Anonymous wrote:First democrat to come out as a border hawk would win in landslide.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joe Kennedy.

Biden is too old.

Bernie is too old, not a real Dem, and has baggage.

Hilary is too old, a girl, and has way too much baggage.

Cory Booker sounds like a Repub on many issues. If you've heard him speak at conferences (I have, numerous times), he sounds like he's spinning because he can't articulate clear solutions/strategies.

Warren is equipped, but she would be crucified. America isn't ready for a lady president. Period.

People love Tammy, Kamala and Gillibrand, but I don't see it. Smart and articulate? Absolutely. Charismatic Alpha males? Nope. And that's what it ultimately comes down to: charismatic alpha male.

Joe Kennedy is our best bet. Sure, he will have to deal with critics who call him a rich boy from a political dynasty. But I feel like he has the street smarts and ability to deflect any attack in a strong way. We need a fighter. I think he can do it.

First of all - you're calling Hillary "a girl"? Wow. I keep hearing, only from liberals, that a female candidate would never win because "America isn't ready." I think that's BS. I find it interesting that only liberals keep saying this, as if it's fact. And they're clearly basing this on HRC losing the last election. What you won't admit is that HRC didn't lose because she is a woman. She lost for so many other reasons, that have been laid out ad nauseum but which none of you will acknowledge. It seems liberals are the worst sexists of all.

I would absolutely vote for a female candidate, but not because she is female. Nikki Haley or Susan Collins would get my vote, if they ran. But of course, they're not Democrats.

I'm flippantly calling her a girl to underscore my frustration with our misogynistic society.

Question: are your liberal friends who say America isn't ready for a female president women? Because...no offense, Buddy...us girls have a better sense of how America treats women than our male counterparts.

And yes, everyone realizes that HRC was far from the perfect candidate. But does that mean she should lose to Trump? Because, that's what happened. And you should ask yourself why that happened.

Nikki Haley??? Wowza.

PP here. Do you actually think I'm a man because I spoke the truth about why HRC lost? Sorry, no. I'm a woman and frankly, every woman I know - regardless of political affiliation - agrees that she lost due to her own failures, not due to her gender. I think it's convenient for liberals to blame her loss on "sexism" because then you can continue putting anyone and everyone who didn't vote for her into your convenient little boxes of "racists" and "sexists". Anything to promote your narrative that those who don't march in lockstep with liberals, in every way, are "Nazis". This is why no one takes you seriously anymore.

Should she have lost to Trump? Doesn't really matter - she *did* lose to him. Yet none of you are willing to examine why that might be, and instead blame it on every possible excuse, other than squarely on her own shoulders - and those of you who, along with her, smugly believe you know what's good for the rest of the country. Hasn't it occurred to you yet that you were wrong? Very, very wrong?

And as for those I was referring to who claim America "isn't ready" for a female president - I'm talking about the many far-left liberals who populate this site. Not anyone I know IRL. It seems only here in DCUM-land are liberals so sure of themselves that they truly believe they know how the rest of the country is going to vote and why. The hubris scale here is off the charts.

You have quite a bit of hubris yourself.

I know many women who think she lost because of sexism. Not SOLELY because of it, but it's part of the equation. There are lots of reasons. She lost by about 80,000 votes in 3 states that skew to older blue collar workers. Is it so hard to believe that 100,000 old white male factory workers out of millions won't vote for a woman? No harder than it is to believe that an extra 80,000 people picked Trump because of his zingy insults, his focus on immigration, his promise to bring back coal, his stupid wall, or that they thought he really was a successful businessman.

And then there are the 130,000 far left loonies who vote for Jill Stein. Obviously not sexist if they voted for another woman, and not Trump fans, so they must have really hated Hillary. We can add in a lot of other Hillary weaknesses if you like. She has plenty. I am sure that there are at least a few thousand voters in each of those states that were concerned about each of them. But surely there are at least a few thousand real sexists that wouldn't vote for a woman.

If a tiny number of people in 3 states had voted differently, we'd be having a very different conversation today.

Sexism had nothing to do with HRC losing. She received more votes even. She wrote off those factory workers you mentioned in those states. That is why the older factory worker didn't vote for her. So by your estimation 100,000 old white men didn't vote for her because she is a woman. I wonder how many voted for her solely because she is a woman?

Less than the number she needed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joe Kennedy.

Biden is too old.

Bernie is too old, not a real Dem, and has baggage.

Hilary is too old, a girl, and has way too much baggage.

Cory Booker sounds like a Repub on many issues. If you've heard him speak at conferences (I have, numerous times), he sounds like he's spinning because he can't articulate clear solutions/strategies.

Warren is equipped, but she would be crucified. America isn't ready for a lady president. Period.

