Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And if they stick to this message, they will win. The GOP has NO answer to this. Reagan did. Bush 41 did. W sort of did, but no longer.

I like how this kind of turns the whole freedom message around on the Republicans. They claim to be for freedom but their actions amount to suppressing freedom for people who don’t agree with them.

I think Republicans are going to try to make the trans stuff a big issue to try to sway male independent voters. I hope men don’t fall for it. That should be very far from the top of our concerns as a country. Democrats need to stop making it a big thing too. Be supportive but don’t put it front and center. It’s not a winning issue.

Anonymous wrote:Biden-voter here - please Prez Biden, do NOT run....I mean he is 80 now....my parents are 86 and I would not want them to be the Prez.....please please Dems, nominate someone younger and not woke. Someone, people will actually stand behind and vote for. I am European and my Dad always tells me: is this the best, this huge country can offer?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who else would run for the Ds at this point?

Whitmer, Newsom, Buttigieg

Yes. Or…..

Jon Ossoff
Raphael Warnock
Lauren Underwood
Joe Nguse

There are others.

Dems have a deep bench. People who ask dumb questions like the first PPs don’t even bother to look at options. Lazy AF.

Ossoff and Warnock have been senators for five minutes. They are part of a deep bench? Nah.

Lol, unlike a young Senator Barack Obama who had also been senator for five minutes and then got zero momentum and did terribly when he ran for president.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry! Here’s the hotlink:

Ossoff is proof that being a senator is a great job for someone who has never worked anywhere else before

Ossoff worked in the Hill for years and then ran a documentary production company for many more years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And if they stick to this message, they will win. The GOP has NO answer to this. Reagan did. Bush 41 did. W sort of did, but no longer.

I like how this kind of turns the whole freedom message around on the Republicans. They claim to be for freedom but their actions amount to suppressing freedom for people who don’t agree with them.

I think Republicans are going to try to make the trans stuff a big issue to try to sway male independent voters. I hope men don’t fall for it. That should be very far from the top of our concerns as a country. Democrats need to stop making it a big thing too. Be supportive but don’t put it front and center. It’s not a winning issue.

Correct male independent to women independent voters and that is correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And if they stick to this message, they will win. The GOP has NO answer to this. Reagan did. Bush 41 did. W sort of did, but no longer.

I like how this kind of turns the whole freedom message around on the Republicans. They claim to be for freedom but their actions amount to suppressing freedom for people who don’t agree with them.

I think Republicans are going to try to make the trans stuff a big issue to try to sway male independent voters. I hope men don’t fall for it. That should be very far from the top of our concerns as a country. Democrats need to stop making it a big thing too. Be supportive but don’t put it front and center. It’s not a winning issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And if they stick to this message, they will win. The GOP has NO answer to this. Reagan did. Bush 41 did. W sort of did, but no longer.

I like how this kind of turns the whole freedom message around on the Republicans. They claim to be for freedom but their actions amount to suppressing freedom for people who don’t agree with them.

I think Republicans are going to try to make the trans stuff a big issue to try to sway male independent voters. I hope men don’t fall for it. That should be very far from the top of our concerns as a country. Democrats need to stop making it a big thing too. Be supportive but don’t put it front and center. It’s not a winning issue.

Anonymous wrote:

And if they stick to this message, they will win. The GOP has NO answer to this. Reagan did. Bush 41 did. W sort of did, but no longer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who else would run for the Ds at this point?

Whitmer, Newsom, Buttigieg

Yes. Or…..

Jon Ossoff
Raphael Warnock
Lauren Underwood
Joe Nguse

There are others.

Dems have a deep bench. People who ask dumb questions like the first PPs don’t even bother to look at options. Lazy AF.

Ossoff and Warnock have been senators for five minutes. They are part of a deep bench? Nah.

Lol, unlike a young Senator Barack Obama who had also been senator for five minutes and then got zero momentum and did terribly when he ran for president.

Democrats have the most annoying habit of looking for reasons they aBsOluTeLy cAnNoT vote for this person or that person. Democrats are always looking for this magical, perfect person who appeals to absolutely everyone, never missteps, has the perfect amount of domestic and international experience, looks attractive enough, has a pristine dating history, has no annoying quirks, and is the correct race and gender.

If many democrat voters stop this buffoonery, they’ll see that we have lots of amazing candidates who aren’t even 80 years old. 😲😲

You must be young. The only thing that matters is that Biden can beat trump in the swing states. There is no point in a candidate that cannot do that

I’m 48. There are other people who can beat Trump; 80-year-old Joe isn’t the second coming.

You sound old and stuck in the past.

Trump lost to Biden. This is a do over. What fool would mess with success.

