-
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.
Kirsten Gillibrand announces 2020 presidential run
- Thread starter RastaMentality
- Start date
OP
OP
the DNC is going to put candidates on two separate nights who clear certain bar. The difference between this and the RNC debates is that they'll be placed randomly so there's no "kiddie table" (Julian Castro and Kamala could end up on the same stage). This is so they avoid any arguments of playing favorites or not giving candidates an equal voice.
RIP Al Franken
The sad thing is a lot of people feel this way even on this site.
"He understood the needs of the white working class and he deserved better"
But is the country ready to be run by someone with a vagina? Our brave servicemen can barely resist pulling each other off and putting things in their butts with a strong man like Trump in office. Without the benefit of his example it could be anarchy!
It already did, electoral college fuckery aside. And that was with the widespread and sustained interference of a foreign power, plus Comey's last minute surprise.
Last edited:
RIP Al Franken
Anyone defending Al Franken is a woman hating piece of shit. Al Franken defenders make me want Gillbrand to win.
I know right. She'll serve two years as president and then ditch us to be the queen of mars. Fool us twice, etc!
She's got my support.
Maybe Beto could sway me but idk.
Debates should be random straw pulls with how many folks are gonna be there. Do don't do that dumb kiddy table shit the cons did last go
Maybe Beto could sway me but idk.
Debates should be random straw pulls with how many folks are gonna be there. Do don't do that dumb kiddy table shit the cons did last go
Does Gillabrand have a shot? Years back it looked like she was being groomed by Hillary for Big Things but that's faded. Nowadays she's overshadowed by candidates like Kamala Harris, and Beto. Perhaps she's angling for a VP or cabinet position for the winner?
And yet the worst male candidate in the history of the country is eating McD's in an empty White House, like a scene from Idiocracy.
Trump didn't do that on his own. He got outside help from the Russians, with a multi-pronged sophisticated attack that was years in the making, the GOP made sure Obama stayed quiet about it, and Comey interfered by throwing shade on her at the last minute - all at once. No candidate in history has gone against that, so yeah she failed. Were things less against her favour and more like a traditional election she would have won. Despite these setbacks she retained the popular vote, except it was not in the right areas to get the Electoral College in her corner. Russia isn't going to stay out of 2020, either.
Another presidential run again? The previous presidential run just felt like literally yesterday
That's because that's exactly what she is. She has no political convictions other than wanting to be in power. She was one of the most conservative Democrats in the House while she held her rural upstate seat. Then to reach the upper chamber she went full Camp Hillary. Now she's playing at being a progressive because that's the way the wind is blowing.
She's a stain on my home state and everything that's wrong with the Democratic Party in one person. Although, to be fair, that also describes at least 50-60% of the currently elected membership of the Democratic Party. I wouldn't even care about US politics if Bernie hadn't dropped in two years ago and given me false hope. Shit sucks, yo.
When you say "dropped in two years ago" do you mean "has literally been an active member of congress for decades"? But like sorry about your political apathy, I guess.
In the State of Vermont. Excuse me for not hearing about him until he ran for national office. I didn't know social democracy in America was still alive until I went to one of his speeches. It's just as well though, because the liberal party establishment seems hellbent on ensuring it stays dead.
That's not your fault, that's Bernie's. He's spent his entire career being obscure since he never bothered with the big picture of running in presidential primaries or developing a high profile congress with accomplishments.
That's natural in political parties, and socialists or socialist sympathisers like Bernie have preferred to sit on the sidelines rather than rise up and fight the centrists head to head until very recently. Which gave them greater struggles to overcome as they aren't as politically smooth as the centrists who took over the party quickly and efficiently in the 90's. It's not the establishment's job to ensure your ideology survives, that's on your own group's.
Lately the shift has turned left, which has sent candidates like Gillabrand toward that direction to survive. Are candidates like Bernie or Warren enough to overcome Gillabrand? We'll find out.
It's surreal that we're here. Gillibrand running in 2020 is one of those future things that is known but not real.
Last edited:
There's no real way of knowing right now. There haven't been any debates or voting and not everybody has announced their candidacy. She doesn't have the name recognition of Biden or Warren but more than most people running, and her policies are likely more in line with the average democrat voter than Biden is. But then again from what I've seen she also doesn't seem to be a particularly great speaker either. Who knows. There are so many unknown factors to these things.
unlike a lot of those candidates she doesn't really have a "brand" yet so it could go either way. it's how she got Hillary's senate seat, keeping a low profile and swooping in ahead of the top listers while nobody was looking. obviously the dem primary is a different ballgame and she's a bigger name now but i could see the obvious choices fizzling out and putting her ahead
Tulsi better leave the primaries when her campaign is finished, I don't want another repeat of Bernie's eternal campaign after she loses in Cali. Cali's going to leave bodies everywhere now it's timetable has moved up for '20.