People love Tammy, Kamala and Gillibrand, but I don't see it. Smart and articulate? Absolutely. Charismatic Alpha males? Nope. And that's what it ultimately comes down to: charismatic alpha male.

Joe Kennedy is our best bet. Sure, he will have to deal with critics who call him a rich boy from a political dynasty. But I feel like he has the street smarts and ability to deflect any attack in a strong way. We need a fighter. I think he can do it.

First of all - you're calling Hillary "a girl"? Wow. I keep hearing, only from liberals, that a female candidate would never win because "America isn't ready." I think that's BS. I find it interesting that only liberals keep saying this, as if it's fact. And they're clearly basing this on HRC losing the last election. What you won't admit is that HRC didn't lose because she is a woman. She lost for so many other reasons, that have been laid out ad nauseum but which none of you will acknowledge. It seems liberals are the worst sexists of all.

I would absolutely vote for a female candidate, but not because she is female. Nikki Haley or Susan Collins would get my vote, if they ran. But of course, they're not Democrats.

I'm flippantly calling her a girl to underscore my frustration with our misogynistic society.

Question: are your liberal friends who say America isn't ready for a female president women? Because...no offense, Buddy...us girls have a better sense of how America treats women than our male counterparts.

And yes, everyone realizes that HRC was far from the perfect candidate. But does that mean she should lose to Trump? Because, that's what happened. And you should ask yourself why that happened.

Nikki Haley??? Wowza.

PP here. Do you actually think I'm a man because I spoke the truth about why HRC lost? Sorry, no. I'm a woman and frankly, every woman I know - regardless of political affiliation - agrees that she lost due to her own failures, not due to her gender. I think it's convenient for liberals to blame her loss on "sexism" because then you can continue putting anyone and everyone who didn't vote for her into your convenient little boxes of "racists" and "sexists". Anything to promote your narrative that those who don't march in lockstep with liberals, in every way, are "Nazis". This is why no one takes you seriously anymore.

Should she have lost to Trump? Doesn't really matter - she *did* lose to him. Yet none of you are willing to examine why that might be, and instead blame it on every possible excuse, other than squarely on her own shoulders - and those of you who, along with her, smugly believe you know what's good for the rest of the country. Hasn't it occurred to you yet that you were wrong? Very, very wrong?

And as for those I was referring to who claim America "isn't ready" for a female president - I'm talking about the many far-left liberals who populate this site. Not anyone I know IRL. It seems only here in DCUM-land are liberals so sure of themselves that they truly believe they know how the rest of the country is going to vote and why. The hubris scale here is off the charts.

You have quite a bit of hubris yourself.

I know many women who think she lost because of sexism. Not SOLELY because of it, but it's part of the equation. There are lots of reasons. She lost by about 80,000 votes in 3 states that skew to older blue collar workers. Is it so hard to believe that 100,000 old white male factory workers out of millions won't vote for a woman? No harder than it is to believe that an extra 80,000 people picked Trump because of his zingy insults, his focus on immigration, his promise to bring back coal, his stupid wall, or that they thought he really was a successful businessman.

And then there are the 130,000 far left loonies who vote for Jill Stein. Obviously not sexist if they voted for another woman, and not Trump fans, so they must have really hated Hillary. We can add in a lot of other Hillary weaknesses if you like. She has plenty. I am sure that there are at least a few thousand voters in each of those states that were concerned about each of them. But surely there are at least a few thousand real sexists that wouldn't vote for a woman.

If a tiny number of people in 3 states had voted differently, we'd be having a very different conversation today.

Sexism had nothing to do with HRC losing. She received more votes even. She wrote off those factory workers you mentioned in those states. That is why the older factory worker didn't vote for her. So by your estimation 100,000 old white men didn't vote for her because she is a woman. I wonder how many voted for her solely because she is a woman?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joe Kennedy.

Biden is too old.

Bernie is too old, not a real Dem, and has baggage.

Hilary is too old, a girl, and has way too much baggage.

Cory Booker sounds like a Repub on many issues. If you've heard him speak at conferences (I have, numerous times), he sounds like he's spinning because he can't articulate clear solutions/strategies.

Warren is equipped, but she would be crucified. America isn't ready for a lady president. Period.

People love Tammy, Kamala and Gillibrand, but I don't see it. Smart and articulate? Absolutely. Charismatic Alpha males? Nope. And that's what it ultimately comes down to: charismatic alpha male.

Joe Kennedy is our best bet. Sure, he will have to deal with critics who call him a rich boy from a political dynasty. But I feel like he has the street smarts and ability to deflect any attack in a strong way. We need a fighter. I think he can do it.