And Joe against someone who is not 70….? You think Joe’s going to look good against a fresh, quick-thinking candidate?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is running and he will win. And he will likely retire one to two years into the term.

He has been a good president, certainly better than the last one, and if Trump wins the GOP nomination, which is likely, then it will basically be a choice betweenFascism and Democracy.

And Kamala would become the Prez after he retires?! No!

I hope he picks a new running mate

Also from a Dem: this is the *worst* idea. Even if someone would vote for him again no one will want her as actual President. I don’t even want him again as President. This opens the door to truly scary right wing choices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who else would run for the Ds at this point?

Whitmer, Newsom, Buttigieg

Yes. Or…..

Jon Ossoff
Raphael Warnock
Lauren Underwood
Joe Nguse

There are others.

Dems have a deep bench. People who ask dumb questions like the first PPs don’t even bother to look at options. Lazy AF.

Ossoff and Warnock have been senators for five minutes. They are part of a deep bench? Nah.

Lol, unlike a young Senator Barack Obama who had also been senator for five minutes and then got zero momentum and did terribly when he ran for president.

Democrats have the most annoying habit of looking for reasons they aBsOluTeLy cAnNoT vote for this person or that person. Democrats are always looking for this magical, perfect person who appeals to absolutely everyone, never missteps, has the perfect amount of domestic and international experience, looks attractive enough, has a pristine dating history, has no annoying quirks, and is the correct race and gender.

If many democrat voters stop this buffoonery, they’ll see that we have lots of amazing candidates who aren’t even 80 years old. 😲😲

You must be young. The only thing that matters is that Biden can beat trump in the swing states. There is no point in a candidate that cannot do that

I’m 48. There are other people who can beat Trump; 80-year-old Joe isn’t the second coming.

You sound old and stuck in the past.

Then you old enough to remember the hell on earth that was 2016. The Dems learned their lesson about who can win the states the matter

The 2016 takeaway is that people should EFFING VOTE when our rights and democracy are on the line. The takeaway is not to nominate only establishment dems who’ve been in service longer than many of us have been alive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Trump is the Republican nominee, as seems likely, I'm pretty sure a toaster oven would defeat him. But realistically, a toaster option is not an option. And no mainstream Democrat is going to challenge Biden at this point. The Kennedy 15 percent thing is a blip of background noise. Low information voters momentarily distracted by the Kennedy name. But this Kennedy is an extremist lunatic. This is the one that should have been lobotomized. Really don't think a campaign based upon opposition to the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine is going to win over the hearts and minds of Americans.

That being said, a Biden-Harris ticket is not without risks. No one in their 80s is in their mental and physical prime. This is not the Joe Biden of the Obama years. The decline has been visible for everyone - the way he shuffles, the way he speaks, the frequent bouts of momentary confusion. And that's only going to get worse. He's 80. The risks of a bad fall or a stroke are incredibly high. It's the nature of life. He's already exceeded the average lifespan of an American man by three years. And if something does happen over the next two years - God forbid - chaos ensues.

The fact is Kamala Harris is not popular. Defenders will always exclaim racism and misogyny. Whatever. She's had two years as vice president. Every time she speaks it's a word salad. There's no there there. She is not a disciplined thinker. And she's clearly not comfortable addressing policy. Any policy. She's like the anti-Hilary Clinton. Additionally, her staff turnover is absurd. She's obviously a terrible manager. She attracts no loyalty. And being from California is not a plus presently. The ads about being the district attorney for San Francisco write themselves.

So, danger alert for democrats and all civilized human beings. The risks for chaos are uncomfortably high. Trump may lose to a toaster oven but he will defeat Kamala Harris.

Exactly. I wish more Dems would acknowledge these challenges rather than Biden or it’s the end of the world with Trump. Trump may be the anti-Christ but doesn’t mean we can ignore Biden-Harris candidacy issues.

Walk me through the end game of focusing on the flaws of a Biden-Harris candidacy. What utility is there to such a focus? What changes for the better if we focus on these flaws?

Are you thinking maybe, after the discussion, the Democrats go with someone better? Because I don't think that's a viable option.
Maybe if we talk about the flaws, Biden and Harris do something that reduces the flaws? Maybe some types of issues they have, I guess. But if we're talking about Biden's age or Harris's lack of charisma, those things aren't going away.

If there's some strategic value to this kind of discussion that makes the world better in some way, I'm happy to listen. But from where I'm sitting, it looks like a classic Democratic circular firing squad that makes Democrats weaker, helps Republicans, probably makes the world worse, and almost certainly does not make it any better.

Aye, aye, Captain!

???

Don’t ask. Just do as we’re told.