would that even work demographically? How does the Democratic Party base rally around that? Does “Uncle Sam’s assassin,” sound like it fits the general type of base Democratic voter you need to appeal to? Is that the answer for the supposed anti-Fascism party? You tell me.
And if (somehow) he won, what kind of bizarre foreign relations would his administration have? “Oh, yes, premier, sorry I directed the hit on your cousin.” Are you trying to give us an American Putin?
Let’s hope not, or that if he does, it’s as a Republican. :shudder:
And you need to learn that anyone can be swiftboated. Just joining the Democratic Party is enough.
Horseshit.
I’m sorry, maybe it’s different in other parts of the country; but from what I can see, within the pool of potential Democratic voters, it seems like on one hand you have some veterans, you have people who work for military suppliers, but then you have anti-war people, you have followers of just war theory, and you have guys like Bill Clinton who just “loathe the military.” It’s hard enough to keep them all showing up without reminding some of them that they don’t actually like the military very much. A Navy man might be OK. A Navy man who actually commanded the SEAL Teams? I’m not sure that keeps any enthusiasm up on the more pacifistic side of the base.
It’s not horseshit! It’s literally the job.
Were the guys who saved Captain Philips assassins? Were the guys who rescued the kid from the cave in Thailand assassins? They perform a job, sometimes it involves killing people, sometimes it involves rescuing people, or training other troops, or gathering intelligence, or assisting other countries in developing their own military capability…in any case, I think the majority of the American electorate has the capability to compartmentalize McRaven the candidate from McRaven the deliverer of death. But again, we have no actual indication that he’s even going to run. I don’t know what his politics are. His Wikipedia says he spent 37 years in the Navy, if I had to spend 37 years in anything, I think my preference upon leaving would be to never have any kind of responsibility for anything ever again, but that’s just me.
Wow. It’s like you don’t fully read. You see what you want and then shoot your mouth off and think you’re the smartest guy in the room.
Any soldier that goes into combat is being sent to kill folk. Assassins are killing the ones who are (generally) more dedicated to the beliefs of the organizations. The soldiers are usually just killing normal people who may have been conscripted, simply needed a paycheck, etc.
Not to say that I agree with your description that SEALs operate principally as assassins, but I think your idea that somehow an assassin is more flawed than a regular soldier doesn’t bear much scrutiny, if we’re accepting that killing folks is the name of the game either way.
McRaven seems fine to me. As a centrist, I’d vote for him over Trump by several thousand miles. And given that Trump seems to be cowed by high-level military types, I think that anyone in that mold will fare better in a debate with him.
Bullock, for example, might get drawn down into the muck by Trump and end up looking like he’s not able to keep his head about him. A military sort, I think, would do better at simply standing quiet and dignified and letting Trump say untruthful and bigoted things.
Granted, it’s hard to know in advance and this is all just stereotyping.
Is this…Poe’s Law?
The opponent can’t just let Trump say that shit, he has to call him out on it really effectively. I don’t know if intimidating anger or calm and smooth sarcasm would throw him off more. I’m guessing the former, actually. He doesn’t seem to be rattled by humor, but I think he could be knocked down a few pegs by the right kind of intimidating demeanor.