First of all - you're calling Hillary "a girl"? Wow. I keep hearing, only from liberals, that a female candidate would never win because "America isn't ready." I think that's BS. I find it interesting that only liberals keep saying this, as if it's fact. And they're clearly basing this on HRC losing the last election. What you won't admit is that HRC didn't lose because she is a woman. She lost for so many other reasons, that have been laid out ad nauseum but which none of you will acknowledge. It seems liberals are the worst sexists of all.

I would absolutely vote for a female candidate, but not because she is female. Nikki Haley or Susan Collins would get my vote, if they ran. But of course, they're not Democrats.

I'm flippantly calling her a girl to underscore my frustration with our misogynistic society.

Question: are your liberal friends who say America isn't ready for a female president women? Because...no offense, Buddy...us girls have a better sense of how America treats women than our male counterparts.

And yes, everyone realizes that HRC was far from the perfect candidate. But does that mean she should lose to Trump? Because, that's what happened. And you should ask yourself why that happened.

Nikki Haley??? Wowza.

PP here. Do you actually think I'm a man because I spoke the truth about why HRC lost? Sorry, no. I'm a woman and frankly, every woman I know - regardless of political affiliation - agrees that she lost due to her own failures, not due to her gender. I think it's convenient for liberals to blame her loss on "sexism" because then you can continue putting anyone and everyone who didn't vote for her into your convenient little boxes of "racists" and "sexists". Anything to promote your narrative that those who don't march in lockstep with liberals, in every way, are "Nazis". This is why no one takes you seriously anymore.

Should she have lost to Trump? Doesn't really matter - she *did* lose to him. Yet none of you are willing to examine why that might be, and instead blame it on every possible excuse, other than squarely on her own shoulders - and those of you who, along with her, smugly believe you know what's good for the rest of the country. Hasn't it occurred to you yet that you were wrong? Very, very wrong?

And as for those I was referring to who claim America "isn't ready" for a female president - I'm talking about the many far-left liberals who populate this site. Not anyone I know IRL. It seems only here in DCUM-land are liberals so sure of themselves that they truly believe they know how the rest of the country is going to vote and why. The hubris scale here is off the charts.

You have quite a bit of hubris yourself.

I know many women who think she lost because of sexism. Not SOLELY because of it, but it's part of the equation. There are lots of reasons. She lost by about 80,000 votes in 3 states that skew to older blue collar workers. Is it so hard to believe that 100,000 old white male factory workers out of millions won't vote for a woman? No harder than it is to believe that an extra 80,000 people picked Trump because of his zingy insults, his focus on immigration, his promise to bring back coal, his stupid wall, or that they thought he really was a successful businessman.

And then there are the 130,000 far left loonies who vote for Jill Stein. Obviously not sexist if they voted for another woman, and not Trump fans, so they must have really hated Hillary. We can add in a lot of other Hillary weaknesses if you like. She has plenty. I am sure that there are at least a few thousand voters in each of those states that were concerned about each of them. But surely there are at least a few thousand real sexists that wouldn't vote for a woman.

If a tiny number of people in 3 states had voted differently, we'd be having a very different conversation today.

Anonymous wrote:First democrat to come out as a border hawk would win in landslide.

Anonymous wrote:Claire McCaskill??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are liberals so smug? Do they not realize majority does NOT like extreme, left-wing nutcases, this is seen by polls and popularity vote. How far up your own ass are you to think YOUR view represents majority of America when everything shows otherwise. I can’t wait till you all get off your high horse.

FIFY. Though I left your poor grammar untouched.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are trump supporters so smug? Do they not realize majority does NOT like trump, this is seen by polls and popularity vote. How far up your own ass are you to think YOUR view represents majority of America when everything shows otherwise. I can’t wait till you all get off your high horse.

Totally agree, but I am gratified to hear Democrats acknowledging that Trump could win in 2020.

I think our biggest challenge is a repeat of 2016 -- thinking there's no way America would (re)elect that idiot.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate.

Of course he can win. The bolded above is my in-laws, who I can barely speak to anymore. All they want to do it tell me how awful Hillary is, like I give a shit. She lost, I'm over it, so should you. I repeat, she is NOT running in 2020. That little fantasy of the right can die now.

DP. I think you're wrong and I'm bookmarking this post to trot out when she announces she's running again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Joe Kennedy.

Biden is too old.

Bernie is too old, not a real Dem, and has baggage.

Hilary is too old, a girl, and has way too much baggage.

Cory Booker sounds like a Repub on many issues. If you've heard him speak at conferences (I have, numerous times), he sounds like he's spinning because he can't articulate clear solutions/strategies.

Warren is equipped, but she would be crucified. America isn't ready for a lady president. Period.

