Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

1246710

Comments

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I see Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), has tossed her hat into the ring. Kirsten is very interesting. She was originally known as a blue dog Democrat--almost like a Democrat in Name Only. She was originally a House member, but she says when she became a Senator, she began to see the larger period. Once she was pro-gun, now she argues for reasonable gun control. She bills herself as pro-family, but in terms of universal health care, family leave, sound education, raising the minimum wage. She has voted against the Trump nominations for cabinet members.

    I think she may be someone to follow.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    ...I think she may be someone to follow.
    I think so too.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Kirsten is very interesting. She was originally known as a blue dog Democrat--almost like a Democrat in Name Only. She was originally a House member, but she says when she became a Senator, she began to see the larger period.

    Gillibrand has probably the most astute political instincts of anyone currently considered a serious contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. She seems to govern somewhat to the left of whatever constituency she's currently representing, which means that she's taken leftier positions as a Senator representing all of New York than she did as a Congresswoman representing New York's 20th Congressional District. Whether this is political opportunism, leftward politics tempered with pragmatism, or a philosophical commitment to representing the interests of her constituents as best she understands them is a matter of perspective.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Kamala Harris (D California) has thrown her hat into the ring.

    Me thinks that Biden and Sanders need to hurry up and get in if they are going to or they are going to be left in the dust.

    Now, reports are Howard Schultz, the former president of Starbucks, is considering standing for the president as an independent. Democrats are really mad about this because they fear he will siphon Democratic voters off, giving trump re-election.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited January 21
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Kamala Harris (D California) has thrown her hat into the ring.

    Me thinks that Biden and Sanders need to hurry up and get in if they are going to or they are going to be left in the dust.

    Now, reports are Howard Schultz, the former president of Starbucks, is considering standing for the president as an independent. Democrats are really mad about this because they fear he will siphon Democratic voters off, giving trump re-election.
    I think it obvious he will siphon votes.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Biden and Sanders won't be left in the dust; they have the highest name recognition. They can afford to wait longer than others and consolidate support and money behind the scenes.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    For those who are nostalgic for the Obama years, it looks like some folks are gearing up for Birtherism 2.0, featuring Kamala Harris.
    Jacob Wohl, a 20-year-old hipster coffee shop connoisseur who most notably failed to falsely accuse Special Counsel Robert Mueller of sexual harassment in an operation that included his mom’s phone number, tweeted on Tuesday alleging that Harris wasn’t a natural-born citizen. His theory goes that even though she was born in the U.S., her dad and mom — who were from Jamaica and India, respectively — weren’t legal residents before then.

    Harris’ parents’ citizenship status has no bearing on Harris, as she was born in Oakland, CA. This is a stupid, nonsensical, unworthy argument lodged against Harris, who — similarly to the last Democratic candidate whose eligibility to serve as president is somehow still hotly-contested by right-wing racists — also happens to be black.

    Conspiracy theorists are going to conspiracy theorize, but there's no reason for allegedly neutral media outlets to treat them as anything other than a freak show.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    edited January 22
    For those of you who can access The New York Times, this is a good summary of actual and potential Democratic candidates.
  • Soror MagnaSoror Magna Shipmate
    edited January 22
    Kamala Harris also spent some time in Canada, which will make her even more suspect to some, I'm sure. Canada being that hotbed of radical universal healthcare.

    ETA: And let's not forget the "anchor baby" insults. I almost did.
  • Here's some of my take:

    Biden has experience from being in the Decision Room when key national security and other decisions were being made that is invaluable in a future president, and that none of the other candidates have. I'm a little less sure about the value of his rapport with Senators from both parties and his ability to work across the aisle to get legislation passed in the past, because this experience was much less useful that one would have thought it would be because of the polarization and winner-take-all attitude that have come to dominate the Senate (although not as much as in the house).

    That said, I really think the Democratic Party needs a change of guard. Biden's health has also been having issues. All this is if he even runs!

