Democratic Primary Fucktussle!

[JackLuis]

As Jay Inslee drops out of 2020 race, applause and gratitude for elevating climate crisis to ‘forefront of the national conversation’

After Washington Gov. Jay Inslee announced Wednesday night that he is dropping out of the 2020 presidential race, climate campaigners expressed gratitude for his visionary environmental agenda and his efforts to elevate the planetary emergency to the center of the Democratic primary contest.

“We’ll miss you in this race, Jay Inslee,” tweeted Varshini Prakash, executive director of the Sunrise Movement, the youth-led climate group that Inslee cited as a key inspiration behind his campaign. “Thank you for setting the pace for our elected leaders on the climate crisis, running a historic campaign, and elevating this issue for all of us. We know this isn’t the end of our work together.”

Starting to fall away.

 

[JackLuis]

John Hickenlooper is running for US Senate

Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper has decided to run for the U.S. Senate in 2020, several sources with knowledge of his plans said Wednesday.

“Hick has been making calls to various elected officials telling them he’s running, and asking for their support,” said one Democratic insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Other candidates vying for Gardner’s seat include Alice Madden, Angela Williams, Andrew Romanoff, Mike Johnston, Dan Baer, John Walsh, Lorena Garcia, Trish Zornio, Stephany Rose Spaulding, Michelle Ferrigno Warren and Diana Bray. Colorado is one of five states (Idaho, Indiana, Virginia and Pennsylvania) that have never elected a woman governor or U.S. senator.

From one of twenty five to one of twelve, he's making progress!

 

[YDB95]

I sure wish Steve Bullock would follow Hick's lead on that one.

 

[magicalmoments]

So... Which fucktussle will be the most entertaining: Democrats or Republican?

I'm picking the most laughs will come from the Republicans. Trump will surely tear his party apart to get the nomination.

Let's hope there is at least one republican with the nuts to put his/her hand up.

 

[JackLuis]

Perhaps Dump would chronicle the Rethuglican mess for us so we don't have to read BrightFart and the like?

The Grand Old Party torn apart internally by quivering cowards, sounds like a plan?????

Where will they find a doddering old fool to fill the role of New Ronnie?

Perhaps Grassley will fill in?

 

[JackLuis]

ABC News announces details for 3rd Democratic primary debate

Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos, "World News Tonight" Anchor David Muir, ABC News Correspondent Linsey Davis and Univision Anchor Jorge Ramos will moderate the debate on Thursday and, if necessary, Friday.

So far, 10 candidates have qualified for the third round of debates, according to an ABC News analysis of publicly released information and pending verification by the DNC after the qualifying deadline, including:
Former Vice President Joe Biden
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro
California Sen. Kamala Harris
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang

In order to qualify for the September debate, candidates must cross both the polling and grassroots funding thresholds. Candidates must receive 2% or more support in at least four national polls, or polls conducted in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and/or Nevada and publicly released between June 28 and August 28.

Well this should be fun!

 

[JackLuis]

How Elizabeth Warren works the political system

She has an approach that involves identifying ways to make progress and focusing relentlessly on achieving them.

I get a little annoyed by trendy, overused terms like “theory of change” that always seem to me more like after-the-fact justifications for how leaders manage to succeed than a premeditated idea. But you can build that thread with Elizabeth Warren, and take some lessons from her approach to politics, a combination of quiet bureaucratic skill, persistence, and the leverage of grassroots coalitions as outside muscle.

None of this is particularly innovative, but what sets Warren apart is that she uses the levers of power available to politicians with a platform in Washington. She recognizes that the position of U.S. senator allows for more than just what you vote on or what amendment you can write, and it can be worked to achieve progress in ways large and small.

In short she is effective and hard working, unlike feckless Biden and others.

Liz 2020 and 2024!

 

[YDB95]

The problem with complete strategies is, that often they have to be implemented as a whole, in order to work. The individual details normally rely on the complete package to be successful; they won't do any good on their own.

How much of the bigger plan will remain, when support from the majority is required? Will it still be any good, ending up as a stripped-down version, full of exceptions and concessions?

Fair point, but I think it's about time the left starts playing the long game. If only parts can get enacted under a President Warren, the rest can still come later.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "And yet you can't point to a single example of them saying what you claimed they said."

