IGX

If the Democrats are smart they'll learn from the 1992 and 2008 GOP - obstruct when possible and let the incumbent party deal with the mess that will be 2018 or 2020.

milosz wrote:No more than the Republicans were in 2008 or the Democrats in 2000 or the Republicans in 1992 (remember Dan Quayle's lol primary run?) etc. etc.

The Democrats have a few good bench options that weren't ready or pushed out this time - Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown, Tammy Duckworth, Liz Warren all of whom would have infinitely more outsider/populist credibility than Hillary. Who even as flawed as she was won the popular vote and without Comey or with Rust Belt campaigning would be President.

It will be interesting. Harris is the only one with any significant government leadership experience and I can't imagine the BlackLivesMatters crowd will be happy with her nomination.

Significant experience appears to no longer be a requirement. Obama was Senator for four years, Trump has never been the city dog catcher. Everyone on that list will have far more experience than either of them.

milosz wrote:Significant experience appears to no longer be a requirement. Obama was Senator for four years, Trump has never been the city dog catcher. Everyone on that list will have far more experience than either of them.

Trump has significant executive leadership experience. None of the candidates you mention do except Harris. Lots of arguments about the quality of that experience though.

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:Significant experience appears to no longer be a requirement. Obama was Senator for four years, Trump has never been the city dog catcher. Everyone on that list will have far more experience than either of them.

Trump has significant executive leadership experience.

You're implying context isn't relevant. You can be a really good military command officer and a terrible businessman.

The only option for "significant executive leadership" is a governorship (unless you count business, which we literally never have before) - essentially just as many Presidents had been Senators as governors. By the time 2020 rolls around, Brown will have been a Senator for over a decade; Duckworth will have military leadership, a stint in the House and a couple of years in the Senate; Warren a full-term Senator with prior governmental experience.

If anything, Harris would be the least 'experienced' of that possible group.

There are other options like the San Antonio twins whose names I can never remember (though I'd expect one to try to shift Texas bluer with a Senate seat or governorship first).

There have rarely been obvious 'party leaders' in a party out of power - even then, in situations like the Democrats holding so much of Congress under Reagan/Bush I, nothing ever came of that leadership. We weren't going to have President Tip O'Neill.

Linda McMahon of the WWE for commerce secretary

Jeff Probst for Secretary of the Interior?

The Dnc need a top to bottom purge to represent the members interests. . Until that happens? . The same shitty hand picked political insiders.

The Rnc and their super shitty southern strategy has been vindictive step which means they are about to become the anti science, anti education party

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/rya ... re-in-2017

This is what the disgruntled whites were voting for, right?

Upside is that it breaks their hold on old people (think SS privatization under Bush and the ensuing midterm) if they're dumb enough to pursue it.

Had a senior citizen tell me how great Ryan was a year or so ago. He didn't like it when I told him he wanted to cut his social security and veterans benefits so he might want to reconsider who he thought was a great politician.

From the WSJ article on Priebus's appointment as Chief of Staff:
"“Bannon is going to be keeper of the image of Trump as a fighter against the status quo, and Reince is going to utilize his personal connections with the speaker and others, to make the trains run on time,” said Ken Blackwell, a former Ohio state official and a member of the Trump transition team."

I hope someone tells Ken where that phrase comes from.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

milosz wrote:Significant experience appears to no longer be a requirement. Obama was Senator for four years, Trump has never been the city dog catcher. Everyone on that list will have far more experience than either of them.

Trump has significant executive leadership experience.

You're implying context isn't relevant. You can be a really good military command officer and a terrible businessman.[/quote]
Not at all, but your taking that quote out of context is telling.

milosz wrote:The only option for "significant executive leadership" is a governorship (unless you count business, which we literally never have before) - essentially just as many Presidents had been Senators as governors. By the time 2020 rolls around, Brown will have been a Senator for over a decade; Duckworth will have military leadership, a stint in the House and a couple of years in the Senate; Warren a full-term Senator with prior governmental experience.

