2028 Elections

[O Really]

You wouldn't mind naming a few you think are DemocratIC party controllers who are lefty lóons, would you? Chuck Shumer? Jeffries? Or maybe you mean those who aren't controlling much but get a lot of attention, like Bernie! The Democrats haven't tried to run a real lefty since maybe McGovern and he turned into a wimp.

[Vrede too]

You wouldn't mind naming a few you think are Democratic party controllers who are lefty lóons, would you? Chuck Shumer? Jeffries? Or maybe you mean those who aren't controlling much but get a lot of attention, like Bernie! The Democrats haven't tried to run a real lefty since maybe McGovern and he turned into a wimp.

Obama was a lefty, but ran a moderate campaign and admin.

David Hogg, DNC Vice Chair, Parkland survivor and gun control activist, has announced his intention to fund primary challengers to moderate Dems. More power to him for the intent, but IMO party officials should not be supporting any primary candidates, challengers or incumbents. Of course, we all know that the party picks sides, like they did Hillary vs Bernie, and like they do incumbents vs anyone. So Idk, is Hogg being unethical or is he bringing balance to the establishment party?

[O Really]

The Party - (organized entity) has the job of getting people elected. It's not its job to just sit there in the LazyBoy eating popcorn and watching 20 yayhoos beat each other over the head trying for a nomination. To see how it shouldn't be done, look at the California recall process. The bar to actually getting a recall election is pretty high, but once it's on, it's cats in a bag. The person up for recall can't run on behalf of himself, and anybody else who wants to can be a candidate. The first question is "should (whoever) be recalled from office?" If there is a half or majority "no" then the election is over and everybody goes back to work. If the vote is "yes", though, the candidate with a plurality (no majority required) gets the job. That's how the Governator got into office, but he turned out pretty well, considering, and the state lucked out. The last time they tried to recall Gavin, the "winner" would have been a certified loon.

Maybe the "smoke-filled room" doesn't appeal to many, but providing primary support to the candidate(s) that those who do this stuff for a living think has the best chance to win is, IMNVHO, a good thing.

[Vrede too]

The Party - (organized entity) has the job of getting people elected. It's not its job to just sit there in the LazyBoy eating popcorn and watching 20 yayhoos beat each other over the head trying for a nomination. To see how it shouldn't be done, look at the California recall process. The bar to actually getting a recall election is pretty high, but once it's on, it's cats in a bag. The person up for recall can't run on behalf of himself, and anybody else who wants to can be a candidate. The first question is "should (whoever) be recalled from office?" If there is a half or majority "no" then the election is over and everybody goes back to work. If the vote is "yes", though, the candidate with a plurality (no majority required) gets the job. That's how the Governator got into office, but he turned out pretty well, considering, and the state lucked out. The last time they tried to recall Gavin, the "winner" would have been a certified loon.

Maybe the "smoke-filled room" doesn't appeal to many, but providing primary support to the candidate(s) that those who do this stuff for a living think has the best chance to win is, IMNVHO, a good thing.

We disagree on timing. IMO "The Party - (organized entity) has the job of getting people elected" in the general. Before that it has the job of facilitating fair and open primaries while explaining Democratic Party principles to the public. It's up to the voters and the DEMOCRATIC process to select nominees. "best chance to win" is one factor they consider. Favoring incumbents ensures the broken status quo and the Party's dismal favorability ratings.

[O Really]

What would constitute a "fair and open primary"? Incumbents will always have built-in advantages. They usually have the highest name recognition, usually a war chest of their own, lots of contacts and (hopefully) a record of stuff they can brag about. Of course, some of them have records they can be trashed over, too.

[Supsalemgr]

You wouldn't mind naming a few you think are DemocratIC party controllers who are lefty lóons, would you? Chuck Shumer? Jeffries? Or maybe you mean those who aren't controlling much but get a lot of attention, like Bernie! The Democrats haven't tried to run a real lefty since maybe McGovern and he turned into a wimp.

Sure. This is a personal view. Knowing how much denial there is on the left I am sure some will not agree.

The squad with AOC as the leader. Bernie, Schumer, Pelosi and any loyal followers. I don't want to rule out "wannabes" like Pritzger, the mayor of Chicago and the likes.

[Vrede too]

What would constitute a "fair and open primary"? Incumbents will always have built-in advantages. They usually have the highest name recognition, usually a war chest of their own, lots of contacts and (hopefully) a record of stuff they can brag about. Of course, some of them have records they can be trashed over, too.

