Red Mosquito

Simple Torture wrote:In the past hundred years, do you know how many VPs have been elected to the presidency after their POTUS completed their term? I'm asking for a specific reason...

Spoiler: show

The answer is 2: HW Bush and Nixon (obvi Nixon had some years between his VP term and his presidency). I'm asking because I wonder if the idea that the vice presidency is a stepping stone is overhyped--why would someone like Harris want to lock herself into a position that doesn't really historically demonstrate a path to the Oval Office, which she so obviously wants?

Worth mentioning that Johnson, Truman, and Coolidge did win presidential elections, but only became president due to a president dying in office, so one could perhaps inscribe an incumbency advantage there (Ford was the other VP who served as POTUS, but he never won re-election--he's a great pub trivia answer for the question "only POTUS never to be elected president or Vice President).

run2death wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:if you think warren is hrc p2 then you probably don't see much further than the fact that they both have lady parts

cutuphalfdead wrote:

96583UP wrote:

run2death wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:if you think warren is hrc p2 then you probably don't see much further than the fact that they both have lady parts

HRC2 in that she might appear on the surface like she has a chance to win / could be competitive but ultimately lacks the crossover appeal (among other things) to actually win

personality wise, her overbearing aggression, apparent lack of self-awareness, and lack of charisma (outside of her already-dedicated sect) are similar to hillary. and doesn’t help that physically she actually looks like her too

obv Warren is waaay more liberal than killary, however

but hillary wasnt stupid enough to take a dna test to disprove something DJT said

<smokes peace pipe>

months ago i posted about how much i was looking forward to Warren running; and maybe 3 days later she came out unprompted with that stupid dna test

made herself look like a total ass

and acting as if she was already the nominee / front-runner

she is a good senator and could be a good POTUS but she can’t win this race. she dq-ed herself with the dna thing. but at least she demonstrated to us her judgement skills when under duress early so we can save some time taking her candidacy seriously over the next 2 years

Asher has the better take on this.

96583UP wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

96583UP wrote:

run2death wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:if you think warren is hrc p2 then you probably don't see much further than the fact that they both have lady parts

HRC2 in that she might appear on the surface like she has a chance to win / could be competitive but ultimately lacks the crossover appeal (among other things) to actually win

personality wise, her overbearing aggression, apparent lack of self-awareness, and lack of charisma (outside of her already-dedicated sect) are similar to hillary. and doesn’t help that physically she actually looks like her too

obv Warren is waaay more liberal than killary, however

but hillary wasnt stupid enough to take a dna test to disprove something DJT said

<smokes peace pipe>

months ago i posted about how much i was looking forward to Warren running; and maybe 3 days later she came out unprompted with that stupid dna test

made herself look like a total ass

and acting as if she was already the nominee / front-runner

she is a good senator and could be a good POTUS but she can’t win this race. she dq-ed herself with the dna thing. but at least she demonstrated to us her judgement skills when under duress early so we can save some time taking her candidacy seriously over the next 2 years

Asher has the better take on this.

i would more rather she turns it around than not. but i won’t hold my breath. she already lost me. i am tired of the US Weekly approach to politics and she played right into it.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

96583UP wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

96583UP wrote:

run2death wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:if you think warren is hrc p2 then you probably don't see much further than the fact that they both have lady parts

HRC2 in that she might appear on the surface like she has a chance to win / could be competitive but ultimately lacks the crossover appeal (among other things) to actually win

personality wise, her overbearing aggression, apparent lack of self-awareness, and lack of charisma (outside of her already-dedicated sect) are similar to hillary. and doesn’t help that physically she actually looks like her too

obv Warren is waaay more liberal than killary, however

but hillary wasnt stupid enough to take a dna test to disprove something DJT said

<smokes peace pipe>

months ago i posted about how much i was looking forward to Warren running; and maybe 3 days later she came out unprompted with that stupid dna test

made herself look like a total ass

and acting as if she was already the nominee / front-runner

she is a good senator and could be a good POTUS but she can’t win this race. she dq-ed herself with the dna thing. but at least she demonstrated to us her judgement skills when under duress early so we can save some time taking her candidacy seriously over the next 2 years

Asher has the better take on this.

i would more rather she turns it around than not. but i won’t hold my breath. she already lost me. i am tired of the US Weekly approach to politics and she played right into it.

If you're willing to throw away ideas like the federal government should work to protect consumers because of the indian thing then you've played right into the far right's hand.

meatwad wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

96583UP wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

96583UP wrote:

run2death wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:if you think warren is hrc p2 then you probably don't see much further than the fact that they both have lady parts

HRC2 in that she might appear on the surface like she has a chance to win / could be competitive but ultimately lacks the crossover appeal (among other things) to actually win

personality wise, her overbearing aggression, apparent lack of self-awareness, and lack of charisma (outside of her already-dedicated sect) are similar to hillary. and doesn’t help that physically she actually looks like her too

obv Warren is waaay more liberal than killary, however

but hillary wasnt stupid enough to take a dna test to disprove something DJT said

<smokes peace pipe>

months ago i posted about how much i was looking forward to Warren running; and maybe 3 days later she came out unprompted with that stupid dna test

made herself look like a total ass

and acting as if she was already the nominee / front-runner

she is a good senator and could be a good POTUS but she can’t win this race. she dq-ed herself with the dna thing. but at least she demonstrated to us her judgement skills when under duress early so we can save some time taking her candidacy seriously over the next 2 years

Asher has the better take on this.

i would more rather she turns it around than not. but i won’t hold my breath. she already lost me. i am tired of the US Weekly approach to politics and she played right into it.

