Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 128: Total Eclipse of Breitbart

(+) Yeah! (+)

Dancedreamer posted...

...and most liberals. I mean ideally for the democrats they take back the senate without needing a tiebreaker vote. So VP becomes absolutely worthless.

Kasich/Hickenlooper instead of Trump/Pence is a win for liberals.

Is it as big of a win as Warren/Harris or something like that? No. But it's a huge improvement.
---

Sure it's a huge improvement.

George W. Bush/Dick Cheney having another 4 years would be a big improvement over the Trump administration. Doesn't mean I'd want it in 2020.
---

Hickenlooper could be in favor of single payer healthcare, massive infrastructure spending, automatic voter registration, and universal basic income and it still wouldn't be worth voting for Kasich.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/901032475111116800

Few, if any, Administrations have done more in just 7 months than the Trump A. Bills passed, regulations killed, border, military, ISIS, SC!

I like how this list just degrades into nouns and letters

Also top response:

You just tweeted that Bills can't be passed because of 8 Dems. Now you says they are being passed? Dementia Much?

Also, he "did" ISIS? The truth comes out!
---

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Of course let's wait and see who the Dems nominate too.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Of course let's wait and see who the Dems nominate too.

I'm not. I know damn well Kasich is a typical far-right corporate friendly antichoice neocon and I have absolutely no interest in electing him president.
---

Snap reaction to that "unity" ticket.

no thanks

Don't get me wrong, it would be a massive improvement over the current administration. However, if Democrats can't win in 2020 I mean...
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

This isn't a case of "Perfect is the enemy of good" it's a case of "Better is sometimes just a case of less bad."
---

Dancedreamer posted...

...and most liberals. I mean ideally for the democrats they take back the senate without needing a tiebreaker vote. So VP becomes absolutely worthless.

That's pretty unlikely
The easiest path requires knocking out Cruz (which is not easy)
---

I'm all for rooting for Kasich/Funnydemname in the 2020 primary. This would be about as ideal of a situation as I could ask for from the Republican party. I wouldn't commit to a general election vote until I saw the DNC opponent, but I could have supported Kasich against Hillary last year and having a Democrat VP is nice to think about too.

All that said, man, I just haven't seen the proof that Republicans want Kasich as President. It's kind of like a joke Al Franken said about liking Lindsey Graham the best of the 2016 Republican candidates -- Lindsey would joke about how that was Lindsey's biggest problem. Republicans don't want a Democrat's Republican.

I'd be pretty well shocked to see Kasich with a Democrat VP primary a sitting President after seeing the proven method of winning for Republicans has been to utterly disrespect Democrats. If he could get on the ticket though, it could be real interesting.
---

That's if they want to take the Senate back in 2018. One assumes the map is far more conducive to a Democratic Senate after 2020 (in which the 2014 class would be up)

(I had the same thought at first before realizing this hypothetical would be taking place in 2020 not 2018)
---

xp1337 posted...

Snap reaction to that "unity" ticket.

no thanks

Don't get me wrong, it would be a massive improvement over the current administration. However, if Democrats can't win in 2020 I mean...

Would it really be that much dumber than them losing in 2016?
---

xp1337 posted...

That's if they want to take the Senate back in 2018. One assumes the map is far more conducive to a Democratic Senate after 2020 (in which the 2014 class would be up)

(I had the same thought at first before realizing this hypothetical would be taking place in 2020 not 2018)

Oh yeah, good point
Yeah there are way more GOP Senate seat up in 2020, though most of them are in pretty red states.
---

HaRRicH posted...

I'd be pretty well shocked to see Kasich with a Democrat VP primary a sitting President after seeing the proven method of winning for Republicans has been to utterly disrespect Democrats. If he could get on the ticket though, it could be real interesting.

The article said they'd run as Independents
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Would it really be that much dumber than them losing in 2016?

kinda

Not that the Democrats should be excused for 2016 but aside from Clinton being part of a 25+ year campaign of the GOP smearing her, the party and base were blindsided by the result.

they shouldn't have those excuses in 2020

they also wouldn't be running against a theoretical Trump but one whose actions they can point to
---

What if they run Clinton again <_<
---

I think she probably wins! >_>
---

Theoretically, could a ticket stay in power for 4 terms if they kept swapping which one was on top?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

What if they run Clinton again <_<

There is a small chance Hillary runs again. There is a 0% chance she gets the nomination.
---

I think the VP needs to meet all requirements for President, so it would work for 3 terms, but then the VP wouldn't meet the term limit during the 4th term.