All you have to do is to look at the impeachment votes in the House & Senate! The Democrats OVERWHELMINGLY said (with their votes) that Bill Clinton's perjury was no big deal! They all ACCEPTED the fact that he'd lied under oath in an effort to block a sexual harassment investigation against himself, along with engaging in oral sex in the Oval Office (and lying about that, as well!) They simply didn't care!

"And one distasteful comment is just that. It's not an entire political party saying, well, anything."

I give you examples and you dismiss them, saying only weirdos defended Bill Clinton's behavior. And, now that I think about it, YOU'RE CORRECT!

"Harvey Weinstein was never president. Sorry to be the one to break it to you."

No, he was not - Harvey was simply a Hollywood power-broker who contributed heavily to the campaigns of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, & Hillary Clinton, and he ALSO contributed a LOT of money to Planned Parenthood! And, until the women he'd sexually harrassed in began coming forward in droves, the Democratic Party LOVED the guy! But now, like Jussie Smollett, he is an embarrassment to them!

"No matter how much you'd like to believe it, the conditions of 2016 will not be replicated next year under any circumstances."

There's a longstanding pattern here - when Republican presidents run for re-election, they do MUCH BETTER the second time around! Reagan won MORE states, MORE electoral votes, and 10,552,242 MORE popular votes in 1984 than he'd won in 1980! George W. Bush won MORE states, MORE electoral votes, and 11,577,160 MORE popular votes in 2004 than he'd won in 2000. I could say the same thing about Nixon in '72!

With Democrat presidents the exact opposite is true! Bill Clinton won FEWER states in 1996 than he'd won in 1992! Barack Obama won FEWER states, FEWER electoral votes, and 3,580,921 FEWER popular votes in 2012 than he'd won in 2008! If Trump was a Democrat, I'd agree with you that his future chances were NOT GOOD! But as we both know, he's a Republican - and he'll do WAY BETTER in 2020 than he did in '16!

 

[Dumpington]

magicalmoments writes: "I'm picking the most laughs will come from the Republicans. Trump will surely tear his party apart to get the nomination."

Trump won't have to lift a finger to secure the G.O.P. 2020 nomination. It's already his for the asking.

JackLuis writes: "Perhaps Dump would chronicle the Rethuglican mess for us so we don't have to read BrightFart and the like?"

I'm not sure I know what you mean by a "Rethuglican mess," Jack - I seriously don't see any serious obstacles standing in Trump's way. The last incumbent Republican party president to lose his re-election bid was George H.W. Bush in 1992, who received a SERIOUS challenge from Pat Buchanan for the G.O.P. nomination, followed by a VERY SERIOUS third-party challenge from Ross Perot in November! None of that is repeating itself today!

 

[JackLuis]

JackLuis writes: "Perhaps Dump would chronicle the Rethuglican mess for us so we don't have to read BrightFart and the like?"

I'm not sure I know what you mean by a "Rethuglican mess," Jack - I seriously don't see any serious obstacles standing in Trump's way. The last incumbent Republican party president to lose his re-election bid was George H.W. Bush in 1992, who received a SERIOUS challenge from Pat Buchanan for the G.O.P. nomination, followed by a VERY SERIOUS third-party challenge from Ross Perot in November! None of that is repeating itself today!

Dump, you do the reporting and the GOP will provide the clusterfuck!

Mike Pence and Nikki Haley battled for attention at a GOP donor retreat: report

They have pushed back aggressively on claims that they are challenging one another for control, with Haley aggressively denying rumors that Trump was interested in swapping her in to replace Pence on the 2020 ticket.

But behind closed doors, a rivalry is beginning to bloom. According to Politico, the two politicians competed with one another for attention at a GOP retreat for wealthy donors in Aspen, Colorado.

According to the report, “The assembled group of governors, high-dollar donors, and operatives were well aware that the two have big ambitions; to some it seemed as if Pence and Haley, who spoke on back-to-back days, were vying for their attention. Some in the audience found themselves parsing and comparing the two speeches and buzzed they were getting a sneak preview of a 2024 Republican primary. Others recalled something peculiar: Neither Pence nor Haley acknowledged each other in their presentations, even though they gave shout-outs to others attending the retreat.”

It is hard to say who will become the GOP’s standard bearer when Trump is gone. But already, it is clear that battle lines are being drawn for that day.

There are others sure to come out of the woodwork like the worms.

 

[Dumpington]

JackLuis writes: "It is hard to say who will become the GOP’s standard bearer when Trump is gone. But already, it is clear that battle lines are being drawn for that day."