    I'll give my thoughts about other candidates later.
  • Obama was seen as inexperienced, wasn't he?
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    However, since the liberal base (who aren't all Bernie fans), wealthy donors, and interest groups are often very influential in determining the nominee, neither Biden or Sanders may get the nomination if they even run - and I'm not sure if either of them would be the best candidate or the best president.
    Then start getting used to DT, because those are currently the only two that have a chance. Strike off the minorities, the US is a different country now than the one that elected Obama. Strike off the women, partly for that reason and partly because the two with name recognition won't manage what is necessary for the campaign. Really, Biden should be your choice. He has that same say whatever the fuck attitude that served Trump well; he's likeable, relateable and he is a white male.

    I thought it before, and now
    numbers show you're wrong:

    A new Public Policy Polling survey found that every potential Democratic candidate in the 2020 presidential election — announced and unannounced — would beat President Trump in a head-to-head contest.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    A new Public Policy Polling survey found that every potential Democratic candidate in the 2020 presidential election — announced and unannounced — would beat President Trump in a head-to-head contest.
    I can agree with them, provisionally, that any potential candidate could beat Trump, but he will be running against every potential candidate, even when they are eliminated. Thus potentially diluting the effort.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Kamala Harris also spent some time in Canada, which will make her even more suspect to some, I'm sure. Canada being that hotbed of radical universal healthcare.

    ETA: And let's not forget the "anchor baby" insults. I almost did.

    Ted Cruz was born in Canada (to American citizens).

    But I think most Americans are ready for a universal health care program along the lines of Canada.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    A new Public Policy Polling survey found that every potential Democratic candidate in the 2020 presidential election — announced and unannounced — would beat President Trump in a head-to-head contest.

    But does that poll take into account the Electoral College? I agree that a famous white male candidate is not necessarily any more likely to beat Trump than anyone else. Even if that made political sense (I'm not sure it does), all the rules of political logic do not apply anymore.

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Obama was seen as inexperienced, wasn't he?

    Being a relatively fresh face did help him win, but it also (in my view) led him to make some very costly decisions on foreign policy, and possibly to not prioritize getting a bigger stimulus passed - we are still living with the results of not enough stimulus then, despite our raging economy - and holding individuals responsible for fraud that led to the financial meltdown criminally accountable. But it could have been his idealism and desire for bipartisanship (which met with practically no cooperation from Republicans) that led to the latter. Still an amazing President in my view.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    A new Public Policy Polling survey found that every potential Democratic candidate in the 2020 presidential election — announced and unannounced — would beat President Trump in a head-to-head contest.

    But does that poll take into account the Electoral College?

    No, but that probably doesn't matter since polling this early isn't a good predictor of anything even if a state-by-state electoral college level poll was taken. All the poll indicates is that Donald Trump is very unpopular (as American presidents go) and that potential Democratic challengers who haven't yet been through the rigors of a campaign are viewed more favorably than him.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Apparently a PAC which formerly backed Trump is now trying to "draft" Ann Coulter into challenging Trump in the Republican primary on the understanding that she'd run to Trump's right on immigration. Not sure if this is a serious effort simply a shot across Trump's bow by immigration hardliners.
  • GwaiGwai Purgatory Host
    According to polling, being female does not actually seem to correlate to doing worse in elections. And it's not clear that minority candidates do much worse:
    As I have written before, research on elections does not support the idea that female candidates do worse than male ones. Black and Latino candidates seem to do slightly worse with white voters but boost turnout among their identity groups, so the story is complicated there too.
    from https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kamala-harris-2020-democratic-primary/
  • Sam Bee did a thing on how the four and likely five (so far) female candidates for the Democratic nomination are being treated by the press. She was saying that female candidates are getting more attention on their 'likeability' than male candidates. Personally, I am genuinely not sure about the message Sam is delivering, but I like that it is being delivered. I also don't watch the range of television media that Sam draws on. I love that Sam Bee has her own show though, and is so fearless and forthright in putting forward a genuinely alternative view with funnies.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    ANN COULTER? Is Outrage!