I think.
---

That makes sense
---

I'm not sure. If being elected at the top of the ticket twice makes you ineligible for being a VP though that idea would only work for 3 terms though. (Whoever won twice couldn't be part of it the fourth time around)

I don't recall if that question has even been answered though.

edit: beated =(
---

xp1337 posted...

I think she probably wins! >_>

Hahahahahahahahahaha.
---

Oh, if they run as independents then...hmmm, not all that sure it hurts Republicans more than Democrats. They'd be interesting though.

And if Hillary ran for President again, like, I can already hear the super-delegates talk. Argh. Run for NYC Mayor.
---

MenuWars posted...

xp1337 posted...

I think she probably wins! >_>

Hahahahahahahahahaha.

I didn't say I supported that idea! But I mean, she only lost by a handful of votes in 3 states. With a terrible campaign strategy! IIRC, if you just gave her the Stein votes in PA/WI/MI she wins the election.

and that was before this administration
---

I think the fact that she lost to this, damages her irredeemably from a public standpoint. There was also too much damage dropped on her during the campaign. She looks dirty, Bill looks dirty, needs to back the fuck up and give someone that isn't tainted a chance tbqh.

Well... visibly tainted at least.

Also I was just laughing at the idea of her winning. I'd be in hysterics if she did, that would blind side me completely. I knew Trump was coming cus of the fetid smell Brexit left in the air and her campaign was somehow more garbage than his. But her coming back after that smackdown and winning. Yeah I'd be genuinely amazed, I can't envision it happening.

But then if you'd told me Trump would be President before Brexit happened and Hillary got dragged through the mud, I'd've laughed at that too. So who knows.
---

Well, I mean.. she won't run. If she did run, I'm pretty sure she wouldn't win the primaries. I think she could beat Trump in a general this time, but again this will not happen.

People are weirdly obsessed with her, and almost universally people who oppose her (from either side.) No way she runs for President again. Honestly, I doubt she runs for public office ever again. And who could blame her?
---

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/901005510421381120

Hahahahahaha
---

Run that centrist unity ticket and get crushed. If you still have a Democratic candidate, you're going to get a lot more LFF among the non-Trump options. If not, much of the left will stay home or vote third party while Kasich/Dem will peel off very few Republican voters. Trump's argument that he is fighting the establishment will resonate more strongly than ever.
---

http://wkrn.com/2017/08/25/poll-are-you-unhappy-like-the-president-claims/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WKRN-TV_Nashville

According to this news station's online poll, Tennessee is mildly more unhappy than happy about Corker's statement to Trump. Take it with a grain of lol internet salt.
---

Trump... is almost literally Cartman.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Trump's argument that he is fighting the establishment will resonate more strongly than ever.

Of course he's not actually fighting the establishment. He's just fooled conservatives into thinking he is.
---

Hey here's a cool quote from McMaster today:

"Winning in Afghanistan is allowing Afghanistan to be Afghanistan."
---

HaRRicH posted...

I'm all for rooting for Kasich/Funnydemname in the 2020 primary. This would be about as ideal of a situation as I could ask for from the Republican party. I wouldn't commit to a general election vote until I saw the DNC opponent, but I could have supported Kasich against Hillary last year and having a Democrat VP is nice to think about too.

All that said, man, I just haven't seen the proof that Republicans want Kasich as President. It's kind of like a joke Al Franken said about liking Lindsey Graham the best of the 2016 Republican candidates -- Lindsey would joke about how that was Lindsey's biggest problem. Republicans don't want a Democrat's Republican.

I'd be pretty well shocked to see Kasich with a Democrat VP primary a sitting President after seeing the proven method of winning for Republicans has been to utterly disrespect Democrats. If he could get on the ticket though, it could be real interesting.

My thing is this - how much more of THIS can people really stand?

Like either we are headed for legit fighting in the streets over political opinions unseen since Bleeding Kansas or people are eventually going to get sick of this extreme political polarization and demand a regression to the mean.
---

Hey, Eddv, this is a sidetrack but your mention of Bleeding Kansas reminded me of how well-versed you are in American history. How often in history has someone who lost in a general election for President come back to win in a subsequent election?
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Of course let's wait and see who the Dems nominate too.