People love Tammy, Kamala and Gillibrand, but I don't see it. Smart and articulate? Absolutely. Charismatic Alpha males? Nope. And that's what it ultimately comes down to: charismatic alpha male.

Joe Kennedy is our best bet. Sure, he will have to deal with critics who call him a rich boy from a political dynasty. But I feel like he has the street smarts and ability to deflect any attack in a strong way. We need a fighter. I think he can do it.

First of all - you're calling Hillary "a girl"? Wow. I keep hearing, only from liberals, that a female candidate would never win because "America isn't ready." I think that's BS. I find it interesting that only liberals keep saying this, as if it's fact. And they're clearly basing this on HRC losing the last election. What you won't admit is that HRC didn't lose because she is a woman. She lost for so many other reasons, that have been laid out ad nauseum but which none of you will acknowledge. It seems liberals are the worst sexists of all.

I would absolutely vote for a female candidate, but not because she is female. Nikki Haley or Susan Collins would get my vote, if they ran. But of course, they're not Democrats.

I'm flippantly calling her a girl to underscore my frustration with our misogynistic society.

Question: are your liberal friends who say America isn't ready for a female president women? Because...no offense, Buddy...us girls have a better sense of how America treats women than our male counterparts.

And yes, everyone realizes that HRC was far from the perfect candidate. But does that mean she should lose to Trump? Because, that's what happened. And you should ask yourself why that happened.

Nikki Haley??? Wowza.

PP here. Do you actually think I'm a man because I spoke the truth about why HRC lost? Sorry, no. I'm a woman and frankly, every woman I know - regardless of political affiliation - agrees that she lost due to her own failures, not due to her gender. I think it's convenient for liberals to blame her loss on "sexism" because then you can continue putting anyone and everyone who didn't vote for her into your convenient little boxes of "racists" and "sexists". Anything to promote your narrative that those who don't march in lockstep with liberals, in every way, are "Nazis". This is why no one takes you seriously anymore.

Should she have lost to Trump? Doesn't really matter - she *did* lose to him. Yet none of you are willing to examine why that might be, and instead blame it on every possible excuse, other than squarely on her own shoulders - and those of you who, along with her, smugly believe you know what's good for the rest of the country. Hasn't it occurred to you yet that you were wrong? Very, very wrong?

And as for those I was referring to who claim America "isn't ready" for a female president - I'm talking about the many far-left liberals who populate this site. Not anyone I know IRL. It seems only here in DCUM-land are liberals so sure of themselves that they truly believe they know how the rest of the country is going to vote and why. The hubris scale here is off the charts.

Anonymous wrote:IMHO, the welcoming attitude that some on the left feel for open borders is going to become a problem for Democrats seeking to establish a long-term governing majority.

Look at what's going on with Brexit - a bad idea, but one that is being driven by the inability of the Brits to control who lives in Britain.

My particular disgust with immigration policy is focused on the abuses of the HlB system - which to me has functioned as a pipeline for "replacement workers", workers who are decidedly not more skilled or experienced than their predecessors, but merely lower-paid and easier for corporations to manipulate and control.

I am much more sympathetic to legitimate asylum seekers - but also think that we need to do a much better job encouraging quick assimilation to American norms with this population.

Perhaps this would make Jayapal's head explode, but I increasing have come to think of myself as an "Americans first" Democrat. That means that I believe that the primary responsibility of government is to take care of its own - those born here, or who came here legally, or those that we have specifically decidedly to be merciful towards.

I would argue that in this age of voodoo economics meets globalization, its the documented populations of the US that has born the brunt of these policies, and that's why there is so much angst over immigration.

Americans have always been a generous, welcoming people - at least when their government has first done right by them.

Anonymous wrote:IMHO, the welcoming attitude that some on the left feel for open borders is going to become a problem for Democrats seeking to establish a long-term governing majority.

Look at what's going on with Brexit - a bad idea, but one that is being driven by the inability of the Brits to control who lives in Britain.

My particular disgust with immigration policy is focused on the abuses of the HlB system - which to me has functioned as a pipeline for "replacement workers", workers who are decidedly not more skilled or experienced than their predecessors, but merely lower-paid and easier for corporations to manipulate and control.

I am much more sympathetic to legitimate asylum seekers - but also think that we need to do a much better job encouraging quick assimilation to American norms with this population.

Perhaps this would make Jayapal's head explode, but I increasing have come to think of myself as an "Americans first" Democrat. That means that I believe that the primary responsibility of government is to take care of its own - those born here, or who came here legally, or those that we have specifically decidedly to be merciful towards.

I would argue that in this age of voodoo economics meets globalization, its the documented populations of the US that has born the brunt of these policies, and that's why there is so much angst over immigration.

Americans have always been a generous, welcoming people - at least when their government has first done right by them.