Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PTTG??]

This big DNC run is good for the party. It's going to fill the news cycle -- which means Trump only gets his bad news aired, and he otherwise suffocates -- and it's going to be so target-rich that the Republicans can't burn them all down.

Above all, it will give the democrats an opportunity to have open discussions about policy. They'll set the tone for the election.

Ideally for the DNC, the RNC will quash any opposition to Trump (nobody's dumb enough to turn the 35% of the country that supports Trump away from the party). This will further render Trump irrelevant; I think he might be able to survive, but it's possible he'll shrivel up and die without constant media exposure.

[wierd]

This big DNC run is good for the party. It's going to fill the news cycle -- which means Trump only gets his bad news aired, and he otherwise suffocates -- and it's going to be so target-rich that the Republicans can't burn them all down.

Above all, it will give the democrats an opportunity to have open discussions about policy. They'll set the tone for the election.

Ideally for the DNC, the RNC will quash any opposition to Trump (nobody's dumb enough to turn the 35% of the country that supports Trump away from the party). This will further render Trump irrelevant; I think he might be able to survive, but it's possible he'll shrivel up and die without constant media exposure.

Trump (to Fox News): Moisturize me! Moisturize me!

[thompson]

This big DNC run is good for the party. It's going to fill the news cycle -- which means Trump only gets his bad news aired, and he otherwise suffocates -- and it's going to be so target-rich that the Republicans can't burn them all down.

Above all, it will give the democrats an opportunity to have open discussions about policy. They'll set the tone for the election.

Ideally for the DNC, the RNC will quash any opposition to Trump (nobody's dumb enough to turn the 35% of the country that supports Trump away from the party). This will further render Trump irrelevant; I think he might be able to survive, but it's possible he'll shrivel up and die without constant media exposure.

A declaration of war against China should fix that.

[Reelya]

Ideally for the DNC, the RNC will quash any opposition to Trump (nobody's dumb enough to turn the 35% of the country that supports Trump away from the party). This will further render Trump irrelevant; I think he might be able to survive, but it's possible he'll shrivel up and die without constant media exposure.

This is likely. "Crazy thing Trump said" isn't really newsworthy any more. Everyone has fatigue of that and is probably ready to go "next story please". The main weapon Trump had to dominate the news cycle has played itself out. It happens to the best of them: for example, Ann Coulter could call for the gassing of the Jews and it wouldn't even rate a blip on the media radar now.

[sluissa]

I disagree about the big field of DNC people being necessarily a good thing. It may work itself out if they whittle themselves down to a reasonable number(less than 10?) soon enough. We're at 15 candidates declared right now, of which 9 are getting reasonable amounts of attention and 7 have gotten significant amounts of media talk.

And there are certainly more to come. That's not even counting the people like Beto O'Rourke who are almost certain to be in the race, have gotten plenty of attention, but haven't formally declared yet.

This is prime to be another 2016 RNC Primary. Already I'm having a hard time keeping track of the choices. Klobuchar, Gillibrand and Harris all just kind of run together for me. Gabbard probably would too if not for the veteran angle and the minor scandal that's come up lately. Warren is almost entirely "gets in spats with Trump" and "acts even more out of touch than Clinton did." these days. Delaney, Booker, Castro and Buttigieg, I have no clue about other than Booker likes to grandstand and Castro is a twin.(And some people jokingly(?) think that would be a problem.)

I'm just waiting for the loud outsider to jump in and take all the attention. Maybe it's Bloomberg. Maybe it's O'Rourke. Maybe it's someone we haven't seen yet. Maybe they'll be loud, attention grabbing, AND competent and worrying is for nothing. But just given recent history, having a field this large, with this many "you're who again?" candidates... is potentially not a great thing.

The one good thing I'll say is that most of them seem like ok choices next to Trump... But I'm not ruling out a third party vote just yet. Still plenty of time for the party to screw this one up too.

[Trekkin]

This is prime to be another 2016 RNC Primary. Already I'm having a hard time keeping track of the choices.

There are several things that I think will prevent a similar outcome, though. For one, Democrats have a relative paucity of upper-level campaign staff simply because they don't invest in the same pipelines Republicans do, so there's not as much room in that sense. For another, electability's a more serious concern when there is an incumbent President, let alone a deeply unpopular one, and I think we saw that in how Schultz' announcement was received. Being a big loud outsider also isn't new anymore, and Trump's effectively stripped the veneer off being a billionaire for many people, so the lanes aren't the same. Lastly, there's considerable incentive for the party to decide early this time anyway specifically to avoid a 2016-like scenario.

I think we're getting near the high point of people running, and there will be more pressure for people running on the margins, particularly joining late, to bow out early.

[Lord Shonus]

Identity politics have also contributed to the Democrats having a much more diverse primary slate than the Republicans had in 2016. That could make a big difference.

[Starver]

>35 year old tofu cube

Must also be 100% domestically produced in the USA.

Or already a citizen in 1789, which would qualify for being >35 with room to spare.

[Powder Miner]

Vote Ancient Tofu Block 2020

[Folly]

Word is coming in that an agreement has been reached between Trump and the Republicans in the Senate. Trump will sign the spending bill to keep the government open, and in exchange the Republicans will support his declaration of National Emergency to build his wall.

[McTraveller]

Meh, that's kind of old news; they've been talking about that since January:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/politics/trump-national-emergency.html

[nenjin]

What a complete and utter waste of both our energy and our money.

[Rose]

I should probably be watching this.

[smjjames]

Meh, that's kind of old news; they've been talking about that since January:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/politics/trump-national-emergency.html

No no no, it's the actual plan now according to McConnell.

And McConnell has confirmed that it's the plan.

Democratic Presidents declaring national emergency for reasons that aren't it's original intent, here we come.

[Doomblade187]

Meh, that's kind of old news; they've been talking about that since January:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/politics/trump-national-emergency.html

No no no, it's the actual plan now according to McConnell.

And McConnell has confirmed that it's the plan.

Democratic Presidents declaring national emergency for reasons that aren't it's original intent, here we come.

All aboard the executive power train!