I can't argue with you there, Jack!

But I'm not going to even begin looking at 2024 until AFTER next year! A whole lot can happen between now and then to change the dynamic! Right now, I'm guessing that Vice President Mike Pence has the inside track five years down the road, just as Joe Biden does right now in the Democratic Party's race.

"Gropin' Joe" has the status of a starter nominee - a candidate whom voters can glom onto while they search for someone who better suits their values. “I did not meet one Biden voter who was in any way, shape or form excited about voting for Biden,” said Monmouth University Polling Institute head Patrick Murray, who recently released a poll (giving Joe a significant lead in Iowa) to The New York Times. “They feel that they have to vote for Joe Biden as the centrist candidate, to keep somebody from the left who they feel is unelectable from getting the nomination.” JoAnn Hardy, who heads the Cerro Gordo County Democrats, concurred, telling that same newspaper: “He’s doing OK, but I think a lot of his initial strength has been name recognition. As the voters get to meet the other candidates, he may be surpassed soon. I would not be surprised.”

The frontrunner’s wife, Dr. Jill Biden, made a revealing pass at this argument earlier this week, telling New Hampshire voters: “You know you may like another candidate better but you have to look at who’s going to win... So yes, you know, your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election, and maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘Okay, I personally like so-and-so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

This is not exactly the stuff of which inspiring campaigns are made. Biden and his supporters are trying to create a binary choice: Vote for Joe and beat Trump, or don’t vote for Joe and lose. Biden and his surrogates have gone to great lengths to make the argument that he is the only candidate who is guaranteed to beat the president in such a contest, but like most election-year promises, that's just wishful thinking. The fact is, early polling indications of that sort mean NOTHING in the long run. Despite what Jill Biden says, whatever candidate gets the most voters to the polls on primary day will be the candidate facing Trump. Deep down, most Democrats already know this, and that’s probably better for just about everyone’s future, except maybe Joe Biden’s.

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "And yet you can't point to a single example of them saying what you claimed they said."

All you have to do is to look at the impeachment votes in the House & Senate! The Democrats OVERWHELMINGLY said (with their votes) that Bill Clinton's perjury was no big deal! They all ACCEPTED the fact that he'd lied under oath in an effort to block a sexual harassment investigation against himself, along with engaging in oral sex in the Oval Office (and lying about that, as well!) They simply didn't care!

Even if it were that simple, that's still not what you said in the first place. You're moving the goalposts, as usual.

"And one distasteful comment is just that. It's not an entire political party saying, well, anything."

I give you examples and you dismiss them, saying only weirdos defended Bill Clinton's behavior. And, now that I think about it, YOU'RE CORRECT!

Singular, Dump. You gave one example of one person I've otherwise never heard of. Not examples. One example.

"No matter how much you'd like to believe it, the conditions of 2016 will not be replicated next year under any circumstances."

There's a longstanding pattern here - when Republican presidents run for re-election, they do MUCH BETTER the second time around!

I've already debunked that one repeatedly. The last four times an incumbent president has run for reelection, the incumbent's vote total went up twice, and down twice - once each for each party. Which is all beside the point anyway. Those other times you listed weren't with Trump.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Even if it were that simple, that's still not what you said in the first place. You're moving the goalposts, as usual."

MY point is that the Democratic Party and its media allies fully supported Bill Clinton's very questionable presidential behavior as being not worthy of impeachment. But now, with a tiny fraction of evidence, many of them are willing to impeach President Trump! Talk about "moving the goalposts!"

"Singular, Dump. You gave one example of one person I've otherwise never heard of. Not examples. One example"

And you discarded my one example, didn't you? I could offer you dozens more, and you would discard them all, as well. They don't support your narrative.

"The last four times an incumbent president has run for reelection, the incumbent's vote total went up twice, and down twice - once each for each party."

In the past half-century, SEVEN elected U.S. presidents have run for re-election - FIVE of them succeeded (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush, & Obama), while TWO of them (Carter & G.H.W. Bush) did not!

THREE of the above-mentioned candidates received FEWER popular votes (and also won fewer states & fewer electoral votes) the second time around: Jimmy Carter, G.H.W. Bush (Bush-41), & Barack Obama! In fairness to Carter & Bush-41, they both faced STRONG third-party challengers (in '80 & '92), whereas Obama did NOT! Why Barack did so poorly with his 2008 base four years later remains a mystery!