Establishment had nothing to do with him losing. The voters rejected him. He lost the popular vote from primaries alone. By A LOT. Bernie does not represent the base of the Democratic party. That is why he didnt win.
Actually he lost because he got millions of votes less than his opponent.
I'm not endorsing this as an actual moral and policy plan, but I do think there is actually a pretty big lane for a candidate running on white feminism in the primary. Suburban white women were a pretty major force in 2018, and I think she could build a decent voter base out of them on a platform of fairly banal, aspirational white feminism, as disappointing as it would be to see. She's been pretty meticulously grooming herself as the candidate most in line with #resistance types, making sure to be the person in the Senate voting most against Trump.
Also, I think the stories about donors being angry at her over Al Franken will end up helping her, since now any attacks she can try to label as the establishment good old boys' network coming after her to avenge Franken.
I don't think she's in the top tier of candidates, but I think she's maybe best positioned to be the candidate everyone is least mad about getting nominated if the frontrunners all end up destroying each other.
Most of them do not give a shit about Franken. They would always find an excuse to not vote for a woman.
"Yeah I support a woman candidate, just not THIS woman candidate".
It's not about the money. You don't need mega donors if you have tons of fans. You can easily raise enough off of small donations if your campaigns message reaches out to enough people
Also you can get mega donors to back you but it doesn't matter if no one cares; See Jeb! 2016
Problem is that she doesn't have a national fan base, and people who are willing to make small contributions to politicians this cycle will likely opt for someone not from the Tristate area with ties to Wall Street and so on.
I've yet to meet anyone irl who is actually a fan of hers, and I live in this area. She's making a mistake even trying to run tbh. I don't know what group of voters she appeals to that someone else who is also running doesn't appeal to way better
Warren still has the best politics but Gillibrand is certainly someone that I can get behind. She's much better than opportunistic assholes like Tulsi.
Bernie split white voters 1:1 with Hillary. He lost black voters at a 3:1 ratio. This is why he lost and Obama won, and understanding why these voters were not comfortable with him despite Clinton's imperfect record is what you should actually be looking at instead of blaming "The Establishment". http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer...t-can?bftwnews&utm_term=.xd0W1aL10#.beMGQryQX
Awesome, don't need that Islamophobe, antiLGBT, Bernie bro loving (for no reason other than that she endorsed Bernie) loser Tulsi Gabbard on stage.
I really hated that when I told Tulsi fans that Beto, Warren, Biden, or Kamala were some alternatives I was considering, they called me a corporate shill...except Tulsi's voting record is to the right of all of them.
I disagree. These same people love Bernie.
her claim to fame is endorsing Bernie and thus getting OurRevolution's support (shame on them)
Bernie does not lie in the same place on that quadrant as Tulsi.
The biggest reason was BIll Clinton's relationship with older black women in the South and black pastors. Her last name won her the primary and cost her the general.
Bill Clinton understood the black church very very well, a lot better than Hillary did.
I'm just glad we already have at least 3 candidates better than both Hillary and Bernie, who both sucked for different reasons, even if I liked many of Bernie's policy goals and ambitions. (I would pick Warren or Castro over both Hillary and Bernie, as well as several other likely but undeclared candidates)
Bernie's coalition was lefties (far left part of the bottom left), young people (all over the map) and populist I types (the socially conservative part in the upper left.) Relatively consistent on economics, but...not so much on social issues. It's laid out well in the WSJ graphics here: http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/ And it explains some of the weirdness you see in Figure 11 here - https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond
Vermont has serious issues with race. It's got the highest proportion of incarcerated black people in the country despite having a very low black population, and its sole black member of its State House has resigned and is moving out of state due to targeted racial harassment. And that sort of background is why someone from that region was going to have an uphill battle with a super important part of the Dem electorate even before any of the self-inflicted wounds.
Agreed. I didn't want Hillary to run in 2016, would have possibly voted Biden or Warren over her in the primary (despite not being interested in either this go round) and I'm very thankful we have a new generation this time out.
I actually don't expect Warren to do very well. The party is largely in lockstep with her, at least more so than at any prior point, so she is no longer "The Leftist Option" the way she could have been in 2016, and I don't think she has a natural aptitude for campaigning to set her apart from the pack without that distinction.
I don't expect Tulsi to win any state other than Hawaii, and even then I wouldn't be shocked if she lost it to one of the frontrunners.