If anything, Harris would be the least 'experienced' of that possible group.

There are other options like the San Antonio twins whose names I can never remember (though I'd expect one to try to shift Texas bluer with a Senate seat or governorship first).

There have rarely been obvious 'party leaders' in a party out of power - even then, in situations like the Democrats holding so much of Congress under Reagan/Bush I, nothing ever came of that leadership. We weren't going to have President Tip O'Neill.

Any future Democrat president will need to reform bureaucracies to get progressive plans to work, and that's hard to do without experience. Obama's failure to do so is one of the things that doomed Hillary and Obamacare. Simply being in Congress doesn't count, although Warren would probably have an easy time recruiting experts from the Ivies.

As a straight white male beyond the draft age, thus immune to the worst-case scenarios of a Trump admin aside from Great Recession 2.0, I'm settling in to just enjoy this shit show for a while.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... iser-purge

powerlifter54 wrote:

milosz wrote:Obama didn't throw any bones.

You seriously need to get your news from other sources. Either that or you don't care to tell the truth - maybe both.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ompromise/

I mean, pages and pages and pages and pages of Obama compromises in 8 years in office. Pages and pages and pages. But, your Facebook feed tells you otherwise so it must be true.

You have the intellectual/political curiosity of a styrofoam cup of night crawlers.

Yes I Have Balls wrote: You have the intellectual/political curiosity of a styrofoam cup of night crawlers.

if nothing else, fresh invective is welcome

So, are chucklefucks like this ever going to express dismay and disappointment, or will it just be a stream of excuses?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... 8e341149b0

Highlights:
"[Obama] and his surrogates, including Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) here in Missouri, promised back in 2012 that there would be huge infrastructure projects, producing thousands of “shovel-ready jobs.” They never materialized." - I'll spare everyone the links to infrastructure projects defeated by Congress

"the way the Justice Department simply ignored laws like the Defense of Marriage Act that were disliked by the current administration." - impressively, he manages to not use "states rights" in the same essay where he bitches about ignoring DOMA. I'll grant him that.

"This is supposed to be a government of the people — not of the banks, lobbyists and foreign donors." - How does he feel about Jamie Dimon? Rudy Giuliani's lobbying for foreign interests? Trump's campaign soliciting foreign donors?

"You focused on spurious issues like genderless bathrooms and celebrity sex changes." - wait, who passed laws and led protests about bathroom usage?

And the piece de resistance?

"How would the person seated next to you in a New York City television studio know? Seriously, you should get out more." - New York City television studio, like the set of the Apprentice.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:

milosz wrote:Obama didn't throw any bones.

You seriously need to get your news from other sources. Either that or you don't care to tell the truth - maybe both.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ompromise/

I mean, pages and pages and pages and pages of Obama compromises in 8 years in office. Pages and pages and pages. But, your Facebook feed tells you otherwise so it must be true.

You have the intellectual/political curiosity of a styrofoam cup of night crawlers.

So you say. Where were you getting your information that Hilliary had an insurmountable lead in the EC and had a 99 chance of winning? I submit your sources are at least inept, and worst case close minded to the realities of math. My Trump is going to win prediction wavered only once, and that was when your sources reported a 12 point Trump deficit. Upon further review, it was never that. He was never behind, and he ran a great campaign with an even better and data targeted ground game than Hilliary and at least the equal of Obama's.

And let's just ruminate on Mr Obama's desperate campaigning the last couple weeks. "He is not going to be President", " You need to save my legacy", "I take it as a personal insult if you don't support Hilliary". He and his 8 years were soundly sent packing.

You may need to reconsider your sources. Because they let you down. But that is what happens when you trust websites.

Enjoy the next 8 years.

Wait, that's your response to citations about bipartisan efforts, incoherent babbling about getting polls wrong?

I think I was grading you too harshly on the ignorance/deception thing.