 

[JackLuis]

‘The Mooch’ attended Biden fundraiser in the Hamptons — because Trump ‘has lost his mind’

Former White House press secretary Anthony Scaramucci attended a fundraiser for former Vice President Joe Biden on Saturday.

CBS News reporter Ben Mitchell posted a photo of Scaramucci at the event, and subsequently interviewed “The Mooch.”

Scaramucci said he was still a registered Republican, but added that Trump “has lost his mind.”

Are you sure he had one to begin with, Mooch?

 

[BotanyBoy]

How Elizabeth Warren works the political system



In short she is effective and hard working, unlike feckless Biden and others.

Liz 2020 and 2024!

Or just say not to socialism, it's anti-American.

 

[magicalmoments]

Or just say not to socialism, it's anti-American.

Socialism! Anti American? How come trump is so keen on a controlled economy, even to the point of telling companies who they can and cannot trade with? He'll be nationalising those who don't conform next.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Socialism! Anti American? How come trump is so keen on a controlled economy, even to the point of telling companies who they can and cannot trade with? He'll be nationalising those who don't conform next.

Maybe he will say something about it.

Good thing he has no authority to do any of those things.

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "Even if it were that simple, that's still not what you said in the first place. You're moving the goalposts, as usual."

MY point is that the Democratic Party and its media allies fully supported Bill Clinton's very questionable presidential behavior as being not worthy of impeachment. But now, with a tiny fraction of evidence, many of them are willing to impeach President Trump! Talk about "moving the goalposts!"

If that is what you meant, then you should have said that. What you DID say was: the president's supporters defended his behavior in the White House by saying that if his wife was OK with it then it's none of our business, and also that everybody lies under oath about sex! And you still haven't been able to point to a single person who actually said that. You've offered up examples of saying other dumb things (which, again, sounded to me like a joke), and you've switched gears to, "yeah, well, they said it wasn't worthy of impeachment". Which is true, but it's not what you said.

"Singular, Dump. You gave one example of one person I've otherwise never heard of. Not examples. One example"

And you discarded my one example, didn't you? I could offer you dozens more, and you would discard them all, as well. They don't support your narrative.

I discarded your one example because 1) she didn't say anything remotely like what you claimed the Democrats said, and 2) she wasn't an elected official. In other words, it was YOUR narrative that your example didn't support!

"The last four times an incumbent president has run for reelection, the incumbent's vote total went up twice, and down twice - once each for each party."

In the past half-century, SEVEN elected U.S. presidents have run for re-election - FIVE of them succeeded (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush, & Obama), while TWO of them (Carter & G.H.W. Bush) did not!

The farther back you go, the less relevance the political landscape at the time has with the current one. More than three elections or so, and it really bears no resemblance at all. That's why I stick with the past two times for each, since that only goes back to 1992 (which is already pushing it as far as relevance is concerned, but that's still only half as far back as you're going). So while what you said here is technically accurate, it's also completely irrelevant.

And there's no mystery as to why Obama's numbers slipped a bit in 2012: the economy was still in a slump thanks to the Republicans sabotaging his every effort at improving it. But he still won, and thus was able to oversee our recovery from the worst economic downturn since the 1930s. And the Republicans have still only won the popular vote once in the past seven elections. If I were a betting man, I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about Trump's chances given that.

 

[magicalmoments]

Someone should stage an intervention on Biden. He's not the one.
In two years his dementia will be worse than trumps and worse than reagans was in his last term.
The sooner it happens the better off the democrats will be.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Someone should stage an intervention on Biden. He's not the one.
In two years his dementia will be worse than trumps and worse than reagans was in his last term.
The sooner it happens the better off the democrats will be.

Yea... run one of the woke socialist so that Trump wins a second term!! LOL

 

[icanhelp1]

Fair point, but I think it's about time the left starts playing the long game. If only parts can get enacted under a President Warren, the rest can still come later.

The Democrats have been playing the long game since Jan 20, 1977, a plan to convert our constitutional republic into an authoritarian socialist state. Warren and her freebie economic policies would completely destroy our economy.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "If that is what you meant, then you should have said that."

You obviously weren't around in the late 1990, when the Democrats (and their media allies) were making every excuse under the sun as to why Bill's behavior with Monica Lewinsky wasn't anything serious! But today they're busy sweeping all of those old, pre-Harvey-Weinsten opinions under the rug! Current Democratic Party presidential candidate (and U.S. Senator) Kirsten Gillibrand was asked by The New York Times if President Clinton should have resigned over the Lewinsky affair. "Yes, I think that would have been the appropriate response," she answered. Only Bill & Hillary were upset with her reply!

