He didn't need any help to get shut down. Now Ohio can be the second thing after "Bill Polian's ****heel son" to pick Gonzo.

#notTheOnion


and the mine thing aside, wtf at voting for this guy
like a dimmer & less charismatic Ben Carson

#Chinaperson

He lost and per a CNN article, polls show a narrowing between generic Reds and Blues on a hypothetical midterm ballot.

Not really sure how the Dems are going to **** up the biggest soft ball a party has ever been given, but after 2016 I suppose the surprise is half the fun.

I'm surprised the Ohio congressional delegation isn't already washed up OSU deplorables

the electorate is super lol?

Dems are running on a weak ass platform of ‘we’re not rump’ and rump has a 40-42% approval rating with most of the races being vulnerable dem incumbents

The answer, as always, is lol dems

.

Like, how ****ing hard is it to put forth a decent platform of common sense **** ("Let's build more roads" and "Let add some jobs!") and hammer Trump for his many, many frauds.

Just don't inject civil rights into everything and you can walk to victory. Then once your in, shove civil rights and health care down rural America's throat so they'll eventually warm to it (as they've done with 26 year old cut offs and pre-existing condition protections).

The LBJ playbook >>>> The 3rd Way

What odds can I get that the Dems do not nominate a white guy in 2020?

Hey we've got a hugely racist/sexist electorate that's still reeling from having to look up to a Black President, let's nominate Warren or Booker.

is Larry the Cable Guy busy?

White men: 31% of the USA, gotta nominate them ~always

USA#1

Probably has something to do with:

"A new study by Prosperity Now and the Institute for Policy Studies has found that white households in the middle-income quintile own nearly eight times as much wealth as middle-income black earners and ten times as much as middle-income latino earners."

We're so ****ed.

I mean, the black guy got reelected comfortably, and it's not like the racism started in 2013. Basically no Trump voters are switching their votes if the Dems run a white guy but not if they don't. It's much more about dem turnout and running an inspiring candidate, whoever that might be.

Maybe I'm crazy but I worry that the rise of "out-and-proud" white nationalism/supremacy/whatever and the "well you had 8 years of a black guy already" might hurt the next minority candidates chances with some right leaning moderates.

It feels like we basically stand to lose nothing by picking random white dude #365 to run against Trump in 2020, whereas we stand to lose some number of votes for any PoC and/or woman. I don't see someone like Booker adding more votes than we'd lose by galvanizing the "light racists" against him.

We can argue about whether or not that's right (would we? I assume we all agree it's ****ing awful), but we might as well just win and then get **** done.

I see a replacement level white dude losing at least as much of the black vote (due to apathy) as he might win from moderate right wingers. I think moderate righties are dead. They're either all aboard Trumpism (because tribalism trumps what had been moderate policy preferences), or they are already safe dems.

Feels like they've already written the playbook against any dude they try to run. These
Stone/Posobiec/Cernovich types will have plenty of time to invent a fake Me Too accusation right before the election. I mean, in addition to Russians hacking the **** and the GOP supressing minority voting. You know, the usual stuff.

Sorry bro, stuff like healthcare for poors will have to wait until after they've sorted out the important issue of diversity in one job in a nation of 350,000,000 people.

It's the most bourgeois thing imaginable that "we have to ensure our little girls see that they can become President one day!" ranks on an equal footing with "let's ensure our little girls have access to health insurance". Politics isn't a game.

As long as this definition of "inspiring" isn't "inspiring to people like me" (not meaning you specifically).

The Michael Cohen money trail hopefully will be interesting.

I don't blame Cohen for shaking the money tree. I'm surprised he couldn't shake down even more companies. Or maybe he did, we just don't know about it yet.

Mueller got AT&T 7 months ago and we're just not getting it. This rabbit hole goes waaaaay deeper.

Concurrently, I'm gonna suggest that the fact you used "we have to ensure our little girls see that they can become President one day" as a hyperbolic comparison here for dramatic effect implies that you've never seriously conceived of living in a world where you couldn't be President.

I do live in that world, bro. Natural born citizen clause.

Seriously though, I could just as easily suggest that your perspective has a lot to do with a) being a politics junkie and b) never having had to worry about putting food on the table, or having healthcare available. Most Americans don't follow or care about politics, and most kids want to be, like, a fireman or a policeman or a doctor or something. The idea that there is an army of little girls out there who will suddenly have the scales fall from their eyes seeing a woman inaugurated as President is just a Beltway conceit. Likewise the notion that symbolic political acts will hasten social progress. You elected a black guy as President. How do you feel like that worked out vis-a-vis the end of discrimination against black people in the US? Pretty awesomely, right? Why would it be any different electing a woman as President?

I'd throw the obsession with symbolism in with all the "when they go low, we go high" crap. It's Democrats not understanding that politics is played for keeps, and that the scoreboard involves concrete results in the real world, not Beltway victories.

Note that I wasn't disagreeing with you that healthcare is more important. I'm disagreeing with the disdain you must have had at the value of symbolism to have used it in that context.

Little things. If I have a daughter someday I don't want her to grow up feeling like she can't be President - not because daddy's special little girl has to have everything she ever wants, but because that **** is going to affect the way she sees the world in other places too. When she's discriminated against in her chosen profession, maybe she doesn't question it like she should, because the rest of society told her at a young age through the lack of certain symbols that this is a man's world.

How about no?

10 years ago when police shot down an unarmed black man it wasn't a national story; now, it is. It may look ugly, but this is progress, and I think that shift has a lot to do with Obama having been elected.

malaysia just elected a 92yo as president lol...