    You know, I live in a teeny poky little bass-ackward state with a population so pale-complected, so native-born-going-back-umpty-leven-generations, and so ayuh-Yankee-accented it's hard to believe we didn't actively plot ourselves into existence. Maybe it's the company I keep, but I Just Do Not Get all this immigrant hysteria. Do we have immigrants here? We do. Our largest (well, okay, virtually only) sizable city has students speaking 62 languages other than English. Among my pale-complected etc. acquaintance, I can't think of a single family without at least one immigrant (usually several) included in it.

    Yes, there are occasional instances of bigotry. But I'd bet lunch on it being nearly impossible to get up even a modest-size anti-immigrant demonstration. Is there strong feeling of this nature elsewhere -- outside the Tramp administration, that is?
  • Immigration is an unalloyed good in my opinion, and in the Australian context. I think it is probably good everywhere and that attempts to stop it are bigoted. They are certainly bigoted in Australia. People in this country use the same lines their parents and grandparents did: They won't assimilate because they are too foreign; they don't share our values; they don't have the same respect for human life; there's millions of them waiting in Southern China/Indonesia/war-torn Europe. Or, they are the peasants of (insert country) that are being dumped on us, or they will take advantage of our welfare system. yadda yadda yadda

    We are currently going through this with people from the Middle East, Iran and Afghanistan and Africa. You watch. Their kids will go to Uni and become professionals. We already have a Kenyan-born woman in Parliament.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    We now have the first Democrat to officially withdraw from the presidential primary: Richard Ojeda.
  • Rats. He was appealing to Trump suckersvoters.
  • I hope he continues to be involved in politics. He struck me as a bloke who might have a good heart.
  • Dear Howard Schultz:

    Copy: Michael Bloomberg

    Please don't run as an independent. You'll just take votes away from whomever the Democratic candidate is, and you aren't likely to pick up that many Republican or independent-who-voted-for-Trump votes. Do we really need another billionaire (or self-proclaimed billionaire) as President?
  • From my point of view, I see quite a lot to like about Kamala Harris. Gillibrand has also been on the list of contenders for a while, but as Crœsos says, she's a politician, and it's hard to tell what she actually thinks.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    From my point of view, I see quite a lot to like about Kamala Harris. Gillibrand has also been on the list of contenders for a while, but as Crœsos says, she's a politician, and it's hard to tell what she actually thinks.

    I've always thought "what do they really think" is a less useful question to ask about a politician than "how will they really govern". Take the example of Mitt Romney. He'd been through so many different political incarnations that you could tell the only thing he really believed in was the idea that Mitt Romney should be president, but given the political realities of 2012 he would almost have certainly governed as an extreme social conservative who would engage in the usual Republican orgy of debt-fueled tax cuts and increases in military spending. Whether or not a hypothetical Romney presidency would be doing those things because Mitt Romney sincerely believed in them or because Mitt Romney was motivated by political risk/reward calculations is a distinction that only really matters to hypothetical President Romney's conscience, assuming he had such a thing.

    The same calculus applies to Gillibrand. What she thinks is less important than how she'd govern, and she's consistently governed somewhat to the left of whatever constituency she represents.
  • I think you must add that Mitt Romney believes at his core in the fight against tooth decay.

    Very good post Croesos. You have the right of it.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Jeff Flake announced that he won't mount a primary challenge to Donald Trump:
    Jeff Flake, the Arizona Republican who spent his final months in the Senate as President Donald Trump’s most vocal GOP critic, says he won’t mount a primary challenge to Trump.

    "I have always said that I do hope that there is a Republican who challenges the president in the primary," Flake said in an interview on "CBS This Morning" on Tuesday. "I still hope that somebody does, but that somebody won’t be me. I will not be a candidate."

    Left unsaid is whether Flake would be a candidate if Donald Trump for some reason can't or won't run for re-election, but I rate Flake's chances about the same either way.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Yeah; trash-talking loudly about moves one then votes for probably doesn't add significantly to one's voter appeal.
  • Some more general thoughts about potential or actual Democratic candidates:

    Warren: I like her willingness to go into specifics on policy. I like her policies, including her economic ones (except on trade), but I don't like some of the us-vs-them populist economic rhetoric she uses.

