Has anyone ever got in on a second attempt, or do people think "if they couldn't get nominated the first time..."?
-
-
You’re right. It does sound pretty awful. And as long as they keep putting up rich old white men, the alternative will never stand a chance.Originally posted by Superman Falls View PostComment
-
C'mon Dogg Thang. While I know exactly what you mean, there are people at the American border in cages with numbers stamped on their forearms.Originally posted by Dogg Thang View Post
The US is a two-party system. The Democrats can't put up a candidate they feel who should win in their perfect world. They need to put up a candidate who will win in our existing, imperfect one.
I hate it, you hate it, most of us hate it, but I think this problem needs a pragmatic solution this time. And yes, I know the immediate response is "that's always the excuse" but that's just going to have to do in 2020.Comment
-
I don't buy it. I don't buy it because I don't think putting up a faux-Trump or anyone aimed to appease his voters will win. It's not a level playing field. Those voters don't hold people to the same standards yet those who want someone more progressive hold people to far, far greater standards and so aiming to go more in that rich white guy direction only validates the Republicans while not really helping the other side. And with elections only every four years, the time it would take to shift any kind of perception would be across generations. There needs to be a hard turn right now. A harder push. Not feeding in to those voters or trying to win them over but pushing hard against them and galvanising voters with an opposite and harder opponent. Not a weak appeaser.
So no, I don't feel that is a pragmatic solution. I think it only reinforces the new status quo.Comment
-
Nixon. If you mean the nomination process, not sure. Nixon lost to JFK in the 1960 election, and won in 1968.Originally posted by QualityChimp View PostLie with passion and be forever damned...Comment
-
In normal circumstances I'd agree but given the situation America is currently in I don't see how the Democrats can afford to effectively take a stance on a hard progressive candidacy that is less likely to win. They have to deal with the reality of the voters they're trying to win over, it's less the Trump supporter and more the fence sitters who can be swayed they need to appeal to and that means playing safe and nominating someone who can better bridge the gap, something they will find easier by removing the gender/race element that is clearly an issue for so many American voters. It's not right but frankly the US can't afford to hold a progressive nomination presidential race at the expense of letting the nation, it's people and wider world suffer from another four years of Trump that would undoubtedly make this one look like a s---show rehearsal. The sooner they can end his position the sooner they can begin to undo his legacy and the damage he's done, a short term compromise that would better lead to the long term aims they want. It's clear from their nominations that the Democrats are being more diverse and inclusive but for this race I reckon they'll have to be content with that if they want their best shot at stopping Trump's second termComment
-
Yeah, nomination process, more than parties shifting control.Originally posted by Mayhem View PostComment
-
Comment
-
Hillary Clinton, which I have no idea why I completely forgot in my previous post. Lost to Obama in the nomination in 2008, won in 2016. Biden was one of the Democrat nominees for the 1988 race but lost, and ended up two decades later as Obama's VP. McCain was runner up to Dubya in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008. Likewise Romney lost to McCain, and got the nod in 2012. Those are about the only ones I can come up with right now!Originally posted by QualityChimp View PostLie with passion and be forever damned...Comment
-
That's perfect, thank you.Originally posted by Mayhem View Post
I was concerned that losing once might damage your chances of running again.Comment
-
Apparently this will be Sanders sixth attempt at winning a nomination, where's that Elsa gif?Comment
-
When I think about when the Lib Dems were in the coalition with the Tories, all their critics used to say was "you promised the abolition of tuition fees, but didn't, thus you are complete failures!"
It doesn't matter what they did (or stopped the Tories doing), their time was up.
When you look at Trump, who said "I will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it!", he's failed on both accounts.
I'm flummoxed why even his zealots think he's true to his word when he's mainly played golf.Last edited by QualityChimp; 20-02-2019, 10:44.Comment
-
It's because his message is that he still wants to build it.Originally posted by QualityChimp View Post
The Lib Dems promised it, then when in power, actively said they weren't doing it.
It'd be like if Trump changed his mind in office due to opposition.Comment
-
This is always my point and it's relevant to UK, US and pretty much everywhere else: the more rational, compassionate and intelligent sides (even when their goals are different or are split into different parties) hold themselves to a far higher standard. And that's not a level playing field. That's why I believe centrism is a losing strategy and only shifts the centre further to the right each time. The left hold their people to a higher standard and will eat their own when those standards are not met. Meanwhile the other side will mindlessly rally behind known liars, idiots, racists or whatever and hold themselves to no standards whatsoever. There is strength in that.Comment
-
The Lib Dems were never in power, there was only ever a minority in coalition. I'm quite sure if they had formed a government on their own, then they'd have kept their manifesto promise.Originally posted by Asura View Post
Whether they should have gone into coalition is an entirely separate question.Comment
Comment