• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
NEWS_170209569_AR_0_HFGTNVRESXUT.jpg


Eric Garcetti has been making more trips to Washington and to some of the "fly-over" states. There are rumblings of a run.




Kamala Harris I can see, but man... America couldn't handle a highly experienced white woman running for office, so...

Booker I never heard of and I will have to read up.
If the gop can run women candidates, I'm pretty sure dems shouldn't be afraid to either.
 
OP
OP
Kimura

Kimura

Banned
Nov 4, 2017
1,034
Nobody has said the words "Elizabeth Warren" yet. Is she still best in the senate like lots of folks believed last time?
 

SolidSnakex

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,415
I hope he runs, DNC has done nothing but fuck up

I mean, given how much Democratic candidates have been winning as of late and just how aggressive leadership is being in going after a ton of seats, something they didn't do in the past, I don't know how you can say they're still fucking up.

Nobody has said the words "Elizabeth Warren" yet. Is she still best in the senate like lots of folks believed last time?

Last month she said that she's not going to run.
 

Snake Eater

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
11,385
Nobody has said the words "Elizabeth Warren" yet. Is she still best in the senate like lots of folks believed last time?

She would be the wet dream candidate for Trump to run against

I do like her but she's hated by the right at almost Clinton levels, it would be 2016 repeat
 

Shauni

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,728
She would be the wet dream candidate for Trump to run against

I do like her but she's hated by the right at almost Clinton levels, it would be 2016 repeat

Any female who would run against Trump will be hated by the right at near Clinton levels pretty much instantly. The right vehemently anti-woman
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Nobody has said the words "Elizabeth Warren" yet. Is she still best in the senate like lots of folks believed last time?
She has a LOT of the same issues Hillary did. GOP smear campaign, not very charismatic, generally truthful to a fault, not good on her feet in confrontational situations. I like her a lot personally, but she missed her shot at running by choosing not to go for it in 2016.
Nah. Warren doesn't have insane Republican propaganda going back to the '90s dogging her.
It's been since the '09/'10s for her, the CPFB was her brainchild and she never got to lead it because of the GOP/Fox News campaign against her.

A reason Dems should prefer a fresh face is that it allows them to define themselves w/ uninformed voters before the GOP has a chance to go on the attack.
 

Ogre

Member
Mar 26, 2018
435
For those of you who are imagining Bernie, or Biden, or Warren running in 2020, I want you to picture this for a second:

Imagine Trump. Take that protectionism, racism, populism, and fascism, and the GOP's willingness to betray the pillars of our democracy for power, and place it into a young, attractive, eloquent, charismatic candidate. A candidate that can actually orate, someone that can actually veil his/her policies and with a willingness to support the dismantling of the institutional protections we have in place.

Combine Trumpism with the "Aw-shucks", homegrown appeal of a Bill Clinton.

Imagine any of the above three above, running as an incumbent against an actually strong Republican candidate in 2024. How do you think they would fare?
 

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091

dusteatingbug

Member
Dec 1, 2017
1,393
Not gonna say I source the National Review alot but: https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/08/cory-bookers-imaginary-friend-eliana-johnson/

Legit if Cory Booker got the nomination, dems are finished in 2020

Also, here's a Washington Post reporter basically admitting to being a bad reporter but also talking about T Bone:

When we talked over (a lot of) coffee in New Jersey last week, I asked Booker about T-Bone. He asserts that the T-Bone story is indeed true. But he also somehow seems to create some wiggle room, appearing to couch his defense in a critique of the cynicism of the press.

The exchange is ultimately more relevant for the glimpse it offers of Booker's impressive rhetorical mechanics, how they move him from a question about an allegedly fictitious – or composite – drug dealer on a Newark street corner, to an indictment of the press, to a mention of Eva Longoria, to a positive argument about his own authenticity to, somehow, a point about the importance of not letting "terrorists and those who seek us harm to change our fundamental values like the right to privacy."