    Sanders, who hasn't declared yet: His speeches all sounded the same in 2016, and he was not particularly knowledgeable of foreign policy.

    Harris: She needs to go more into specifics, and she needs to come up with a sweeping criminal justice reform agenda to deal with the negative coverage she is getting in left-wing circles about her time a District Attorney of SF and Attorney General of CA (although she did make some brave and laudable reform-minded decisions then). She also said something pretty stupid as a joke on Ellen that might come back to bite her. I'm very interested to see how she campaigns and how she performs in debates.

    Cory Booker, who hasn't declared yet: Too close to Wall Street.

    Gillibrand: I'd also like to closely watch her campaign, to see how progressive and detailed her proposals are as they develop and how she might adjust her stances in response to left-wing and/or moderate criticism and the positions other candidates take.

    Brown (as in Sherrod Brown), who hasn't declared yet: I really don't like his stance on trade.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    The only person I know I am not voting for is the person currently residing in the people's house in DC.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    George Will makes a good case for Amy Klobuchar.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has announced his non-candidacy for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. You know you probably made the right choice when the article announcing this fact is mostly devoted to how your decision affects other people.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Maybe he's the reincarnation of William Tecumseh Sherman . . . "If nominated I will not run . . . "
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    In the past, many of the western states had their presidential primaries in late spring. The primary system kind of moves from East to West, but by the time the Western states have their say, many of the original candidates have dropped out and the nomination has already been decided. This next go around the Western States want to get into the game sooner. Washington State just moved its primary system to March (first Tuesday after the first Sunday of the month).
  • I worry that having too many candidates will split the votes such that whoever wins will come down to name recognition, cult of personality, fan base, inoffensiveness (or, conversely, offensiveness to Trump supporters), or the last person standing after a circular firing squad.

    I think the candidates on the left are particularly vulnerable to splitting the votes of progressives such that none of them advance. The other candidates are also likely to steal their slogans and rallying cries to win votes but without backing them up with concrete policy proposals.

    Candidates are also likely to be changing positions much more rapidly than in a normal primary in order to dodge attacks from other candidates and the many interest groups in the party (which are angrier now and more suspicious of each other), which will leave the eventual candidate vulnerable to accusations of insincerity - which might seem rich coming from Trump but they worked against Clinton.

    I also worry that by trying to out-vilify Trump, rile up the base, and grab headlines, candidates will say any number of outrageous things that may come back to hurt them, either intentionally or as a gaffe like Clinton with her deplorables comment. Trump gets away with this all the time but for Democrats:

    1. They have large parts of their (Democrats') base that is extremely sensitive to any hint of cultural/racial/you-name-it insensitivity.

    2. Those moderates in the suburbs that helped give Democrats seats in Congress in 2018 - as well as less affluent voters who switched from voting for Obama to voting for Trump - are also likely to be turned off by anything too hostile, callous, or radical.

    3. Trump's base and the broader Conservative base are really riled up when they see Democrats foaming at the mouth. They seize upon any gaffe, like the deplorables comment, that makes a Democrat look like at best like out of touch elitist and at worst like someone who hates them and run with it for long, long after the mainstream media has stopped covering it.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Cory Booker is now officially running for president.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I am not all that concerned about a large number of Democrats saying they are running in the Democratic primaries, Democrats have long been known to be very fractured when it comes to selecting a nominee. I think it shows a party that is open to considering more than one option.

    The big unknown is what impact Howard Schultz could have on the General Election. He will siphon some Democratic votes they will need to gain the presidential seat.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    I am not all that concerned about a large number of Democrats saying they are running in the Democratic primaries, Democrats have long been known to be very fractured when it comes to selecting a nominee. I think it shows a party that is open to considering more than one option.

    I think if the Republican field had not been so divided in 2016, we may not have would up with Trump as President. But I may be wrong.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited February 2
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I am not all that concerned about a large number of Democrats saying they are running in the Democratic primaries, Democrats have long been known to be very fractured when it comes to selecting a nominee. I think it shows a party that is open to considering more than one option.