If you're willing to throw away ideas like the federal government should work to protect consumers because of the indian thing then you've played right into the far right's hand.

Gimme a break dude. Any Democrat is going to be for consumer protections just as any Republican will be against them. Let's not forget that in order to pass the dream progressive agenda, there would need to be a massive wave of progressives elected to Congress to support it, and that's just not happening anytime soon.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

meatwad wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

96583UP wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

96583UP wrote:

run2death wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:if you think warren is hrc p2 then you probably don't see much further than the fact that they both have lady parts

HRC2 in that she might appear on the surface like she has a chance to win / could be competitive but ultimately lacks the crossover appeal (among other things) to actually win

personality wise, her overbearing aggression, apparent lack of self-awareness, and lack of charisma (outside of her already-dedicated sect) are similar to hillary. and doesn’t help that physically she actually looks like her too

obv Warren is waaay more liberal than killary, however

but hillary wasnt stupid enough to take a dna test to disprove something DJT said

<smokes peace pipe>

months ago i posted about how much i was looking forward to Warren running; and maybe 3 days later she came out unprompted with that stupid dna test

made herself look like a total ass

and acting as if she was already the nominee / front-runner

she is a good senator and could be a good POTUS but she can’t win this race. she dq-ed herself with the dna thing. but at least she demonstrated to us her judgement skills when under duress early so we can save some time taking her candidacy seriously over the next 2 years

Asher has the better take on this.

i would more rather she turns it around than not. but i won’t hold my breath. she already lost me. i am tired of the US Weekly approach to politics and she played right into it.

If you're willing to throw away ideas like the federal government should work to protect consumers because of the indian thing then you've played right into the far right's hand.

Gimme a break dude. Any Democrat is going to be for consumer protections just as any Republican will be against them. Let's not forget that in order to pass the dream progressive agenda, there would need to be a massive wave of progressives elected to Congress to support it, and that's just not happening anytime soon.

If all Democrats are the same then why was HRC the wrong choice?

meatwad wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

meatwad wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

96583UP wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

96583UP wrote:

run2death wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:if you think warren is hrc p2 then you probably don't see much further than the fact that they both have lady parts

HRC2 in that she might appear on the surface like she has a chance to win / could be competitive but ultimately lacks the crossover appeal (among other things) to actually win

personality wise, her overbearing aggression, apparent lack of self-awareness, and lack of charisma (outside of her already-dedicated sect) are similar to hillary. and doesn’t help that physically she actually looks like her too

obv Warren is waaay more liberal than killary, however

but hillary wasnt stupid enough to take a dna test to disprove something DJT said

<smokes peace pipe>

months ago i posted about how much i was looking forward to Warren running; and maybe 3 days later she came out unprompted with that stupid dna test

made herself look like a total ass

and acting as if she was already the nominee / front-runner

she is a good senator and could be a good POTUS but she can’t win this race. she dq-ed herself with the dna thing. but at least she demonstrated to us her judgement skills when under duress early so we can save some time taking her candidacy seriously over the next 2 years

Asher has the better take on this.

i would more rather she turns it around than not. but i won’t hold my breath. she already lost me. i am tired of the US Weekly approach to politics and she played right into it.

If you're willing to throw away ideas like the federal government should work to protect consumers because of the indian thing then you've played right into the far right's hand.

Gimme a break dude. Any Democrat is going to be for consumer protections just as any Republican will be against them. Let's not forget that in order to pass the dream progressive agenda, there would need to be a massive wave of progressives elected to Congress to support it, and that's just not happening anytime soon.

If all Democrats are the same then why was HRC the wrong choice?

Where did I say they were all the same? You mentioned consumer protections, which is something that pretty much every Democrat is in favor of.

McParadigm wrote:I don’t see any use in tracking the primary process at this stage. It will be like any other process (see: Speakership): the list will thin out as people conduct test polls, find out they can’t win or will risk too much, and/or make support deals in exchange for cabinet level hopes. Some of these people aren’t really even planning to run, but are using the language and motion of it to gain a better seat at the policy table.