That my next question after the exchange stuck with the privacy issues and the National Security Agency, and not T-Bone, is perhaps a testament to the effectiveness of Booker's rhetorical talents. The transcript of the T-Bone portion of the interview is below.

JH: The T-Bone thing was a mistake right?

CB: What T-Bone thing?

JH: Didn't you create a composite drug dealer character?

CB: Nooo. This is again how the press seems to write history. It's just not true!

JH: What is the truth?

CB: This is a story that I used to tell all the time that was a hundred percent true. And the most cynical reporter for the Ledger writes as if – and then he goes like this – he goes to some guy, not even from my neighborhood – 'Was there ever a character?' The guy doesn't know Brick Towers.

JH: So it's true?

CB: When I first moved to that community, imagine a street that, honestly.....I worked everywhere from East Harlem to East Palo Alto, you talk to people from that neighborhood – in fact, in my speech the night before with Eva Longoria, there was a whole bunch of Brick Towers people there and I found myself easily going to them, saying 'Y'all remember this, you all remember that?' And people saying 'Yeah.' It was the most dangerous street in the world, the drug dealers had it locked down. So yeah I got my life threatened, and yeah I met the same guy who when he got in trouble with the law needed some help. And yeah he did break down in tears. So what that whole episode told me was the cynicism of that. Because by the way, now you hear me telling stories that are just as quote unquote incredible but are a day in the life of people who live in those communities. So I said 'Ok, if this reporter is going to attack that, let me tell the same stories that happened to me last month.' That now -- because back then nothing was recorded – but now, there are shootings in my neighborhood, there are guys who have come to my house who are drug dealers. That was a thing that so infuriated me, because he took a story from ten, twelve years before and tried to say somehow looking back in history something wasn't true. And that was one of my early lessons about – this press is ridiculous about that.

JH: Huh, because I had read....

CB: One reporter wrote about something and tried to call me out on it. Which is just ridiculous. So what I said to that reporter, 'I'm going to continue to tell stories.' Listen to any speech I give and there will be stories about real people -- and now? Because I know people are going to try and call me on things, I know their names, I know where they are from. And reporters do! 'Who is this person you talked about?' I told a story about Frank Hutchins today. All the same color, and drama and importance. Because folks who live in Newark know, you don't know somebody who hasn't been affected by a shooting. You don't know somebody who doesn't know somebody who has been addicted to drugs. So how could this guy tell me, when people live in Newark with drug dealers on every corner, about real interactions with these drug dealers. I remember once – and I think '60 Minutes' still has this – where I was sitting on a street corner having a conversation with a guy, and I say 'Where are you going to be in 25 years? And he goes, 'Either dead or in jail.' And so thank God there was a reporter saying that, because I've told that story a number of times. So this is the cynicism of the press that sometimes – you know, and again, when people think about the influence of corporate America, the press is corporate America too. They are trying to sell stories and reporters, their motivations often aren't to get to the truth, it's to get to the front page. I saw how you can write the same paragraph – and I'm a writer – and shade it three or four different ways, that are going to influence the way a reader reads. So to face that from guys like this reporter, it's just, it was sad and frustrating to me. But at the same time. You. Don't. Change. The minute they start changing you, and again I just admit to you that I change on -- now when I tell stories I make sure that I can document, show DNA samples and everything like that – the second they change you? They win. This is why the who privacy issue is such a big issue to me right now, because if we let terrorists and those who seek us harm to change our fundamental values like the right to privacy than we have allowed our enemies to undermine our democracy.

Also, Slate:

Update: Booker campaign spokesman Kevin Griffis responded to me and pointed out Booker's Esquire interview from 2008 as evidence that T-Bone is a real person—his name just isn't actually "T-Bone":

T-Bone's actual earthly existence has been fodder for public debate, leading Booker to admit that although T-Bone's corporeal being is "1,000 percent real," he's an "archetype" of an aspect of Newark's woe whose actual nom de crack may not actually be T-Bone. Which pisses off a historian like Clement Price.