    I think if the Republican field had not been so divided in 2016, we may not have would (sic) up with Trump as President. But I may be wrong.

    Unlike the Democrats, which thrive on division, the Republicans are at their weakest when it is divided. Wikipedia says there were a total of 17 major candidates who entered the Republican primaries in 2016. With such a diffusion of the party, a solid minority lead by Drumpy--and blessed by the Evangelicals--crushed the more moderate candidates.

    Now it is my contention, that if it were not for the way the Clinton camp had handled the Bernie camp in the end, the Democrats could have won. The lesson to be learned as the Democratic primaries move into 2020 is for their candidates to ultimately support the final nominee.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited February 2
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Now it is my contention, that if it were not for the way the Clinton camp had handled the Bernie camp in the end, the Democrats could have won. The lesson to be learned as the Democratic primaries move into 2020 is for their candidates to ultimately support the final nominee.
    I think the way Bernie handled Bernie is a factor as well.
    I do not think the Democrats thrive with division, I don't think any group does. Sometimes they survive it, and that is a different thing.

    I think that 'ultimately support the final nominee' is a larger hurdle than you do.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited February 2
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The big unknown is what impact Howard Schultz could have on the General Election. He will siphon some Democratic votes they will need to gain the presidential seat.

    Maybe, maybe not. The first actually polling on a (still-theoretical) Schultz candidacy indicates that most people don't know who he is, and those who do know don't like him by pretty huge margins.

    This is an excerpt from the linked article, not a quote from @Gramps49
    Schultz is viewed unfavorably by Democrats (50% unfavorable — 4% favorable), Republicans (43% unfavorable — 4% favorable), and Independents (31% unfavorable — 4% favorable).

    A 10:1 or 12:1 unfavorable-to-favorable ratio is a tough thing to overcome, even with an unlimited ad budget.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Now it is my contention, that if it were not for the way the Clinton camp had handled the Bernie camp in the end, the Democrats could have won.

    I hear a lot of generic platitudes along these lines, but very few specifics. What exactly do you think the Clinton campaign should have done (or not done) to "handle[] the Bernie camp"?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited February 2
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The big unknown is what impact Howard Schultz could have on the General Election. He will siphon some Democratic votes they will need to gain the presidential seat.

    Maybe, maybe not. The first actually polling on a (still-theoretical) Schultz candidacy indicates that most people don't know who he is, and those who do know don't like him by pretty huge margins.

    This is an excerpt from the linked article, not a quote from @Gramps49
    Schultz is viewed unfavorably by Democrats (50% unfavorable — 4% favorable), Republicans (43% unfavorable — 4% favorable), and Independents (31% unfavorable — 4% favorable).

    A 10:1 or 12:1 unfavorable-to-favorable ratio is a tough thing to overcome, even with an unlimited ad budget.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Now it is my contention, that if it were not for the way the Clinton camp had handled the Bernie camp in the end, the Democrats could have won.

    I hear a lot of generic platitudes along these lines, but very few specifics. What exactly do you think the Clinton campaign should have done (or not done) to "handle[] the Bernie camp"?

    What could the Clinton campaign had done? First of all, they rigged the primary with all the superdelegates committed to her before the primaries even started. They called in a lot of favors. They could have released those delegates to vote for whichever candidate had won their state's primary. Second, they could have offered Bernie a spot on their future cabinet. He was minority lead on Veterans Affairs in the Senate. He would also have been quite influential in Health and Welfare or even in Education. It would have been a stretch for him to have been offered State or even the VP. Definitely not Defense, though (Collin would have been a shoo-in for that position).

    Obama did that when he won the nomination himself. He offered Clinton the Secretary of State and he offered Biden the VP.