Literally business as usual, just a bit more caffeinated this year.

cutuphalfdead wrote:

meatwad wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

meatwad wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

96583UP wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

96583UP wrote:

run2death wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:if you think warren is hrc p2 then you probably don't see much further than the fact that they both have lady parts

HRC2 in that she might appear on the surface like she has a chance to win / could be competitive but ultimately lacks the crossover appeal (among other things) to actually win

personality wise, her overbearing aggression, apparent lack of self-awareness, and lack of charisma (outside of her already-dedicated sect) are similar to hillary. and doesn’t help that physically she actually looks like her too

obv Warren is waaay more liberal than killary, however

but hillary wasnt stupid enough to take a dna test to disprove something DJT said

<smokes peace pipe>

months ago i posted about how much i was looking forward to Warren running; and maybe 3 days later she came out unprompted with that stupid dna test

made herself look like a total ass

and acting as if she was already the nominee / front-runner

she is a good senator and could be a good POTUS but she can’t win this race. she dq-ed herself with the dna thing. but at least she demonstrated to us her judgement skills when under duress early so we can save some time taking her candidacy seriously over the next 2 years

Asher has the better take on this.

i would more rather she turns it around than not. but i won’t hold my breath. she already lost me. i am tired of the US Weekly approach to politics and she played right into it.

If you're willing to throw away ideas like the federal government should work to protect consumers because of the indian thing then you've played right into the far right's hand.

Gimme a break dude. Any Democrat is going to be for consumer protections just as any Republican will be against them. Let's not forget that in order to pass the dream progressive agenda, there would need to be a massive wave of progressives elected to Congress to support it, and that's just not happening anytime soon.

If all Democrats are the same then why was HRC the wrong choice?

Where did I say they were all the same? You mentioned consumer protections, which is something that pretty much every Democrat is in favor of.

You're right I got off track here.

I just get frustrated when I see so many people willing to disown Warren over this. It was definitely a mistake and played right into the hands of the Trump, et al; but she's a solid progressive candidate that champions the issues that the left loves but still has crossover appeal to mainstream America (think CFPB, universal health coverage). She's basically a Bernie Sanders that doesn't come off nearly as crazy. And I think her DNA bullshit happened far enough out that she can still pivot away from that and run a successful campaign.

But regardless, this is exactly what the 2020 Primary season is all about. The Dems need to run everyone, let them hash it out, come up with a nominee, and let everyone get behind that person to defeat Trump.

meatwad wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

meatwad wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

meatwad wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

96583UP wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

96583UP wrote:

run2death wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:if you think warren is hrc p2 then you probably don't see much further than the fact that they both have lady parts

HRC2 in that she might appear on the surface like she has a chance to win / could be competitive but ultimately lacks the crossover appeal (among other things) to actually win

personality wise, her overbearing aggression, apparent lack of self-awareness, and lack of charisma (outside of her already-dedicated sect) are similar to hillary. and doesn’t help that physically she actually looks like her too

obv Warren is waaay more liberal than killary, however

but hillary wasnt stupid enough to take a dna test to disprove something DJT said

<smokes peace pipe>

months ago i posted about how much i was looking forward to Warren running; and maybe 3 days later she came out unprompted with that stupid dna test

made herself look like a total ass

and acting as if she was already the nominee / front-runner

she is a good senator and could be a good POTUS but she can’t win this race. she dq-ed herself with the dna thing. but at least she demonstrated to us her judgement skills when under duress early so we can save some time taking her candidacy seriously over the next 2 years

Asher has the better take on this.

i would more rather she turns it around than not. but i won’t hold my breath. she already lost me. i am tired of the US Weekly approach to politics and she played right into it.

If you're willing to throw away ideas like the federal government should work to protect consumers because of the indian thing then you've played right into the far right's hand.

Gimme a break dude. Any Democrat is going to be for consumer protections just as any Republican will be against them. Let's not forget that in order to pass the dream progressive agenda, there would need to be a massive wave of progressives elected to Congress to support it, and that's just not happening anytime soon.

If all Democrats are the same then why was HRC the wrong choice?

Where did I say they were all the same? You mentioned consumer protections, which is something that pretty much every Democrat is in favor of.

You're right I got off track here.

I just get frustrated when I see so many people willing to disown Warren over this. It was definitely a mistake and played right into the hands of the Trump, et al; but she's a solid progressive candidate that champions the issues that the left loves but still has crossover appeal to mainstream America (think CFPB, universal health coverage). She's basically a Bernie Sanders that doesn't come off nearly as crazy. And I think her DNA bullshit happened far enough out that she can still pivot away from that and run a successful campaign.

But regardless, this is exactly what the 2020 Primary season is all about. The Dems need to run everyone, let them hash it out, come up with a nominee, and let everyone get behind that person to defeat Trump.

The bolded part is where we diverge. I don't see that crossover appeal at this time. But I think you're spot-on regarding the primaries. It will be the equivalent of what the Republican primaries were for the 2016 cycle with a very crowded field. Should be interesting.

McParadigm wrote:You fuck faces are gonna make this thread even stupider than the sjw one but

McParadigm wrote:I don’t see any use in tracking the primary process at this stage. It will be like any other process (see: Speakership): the list will thin out as people conduct test polls, find out they can’t win or will risk too much, and/or make support deals in exchange for cabinet level hopes. Some of these people aren’t really even planning to run, but are using the language and motion of it to gain a better seat at the policy table.

Literally business as usual, just a bit more caffeinated this year.