"The mayor addressed it then," Griffis says. "This is a partisan attempt to revive a fake controversy from five years ago and make it a 2013 fake controversy."
 

cartographer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,009
Booker making people up is the least of his worries.

New Jersey politics is notoriously corrupt and dirty. Booker played his part as mayor. He may try a primary run but he is going to get absolutely buried if any of the other campaigns are awake.
 

Ogre

Member
Mar 26, 2018
435
She has a LOT of the same issues Hillary did. GOP smear campaign, not very charismatic, generally truthful to a fault, not good on her feet in confrontational situations. I like her a lot personally, but she missed her shot at running by choosing not to go for it in 2016.

It's been since the '09/'10s for her, the CPFB was her brainchild and she never got to lead it because of the GOP/Fox News campaign against her.

A reason Dems should prefer a fresh face is that it allows them to define themselves w/ uninformed voters before the GOP has a chance to go on the attack.

I mean, yeah. I'm not saying the GOP didn't go after her at all, but, dude, until Warren has her own smear TV series called "The Warren Chronicles," the difference will always be stark.

Other than that, yeah, the Dems need to run a fresh face, but no too fresh. You gotta hit that sweet spot in between "How can you trust this candidate when they are barely known at all" and "Now that we've had time to investigate, this candidate may have said something about killing babies in undergrad in '91 while possibly inhaling lacquer according to sources."
 

SolidSnakex

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,415
For those of you who are imagining Bernie, or Biden, or Warren running in 2020, I want you to picture this for a second:

Imagine Trump. Take that protectionism, racism, populism, and fascism, and the GOP's willingness to betray the pillars of our democracy for power, and place it into a young, attractive, eloquent, charismatic candidate. A candidate that can actually orate, someone that can actually veil his/her policies and with a willingness to support the dismantling of the institutional protections we have in place.

Combine Trumpism with the "Aw-shucks", homegrown appeal of a Bill Clinton.

Imagine any of the above three above, running as an incumbent against an actually strong Republican candidate in 2024. How do you think they would fare?

Is what you described what the GOP want though? Do they want someone whose hate is veiled when Trump has been so open about his? The party has been drifting in this direction for some time. To some degree I think it really began with Palin. Not just in the hate she openly pushed ("palling around with terrorist"), but also the kind of anti-intellectual mindset that the GOP seems to embrace so much now (although you could certainly argue that goes back to Bush). Trump in many ways is the culmination of all that. A really dumb motherfucker that's proud of being hateful. Let's remember that he announced his candidacy by talking about how Mexico was sending rapists and other criminals. Then later went on to push the idea of outright banning Muslim's from entering the country. He hasn't all veiled his hate toward minorities and the GOP have responded quite well to it. I think the only thing Trump has a more veiled approach with is how he handles gay rights. Because his message is that he embraces and supporters gay rights. But his VP is notoriously homophobic and he continually picks other staff and judges that are also homophobic. But he doesn't even need to have that veiled approach because if there's anyone that the GOP hates more than minorities it's those in the LGBT community. I mean, just a few days ago it was revealed that the Texas GOP Convention has banned a Gay Republican group.

I certainly get where you're coming from, but i'm questioning whether that's what that party really wants at this point. And i'm not sure that it is. They've gone down a rabbit hole with Trump and they really haven't done anything to suggest they want to leave it.
 