    Lincoln once said keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Clinton did not do that.
  • A lot of Bernie supporters (some of whom, granted, may have been unlikely to vote for a Democrat or at all before the Bernie phenomenon) were vehemently anti-Clinton even after she won the nomination. So Democrats (and left-leaning people and anti-Trump people in general) need to work on being willing to unite under whoever the eventual nominee is (assuming that that person is better than Trump, which all the current Democratic candidates are). I can imagine that the more liberal base may not want to get behind a candidate who has made a serious misstep on an issue very important to liberals, and that a very liberal candidate may make those suburban moderates everyone keeps talking about not willing to get behind them. Many may vote for them anyway, but they won't donate or volunteer, which makes a huge difference in getting out the vote of less politically engaged people.

    @Gramps49, why do you think the Democrats thrive on division?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited February 2
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I hear a lot of generic platitudes along these lines, but very few specifics. What exactly do you think the Clinton campaign should have done (or not done) to "handle[] the Bernie camp"?

    What could the Clinton campaign had done? First of all, they rigged the primary with all the superdelegates committed to her before the primaries even started. They called in a lot of favors. They could have released those delegates to vote for whichever candidate had won their state's primary.

    For those unfamiliar with superdelegates, which may include @Gramps49 given the way he describes them, the system was implemented in 1982 and first used in the Presidential Election of 1984. I'm kind of impressed that Mrs. Clinton had the foresight and political pull to implement this system from behind the scenes while she was serving as First Lady of Arkansas. Superdelegates are Democratic party officials, like current members of the federal Congress, currently serving Democratic governors, and former presidents and vice presidents. Since they're not bound in any way and can change their minds right up until they cast their vote at convention I'm not sure exactly what the Clinton campaign was supposed to do to "release" them. Call them up and say something along the lines of "Hey, you know how I came to your office in the Russell Building and explained why my vision of leadership is better for America and your constituents than Sanders'? Yeah, forget all that and reconsider." (Imagine Hillary having that conversation with superdelegate Bill Clinton for a moment.) Suggesting something like this indicates a fairly absurd idea of what running for office means.

    I suppose it's possible to argue that the superdelegate system is inherently undemocratic, but that's the system that was in place in 2016. It was not installed by the Clinton campaign, nor was it the Clinton campaign's duty to undermine the way the Democratic party holds elections. Changing the way an election is conducted in the middle of that election is a very bad idea for reasons I don't think I have to explain. Sanders was just as capable of lobbying Democratic office holders as Clinton was, perhaps more so since he saw a good number of them in the Senate when it was in session. Clinton "rigged" the superdelegates the same way she "rigged" the regular delegates: by getting more votes than anyone else.

    By my calculations, having superdelegates vote the same way as their states (or not voting at all) would have resulted in a Clinton victory anyway, so I'm not sure what @Gramps49's suggestion of throwing the system into chaos was supposed to accomplish.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Second, they could have offered Bernie a spot on their future cabinet. He was minority lead on Veterans Affairs in the Senate. He would also have been quite influential in Health and Welfare or even in Education. It would have been a stretch for him to have been offered State or even the VP. Definitely not Defense, though (Collin would have been a shoo-in for that position).

    It's considered a sign of arrogance to pick out your cabinet before you're elected. Tim Kaine was a much better pick as a running mate than Sanders. Kaine was younger than Clinton, who was 69 on Inauguration Day 2017, and he represented a fairly populous purple state.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Obama did that when he won the nomination himself. He offered Clinton the Secretary of State and he offered Biden the VP.

    We don't know if any offers were made during the campaign, but Obama made no public declaration of his intention to nominate Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State until he was President-Elect Obama. If you're privy to some kind of insider information @Gramps49, maybe you could share a few details?

    For similar reasons we have no idea who would have served in Hillary Clinton's cabinet.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    And would Sanders' supporters really have become enthusiastic for Clinton had she only offered him a plum cabinet position?
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Schultz had an interview on NPR a few days ago. He basically came off as a egotistical billionaire asshole, as the saying goes.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    One is tempted to wonder: is egotistical assholery necessary to the process of becoming a bilionaire, or does becoming a billionaire turn one into an egotistical asshole?
Sign In or Register to comment.