All of those things are beyond the control of the Party and it has no duty to compensate for them. I'm talking about the mechanics of primaries - managing debates, trying to ensure laws are obeyed and that advertising is mostly honest, maximizing voter access, etc. There's also making the case that Dem primaries are more legit than GQP ones. I trust Dem voters to pick a nominee more than I do the corporate-dependent Party honchos.

[1 CAT FAN]

Yeah, Dems sure pushed Kamala Harris to the front, then kicked Biden to the curb. It's only logical that she be GIVEN the spot.

[O Really]

You wouldn't mind naming a few you think are DemocratIC party controllers who are lefty lóons, would you? Chuck Shumer? Jeffries? Or maybe you mean those who aren't controlling much but get a lot of attention, like Bernie! The Democrats haven't tried to run a real lefty since maybe McGovern and he turned into a wimp.

Sure. This is a personal view. Knowing how much denial there is on the left I am sure some will not agree.

The squad with AOC as the leader. Bernie, Schumer, Pelosi and any loyal followers. I don't want to rule out "wannabes" like Pritzger, the mayor of Chicago and the likes.

OK, so the usual bogeymen/women. Nevermind that Pelosi is almost totally retired, Schumer has rolled over for a tummy-rub, Bernie! is still a scolding curmudgeon, but hardly in "control" of much. AOC is highly popular for good reason, but also has her detractors within the party. I'd tend to argue that part of the Dems problem is NOT having any effective leadership (today, hopefully not tomorrow) that sets a tone, provides working strategy.

[O Really]

What would constitute a "fair and open primary"? Incumbents will always have built-in advantages. They usually have the highest name recognition, usually a war chest of their own, lots of contacts and (hopefully) a record of stuff they can brag about. Of course, some of them have records they can be trashed over, too.

All of those things are beyond the control of the Party and it has no duty to compensate for them. I'm talking about the mechanics of primaries - managing debates, trying to ensure laws are obeyed and that advertising is mostly honest, maximizing voter access, etc. There's also making the case that Dem primaries are more legit than GQP ones. I trust Dem voters to pick a nominee more than I do the corporate-dependent Party honchos.

Sounds like somebody is still miffed that Bernie! didn't win. Damn refs.

BTW, Lady O has decided she should be referred to as Lady O!

[Vrede too]

All of those things are beyond the control of the Party and it has no duty to compensate for them. I'm talking about the mechanics of primaries - managing debates, trying to ensure laws are obeyed and that advertising is mostly honest, maximizing voter access, etc. There's also making the case that Dem primaries are more legit than GQP ones. I trust Dem voters to pick a nominee more than I do the corporate-dependent Party honchos.

Sounds like somebody is still miffed that Bernie! didn't win. Damn refs.

Meh. It hurt Hillary to have it revealed that the DNC had its thumb on the scale for her. Maybe Bernie! still would not have won the nomination, but the worst he could have done is also lose in Nov. Polling showed him doing better than Hillary vs DonOLD, though.

BTW, Lady O has decided she should be referred to as Lady O!

Okay, but I'm going to feel a little creepy doing so.

[Supsalemgr]

You wouldn't mind naming a few you think are DemocratIC party controllers who are lefty lóons, would you? Chuck Shumer? Jeffries? Or maybe you mean those who aren't controlling much but get a lot of attention, like Bernie! The Democrats haven't tried to run a real lefty since maybe McGovern and he turned into a wimp.

Sure. This is a personal view. Knowing how much denial there is on the left I am sure some will not agree.

The squad with AOC as the leader. Bernie, Schumer, Pelosi and any loyal followers. I don't want to rule out "wannabes" like Pritzger, the mayor of Chicago and the likes.

OK, so the usual bogeymen/women. Nevermind that Pelosi is almost totally retired, Schumer has rolled over for a tummy-rub, Bernie! is still a scolding curmudgeon, but hardly in "control" of much. AOC is highly popular for good reason, but also has her detractors within the party. I'd tend to argue that part of the Dems problem is NOT having any effective leadership (today, hopefully not tomorrow) that sets a tone, provides working strategy.

I reject my list has anything about gender. However, not surprising the left would try to make it so.

[O Really]

OK, so the usual bogeymen/women. Nevermind that Pelosi is almost totally retired, Schumer has rolled over for a tummy-rub, Bernie! is still a scolding curmudgeon, but hardly in "control" of much. AOC is highly popular for good reason, but also has her detractors within the party. I'd tend to argue that part of the Dems problem is NOT having any effective leadership (today, hopefully not tomorrow) that sets a tone, provides working strategy.