Inugami

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,995
Republicans aren't going to switch back to a soft spoken or eloquent speaker... Trump is the face of the republican party and what they want now. A 'straight talker' who always says exactly what's on their mind. Their mind being one of white nationalism.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Is what you described what the GOP want though? Do they want someone whose hate is veiled when Trump has been so open about his? The party has been drifting in this direction for some time. To some degree I think it really began with Palin. Not just in the hate she openly pushed ("palling around with terrorist"), but also the kind of anti-intellectual mindset that the GOP seems to embrace so much now (although you could certainly argue that goes back to Bush). Trump in many ways is the culmination of all that. A really dumb motherfucker that's proud of being hateful. Let's remember that he announced his candidacy by talking about how Mexico was sending rapists and other criminals. Then later went on to push the idea of outright banning Muslim's from entering the country. He hasn't all veiled his hate toward minorities and the GOP have responded quite well to it. I think the only thing Trump has a more veiled approach with is how he handles gay rights. Because his message is that he embraces and supporters gay rights. But his VP is notoriously homophobic and he continually picks other staff and judges that are also homophobic. But he doesn't even need to have that veiled approach because if there's anyone that the GOP hates more than minorities it's those in the LGBT community. I mean, just a few days ago it was revealed that the Texas GOP Convention has banned a Gay Republican group.

I certainly get where you're coming from, but i'm questioning whether that's what that party really wants at this point. And i'm not sure that it is. They've gone down a rabbit hole with Trump and they really haven't done anything to suggest they want to leave it.
It's been drifting this way since 1968.
 

shintoki

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,132
Warren ain't half as bad as Clinton nor Bernie. Nor is throwing everything on the smear campaign true. Clinton's issue has always been consistency. Warren nor Sanders suffer from this. This is not an endorsement of either, I don't want either to run.

And Booker's ass is going to run into the same exact fucking issue as Clinton. Political views in the 90s were vastly different than now. The one strong suit with Bernie is, he's been consistent. Booker would fail on the young vote, largely because of his ties with Pharma and Banking. We're not even 10 years from the housing crash. He'll come out and say the reverse, but we all already got the receipts for him saying the opposite.

They basically need someone fresh like Bams, where the dirt trial hasn't developed yet. Or someone like Sanders, who has a fairly solid record across the board.

Sadly, I don't think either will happen. I hate to say it, but Sanders, Booker, and most of the names forward I feel aren't going to generate the motivation needed. And the people most likely, need another few years in the cooker, till 2024. But let's be honest here as well, Obama did it overnight. I could be wrong with that. Duckworth could throw her hat into the ring and honestly turn into the perfect foil. She doesn't have dirt, is a legit vet, a woman, etc.
 
Last edited:
Jan 18, 2018
2,625
On which areas? I've not followed up on her? I recall she was nearly 1:1 on sanders on virtually everything except for weed legalization?

No way. The smear on Hillary is unmatched.

Nah. Warren doesn't have insane Republican propaganda going back to the '90s dogging her.

Policy doesn't matter.

She has a weak, whiny voice.

That's what 55 percent of the country care about.

Sexist? Absolutely. This is a country that will forgive a serial cheater while accusing Hillary of being a poor leader because she stayed with Bill

Imagine her at a debate. She can talk perfectly about policy.

Meanwhile, your average American falls asleep and wakes up the second Trump lobs an insult.

Remember, in this country, being a professor is an insult
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
Republicans aren't going to switch back to a soft spoken or eloquent speaker... Trump is the face of the republican party and what they want now. A 'straight talker' who always says exactly what's on their mind. Their mind being one of white nationalism.

Bingo, but you can still have a 'strong man' who hides hides his white nationalism behind just being dominant and and having a cult of personality.

They just want someone who will verballly 'beat people up', the white nationalism doesn't have to be 'overt' overt. What we'll likely see is a 'condemnation' of some of what Trump said but 'honest talk' about how it 'started a conversation' about 'real issues'.
 