I'm not. I know damn well Kasich is a typical far-right corporate friendly antichoice neocon and I have absolutely no interest in electing him president.

If our biggest problem we had to deal with as liberals right now was defending the right to choice, that would be an enormous win, how does this not register?
---

So I asked about a dozen big Trump supporters in Eastern Kentucky today why they think Trump is a good President

One said "He's doing something about the illegals"
The other eleven all said "Jobs!"

So I asked those eleven what they thought of the fact that the unemployment rate for our area is up since last year

Three of them said "Fake news"
Two gave anecdotes about how So-and-so Jones that they know got a job, so they must be up
The other six said Congress is obstructing Trump

So I asked how that could be, since Congress is Republican controlled

Four of them said they'd be fine with hanging any Republicans who voted against Trump
Two of them just said "It doesn't matter. Jobs!"

In conclusion, I hate where I live.
---

It wouldn't be the only problem with Kasich. He's still beholden to the GOP platform so there'd be an endless stream of problems, sort of like we see with Trump, just handled more competently.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Hey, Eddv, this is a sidetrack but your mention of Bleeding Kansas reminded me of how well-versed you are in American history. How often in history has someone who lost in a general election for President come back to win in a subsequent election?

On the top of a ticket? 4 Times.

Adams technically lost two elections to Washington and was then elected his vice president for coming in second.

Jefferson lost the election of 1796 before coming back to beat Adams in 1800.

Andrew Jackson lost a 4 way race to John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and some jobber I don't remember off the top of my head despite winning the popular vote (with like 29 %) and Adams was elected after Clay decided to back him.

He came back the next election and creamed Adams after Adams had a pretty bad presidency where he did nothing but fight with his own party-controlled Congress.

And then of course Grover Cleveland, who Grover Clevelanded.

FDR was a vice presidential candidate who came back to win the presidency on his own 8 years later (he developed Polio in the meantime which is why a lot of people didnt know he was bound to a wheelchair - he had very publicly campaigned on two feet).

But that's it.

EDIT:

Honorable Mention to Martin van Buren who after losing the Presidency ran for president like 4 more times on an anti-slavery platform for the pro-slavery Democratic Party, making him a pretty cool guy.
---

Eddv posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Of course let's wait and see who the Dems nominate too.

I'm not. I know damn well Kasich is a typical far-right corporate friendly antichoice neocon and I have absolutely no interest in electing him president.

If our biggest problem we had to deal with as liberals right now was defending the right to choice, that would be an enormous win, how does this not register?

The options are not Trump or Kasich, it's Trump or Kasich or whichever Democrat emerges from the primaries.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I know nothing about RINS and fuel prices, but this seems INSANE

https://twitter.com/repdonbeyer/status/900819705048563712

TL;dr pretty blatant insider trading / corruption charges involving Trump and some even-richer-than-Trump dude he employs for no pay?

The line of tweets is directly from an actual Congressman's twitter too, wild

You ever read something and then feel sick to your stomach?
---

Wow, so really nobody in a somewhat modern one-on-one I guess? Do you think there's a general stigma attached "losers"? Ie: Hillary.
---

Nixon too. Unless you're literally just talking about the very next election following their loss.
---

I think Hillary running next election is a tremendously bad idea
---

Nixon was actually the one that spurred my question but then I forgot about him in Eddv's explanation. I'm just thinking, Hillary has to be damaged goods at this point.
---

Eat ass, suck dick, and sell drugs
---

I think she is a good politician and immeasurably more qualified than Trump and would be immensely better, but that matchup would be a foregone conclusion
---

Do dope, fuck hope
---

The Mana Sword posted...

Nixon too. Unless you're literally just talking about the very next election following their loss.

I was.

But yes Nixon works here too if you expand the definition a bit.

Nixon is unique though - he loses to Kennedy, loses a bid to be California Governor.

And then the Republican Party begins to shit itself after Goldwater gets creamed and looks for someone ANYONE associated with Eisenhower to get back to their good ole days...and there was Nixon, party elder, ready to step in .

But in general yeah, no one likes to nominate a loser.

Though its worth noting the Democrats nominated william Jennings Bryant like 4 times in a row in the 19th century, nothing quite like that has happened since where a party just renominated their old candidate.
---