Back in '92, during Bill's first presidential run, most media outlets ignored those honest allegations by Gennifer Flowers that she'd had a 12-year relationship with candidate Clinton. After a protracted legal struggle, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement with Paula Jones in her own sexual harassment lawsuit against the president, and Bill's license to practice law was suspended for five years. Kathleen Willey accused Clinton of groping her in the Oval Office. Democrats and their media allies mostly ridiculed Jones and ignored Willey. Dolly Kyle recently published a book about her long affair with Clinton. Over the years, the names of other women involved with “Slick Willie” have also surfaced. Everybody knew what Clinton was doing, and everybody chose to look the other way!

Feminist icon Gloria Steinhem insisted that Clinton's defense of abortion rights was more important than the imbalance of power between himself and White House intern Monica Lewinsky. "If all the sexual allegations now swirling around the White House turn out to be true, President Clinton may be a candidate for sex addiction therapy," she wrote in the New York Times in 1998. "But feminists will still have been right to resist pressure by the right wing and the media to call for his resignation or impeachment."

But that kind of thinking changed in the post Harvey Weinstein era - there was actually a headline in The New York Times reading: "I Believe Juanita" - by liberal columnist Michelle Goldberg. Broaddrick had accused the former president of raping her while he was attorney general of Arkansas.

Atlantic magazine writer Caitlin Flanagan recently wrote the following about the Clinton scandals: "The Democratic Party needs to make its own reckoning of the way it protected Bill Clinton... The party was on the wrong side of history, and there are consequences for that." She continued: "The party needs to come to terms with the fact that it was so enraptured by their brilliant, Big Dog president and his stunning string of progressive accomplishments that it abandoned some of its central principles."

"And there's no mystery as to why Obama's numbers slipped a bit in 2012: the economy was still in a slump thanks to the Republicans sabotaging his every effort at improving it."

Nonsense - in 2010, Barack Obama almost-single-handedly DESTROYED his own party's HUGE majorities in the U.S. House & Senate with his badly-flawed health care legislation - the Dems losing 63-House & 6-Senate seats! Barack's was a WEAK presidency, and everybody knew it! 3,580,921 of own voters ABANDONED him in 2012! But that was a nice attempt at re-writing history!

 

[JKendallDane]

Nonsense - in 2010, Barack Obama almost-single-handedly DESTROYED his own party's HUGE majorities in the U.S. House & Senate with his badly-flawed health care legislation

And yet...nine years later...the ACA still consistently maintains a substantially higher approval rating across America than 45 does.

I'm sure that has something to do with the GOP screeching "repeal and replace" for nearly a full decade but never managing to actually come up with anything. Even with 45 having control of both houses of Congress for two years...and the infamous "super secret plan" he would implement on day one...the ACA, even with its flaws, is far superior to anything the GOP has put on the table.

But hey, Rick "never met a Medicare fraud scheme I didn't love" Scott is allegedly working up something that will magically fix it. All he has to do is figure out how to structure it so he and his wife get a cut.

.

 

[Dumpington]

JKendallDane writes: "And yet...nine years later...the ACA still consistently maintains a substantially higher approval rating across America than 45 does."

May favorite thing about the ACA was how it DESTROYED Democratic Party power in both the House & Senate, J-Kendall - I mean, who can ever forget the Democrats losing 63-House & 6-Senate seats in 2010? President Trump's Republican-controlled U.S. Senate is what got both Neil Gorsuch & Brett Kavanaugh onto the U.S. Supreme Court! And hopefully he'll get a THIRD high-court justice confirmed by early 2020!

But yes, you are still seemingly enraptured by those polls saying that Hillary would win in 2016, and that are now promising another Trump defeat in 2020! You believe that Joe Biden (who will win his party's 2020 nomination simply because everybody else is worse) will somehow become a serious candidate by this time next year, instead of the buffoon he's been for the past three-plus decades! Yeah, good luck with that!

Bernie's socialists won't sit by a second time while the Democratic Party ignores his presidential aspirations with a rigged primary system. And no, Bernie WON'T back "Gropin' Joe!" The Dems are heading for an ideological split that will make Trump's re-election a walk-in-the-park!