Last edited:

Ogre

Member
Mar 26, 2018
435
Is what you described what the GOP want though? Do they want someone whose hate is veiled when Trump has been so open about his? The party has been drifting in this direction for some time. To some degree I think it really began with Palin. Not just in the hate she openly pushed ("palling around with terrorist"), but also the kind of anti-intellectual mindset that the GOP seems to embrace so much now (although you could certainly argue that goes back to Bush). Trump in many ways is the culmination of all that. A really dumb motherfucker that's proud of being hateful. Let's remember that he announced his candidacy by talking about how Mexico was sending rapists and other criminals. Then later went on to push the idea of outright banning Muslim's from entering the country. He hasn't all veiled his hate toward minorities and the GOP have responded quite well to it. I think the only thing Trump has a more veiled approach with is how he handles gay rights. Because his message is that he embraces and supporters gay rights. But his VP is notoriously homophobic and he continually picks other staff and judges that are also homophobic. But he doesn't even need to have that veiled approach because if there's anyone that the GOP hates more than minorities it's those in the LGBT community. I mean, just a few days ago it was revealed that the Texas GOP Convention has banned a Gay Republican group.

I certainly get where you're coming from, but i'm questioning whether that's what that party really wants at this point. And i'm not sure that it is. They've gone down a rabbit hole with Trump and they really haven't done anything to suggest they want to leave it.

What the GOP wants is what wins and keeps them in power. Party leadership has been more than willing to follow Trump down the road to fascism, but even without Trump, McConnell alone has been a wrecking ball to our institutional strength. It's shortsighted and shameless, but the rank and file are going along with it. What we are watching is a craven, barely masked attempt to entrench power.

My point is that Trump was a weak candidate. He won, in spite of himself for four reasons:
1.) He was going up against one of the GOP's favorite targets, who was, herself, a weak candidate.
2.) The Republican machine is extremely good at setting the media narrative and helped blow up every relatively routine election story about Hillary into Watergate level coverage.
2.)The Republicans have been wisely pursuing governorships and local and state level positions for years, while the Democrats intensely focus on winning the big prize.
3.) By doing point 2, Republicans have been able to gain valuable advantages at the margins, due to rampant gerrymandering and voter suppression laws.

Trump won the EC at those margins, and he scraped by to victory.

But, here's the thing: Trump is an idiot who can't get out of his own way, yet he has had his utility. The thing is, the GOP knows the writing on the wall. Trump is going to implode at some point, and trying to bank on a similarly weak candidate is not a winning strategy. The Republican leadership now knows that being an open bigot can be mitigated against another weak opponent, but not if the Dems field an Obama-strength incumbent with the possibility of a strong economy at their back. And Republicans want to win.

Basically, it's not at all hard to imagine a well spoken Christian Dominionist, who adheres closely to the Republican agenda, being a front runner for the Republican Primaries in 2024. Why bank on margins when you can actually compete?


It's been drifting this way since 1968.

Eh, I think the Evangelical Right galvanization in the 80's and the marginalization of Goldwater-esque peleoconservatives started it in earnest. I think the real Overton shift started rapidly accelerating with the rise of Right Wing media and gradual conservative base inoculation against traditional media sources in the early 90s.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
Eh, I think the Evangelical Right galvanization in the 80's and the marginalization of Goldwater-esque peleoconservatives started it in earnest. I think the real Overton shift started rapidly accelerating with the rise of Right Wing media and gradual conservative base inoculation against traditional media sources in the early 90s.
Nah, it was 1968. It was the birth of the Southern Strategy

edit: Damn it, kirblar
 

Enzom21

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,989
Same.

As a minority, I'm tired of this "No white people" bullshit. It's racist as fuck and I don't see how it's allowed.
Where in that post did it say anything about "no white people"?
Commenting on how he is yet another white candidate in a vast sea of white candidates is not racist..

I really hope this is satire
I am curious, do you think there are any negatives to Sanders and/or his campaign?
 

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,924
Oh ffs. Please don't give us another 4 years of Trump. No controversial client, just a simple, moderate democrat. Please.
 