I reject my list has anything about gender. However, not surprising the left would try to make it so.
[/quote]

Ah, I think I just got a bit of insight on your posts. You don't really read what you're posting about so the response comes off funky. I didn't mention gender either, except to use the men/women designation to acknowledge "bogey.." can be either. I'll reword to "OK, so the usual suspects..."

[Supsalemgr]

OK, so the usual bogeymen/women. Nevermind that Pelosi is almost totally retired, Schumer has rolled over for a tummy-rub, Bernie! is still a scolding curmudgeon, but hardly in "control" of much. AOC is highly popular for good reason, but also has her detractors within the party. I'd tend to argue that part of the Dems problem is NOT having any effective leadership (today, hopefully not tomorrow) that sets a tone, provides working strategy.

I reject my list has anything about gender. However, not surprising the left would try to make it so.

Ah, I think I just got a bit of insight on your posts. You don't really read what you're posting about so the response comes off funky. I didn't mention gender either, except to use the men/women designation to acknowledge "bogey.." can be either. I'll reword to "OK, so the usual suspects..."
[/quote]

I am sorry if I misinterpreted your post. That part did not seem germane to the subject.

[Vrede too]

OK, so the usual bogeymen/women. Nevermind that Pelosi is almost totally retired, Schumer has rolled over for a tummy-rub, Bernie! is still a scolding curmudgeon, but hardly in "control" of much. AOC is highly popular for good reason, but also has her detractors within the party. I'd tend to argue that part of the Dems problem is NOT having any effective leadership (today, hopefully not tomorrow) that sets a tone, provides working strategy.

I reject my list has anything about gender. However, not surprising the left would try to make it so.

Ah, I think I just got a bit of insight on your posts. You don't really read what you're posting about so the response comes off funky. I didn't mention gender either, except to use the men/women designation to acknowledge "bogey.." can be either. I'll reword to "OK, so the usual suspects..."

You really could have thrown in another, "WTF?" that's how stupid SoupySales' post is . We could even say that he forced DEI into your conversation . I like how he's made you representative of "the left", too. Congratulations on the appointment.

[1 CAT FAN]

Gonna be campaigning out of the gated community?

[Vrede too]

Charles Barkley to Dems: Run either of these 2 candidates or lose my support

Charles Barkley has an ultimatum to the Democratic Party: he won’t vote for any other presidential candidate unless it’s Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro or Maryland Gov. Wes Moore....

Sports personality Stephen A. Smith previously expressed interest in Moore and Shapiro running for president, according to The Hill.

Smith has also said he has “no choice” but to consider a run for president —an idea Barkley does not support.

“Calm down, Stephen A. — Stephen A. is one of my friends, but come on, man, stop it,” Barkley said during the podcast. “It started as a joke, and he took it seriously. Come on, man. All I’m saying is, knock it off.”

Who else might run for president?

An Echelon Insights poll conducted between April 10-14 found that former Vice President Kamala Harris was the top pick among voters but support for her has dropped when compared to a previous poll.

The poll found that 28% of respondents would support Harris, a 5% drop from Echelon’s last poll conducted between March 10-13....

Harris herself has not announced plans to run for president but there is speculation she may mount a campaign for governorship in California.

Eleven percent of respondents, however, said they would back New Jersey Senator Cory Booker as the nominee, a 9% increase from the last poll where he earned 2% of support.

I thought Barkley was going to name Booker. Senate Majority or Minority Leader?

Booker was the candidate with the second-highest percentage of support in the poll....

Another politician who people speculate could be a presidential nominee is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y....

[O Really]

So what's Barkley gonna do if neither of those is the candidate? Just let some mini-trump wannabe get elected again?

[Supsalemgr]

So what's Barkley gonna do if neither of those is the candidate? Just let some mini-trump wannabe get elected again?

At a time in the past Barkley suggested he may run in a statewide AL race - as a republican.

[O Really]

So what's Barkley gonna do if neither of those is the candidate? Just let some mini-trump wannabe get elected again?

At a time in the past Barkley suggested he may run in a statewide AL race - as a republican.

Long time in the past.

In 1995, he considered running as a Republican candidate for Alabama's governorship in the 1998 election.[118] However, in 2006, he altered his political stance, stating "I was a Republican until they lost their minds."[119]