Ogre

Member
Mar 26, 2018
435

Nah, it was 1968. It was the birth of the Southern Strategy

edit: Damn it, kirblar

I'm aware of the Southern Strategy. I'd also note that Goldwater began the basis for it in the '64 election, and Nixon springboarded from there. But that's honestly not exactly what I'm addressing. I wasn't attempting to point out the Republican shift toward an acceptance of overt racism (which I understand is not necessarily your points either), but rather the shift rightward toward fascism in general. While the Southern Strategy did cause a massive shift rightward, the addition and reliance on the authoritarian Christian Right coupled with the single-minded, insular, parallel world that has been fostered and reinforced over the last 30 years has accelerated beyond anything else.
 

Powdered Egg

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
17,070
Wouldn't Ellison be in hot water for being a former Nation of Islam member? The Right and Democrats would have a field day with that.
 

SolidSnakex

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,415
What the GOP wants is what wins and keeps them in power. Party leadership has been more than willing to follow Trump down the road to fascism, but even without Trump, McConnell alone has been a wrecking ball to our institutional strength. It's shortsighted and shameless, but the rank and file are going along with it. What we are watching is a craven, barely masked attempt to entrench power.

My point is that Trump was a weak candidate. He won, in spite of himself for four reasons:
1.) He was going up against one of the GOP's favorite targets, who was, herself, a weak candidate.
2.) The Republican machine is extremely good at setting the media narrative and helped blow up every relatively routine election story about Hillary into Watergate level coverage.
2.)The Republicans have been wisely pursuing governorships and local and state level positions for years, while the Democrats intensely focus on winning the big prize.
3.) By doing point 2, Republicans have been able to gain valuable advantages at the margins, due to rampant gerrymandering and voter suppression laws.

Trump won the EC at those margins, and he scraped by to victory.

But, here's the thing: Trump is an idiot who can't get out of his own way, yet he has had his utility. The thing is, the GOP knows the writing on the wall. Trump is going to implode at some point, and trying to bank on a similarly weak candidate is not a winning strategy. The Republican leadership now knows that being an open bigot can be mitigated against another weak opponent, but not if the Dems field an Obama-strength incumbent with the possibility of a strong economy at their back. And Republicans want to win.

Basically, it's not at all hard to imagine a well spoken Christian Dominionist, who adheres closely to the Republican agenda, being a front runner for the Republican Primaries in 2024. Why bank on margins when you can actually compete?
.

But GOP leadership didn't even want Trump in power. It was ultimately voters that put him into power. So would those same voters be willing to vote for the type of candidate that you described over the inevitable Trump 2.0 candidate that will be in the race as well? Because we've already seen those types of Republicans bubble up. Someone like Roy Moore ultimately lost, but it wasn't because he's hateful. It wasn't because he actually said the last time America was great was when we had slavery. Something he said in response to a question from the lone black person in the crowd. No, he lost because he's an accused child predator. And even then he only barely lost. So the GOP could potentially find a candidate like you described. But they're going to have to get voters to pick him over the candidate calling him a cuck and pussy. They're going to have to get them to vote for him over the candidate that's openly railing against immigrants, minorities, women and those in the LGBT community. Because that's a type of messaging that works very well with the base that Trump has cultivated. It's not the one that those in charge of the GOP may want to get behind because he's so open with his hate, but it's one they have to get behind because it's where their base is now.

Another thing is that if the GOP wants that candidate and they at least make it somewhat clear that he's their choice, then you can be sure that Trump 2.0 candidate will use that to his advantage and position himself as being anti-establishment. And that's something that Trump supporters again will respond to. I think to some degree you can see how Trump has potentially fractured the party going forward. Because there are those that don't want that sort of extremist voice leading the party. At least for the immediate future they're going to have that extremist view working in their party and they're going to have to navigate that. So can the nominee you're describing actually pull enough voters to beat out those who're attracted to the extreme? Being vague is going to be a negative for those when the person on the other side is using profanity to describe someone, or making fun of someones appearance or calling for harsh laws against those in the LGBT community.