As a woman, I must say, AOC is not a good candidate. She's still wa-aay too associated with 1. Trans Rights 2. LGTBQ Rights 3. Women's Rights ... etc. essentially, unfortunately, she still represents the far left concerns of special interest groups and da 'boyz' won't vote for her.
As long as men feel diminished, lessened, talked down to, not given an alternative to service work through training for new jobs ... they will refuse to vote for a woman.
Gentlemen, this is the way it is. Until those incels and maga discontents are satisfied, anything that smacks of modernity, equality, compassion or empathy, they will rigidly vote against it.
I for one, don't want to lose anymore. So stop with pushing the female power right now. Today's Maga is terrified and loathing of women and they will vote accordingly.
To dismiss that is political suicide.
she's a so called "progressive"...whom I would dump into the "good questions, bad answers" category... and too polarizing.
too green, no pun intended, has received complaints from constituents she's too focused on media/national attendance and not their issues...maybe in 10 years after she matures.
I like Pete a helluvalot. Not sure who I like for veep.
Maybe Walz?
I like that they're finally trying to figure out a message that appeals. Nothing eccentric like "we'll fix the pronoun problem!" but I'm seeing "Make Your Life Better" etc.
I wonder if there's some sort of mind-blowing Dem/Repub duo that could run so as to signify unity and move forward positively without the current on/off switch mentality.
Veep? Well, it's hard to even remember the ones we had...
So Democrats should run someone more centrist, more palatable to "incels and maga discontents"? Or maybe they should run a candidate that inspires the 6.8 million nonvoters (24 vs 20) who didn't show up for Kamala.
It's a similar problem to the UK (preferred leaders will be denied). It's not going to end well for Labour either (thru campaigning center-left and governing center-right).
Other social-democratic parties have followed similar paths only to become mostly irrelevant.
So Democrats should run someone more centrist, more palatable to "incels and maga discontents"? Or maybe they should run a candidate that inspires the 6.8 million nonvoters (24 vs 20) who didn't show up for Kamala.
I like Pete a helluvalot. Not sure who I like for veep.
As a woman, I must say, AOC is not a good candidate. She's still wa-aay too associated with 1. Trans Rights 2. LGTBQ Rights 3. Women's Rights ... etc. essentially, unfortunately, she still represents the far left concerns of special interest groups and da 'boyz' won't vote for her.
As long as men feel diminished, lessened, talked down to, not given an alternative to service work through training for new jobs ... they will refuse to vote for a woman.
Gentlemen, this is the way it is. Until those incels and maga discontents are satisfied, anything that smacks of modernity, equality, compassion or empathy, they will rigidly vote against it.
I for one, don't want to lose anymore. So stop with pushing the female power right now. Today's Maga is terrified and loathing of women and they will vote accordingly.
To dismiss that is political suicide.
So Democrats should run someone more centrist, more palatable to "incels and maga discontents"? Or maybe they should run a candidate that inspires the 6.8 million nonvoters (24 vs 20) who didn't show up for Kamala.
Alternate reality: real politicians with household name - and PLENTY of uphill to overcome - Pete and AOC. A very good choice, but might be like running a Hillary/Kamala ticket in that it would be so likely to fail.
As a woman, I must say, AOC is not a good candidate. She's still wa-aay too associated with 1. Trans Rights 2. LGTBQ Rights 3. Women's Rights ... etc. essentially, unfortunately, she still represents the far left concerns of special interest groups and da 'boyz' won't vote for her.
As long as men feel diminished, lessened, talked down to, not given an alternative to service work through training for new jobs ... they will refuse to vote for a woman.
Gentlemen, this is the way it is. Until those incels and maga discontents are satisfied, anything that smacks of modernity, equality, compassion or empathy, they will rigidly vote against it.
I for one, don't want to lose anymore. So stop with pushing the female power right now. Today's Maga is terrified and loathing of women and they will vote accordingly.
To dismiss that is political suicide.
If you're going to win a national election in the US, you need to be in one of the two parties. Change won't happen in a 3rd party, so you either commandeer one... or likely waste a lot of time.
IF....(for example purposes only)
Oprah and Mark Cuban decided to run for POTUS/VP.... maybe they could create a viable option. You need money and name recognition. David Hogg (sadly) got a jump-start on name recognition...but he's light years away from being a household name.
Alternate reality: real politicians with household name - and PLENTY of uphill to overcome - Pete and AOC. A very good choice, but might be like running a Hillary/Kamala ticket in that it would be so likely to fail.
The GOP was pretty easily commandeered, so maybe they were just trying to re-cretae that model. But then again, the gop were already pretty far to the fascist end of the scale and just leaning moderate to appear 'normal' - Richard Nixon wouldn't have had a chance in the party since ~2000.
We've tried multiparty here for decades, but without the rest of the supporting governance rules, they just play spoiler to one of the two big parties. Even the handful of 'independents' we have are forced to caucus with one of the biggies to be of any value.
If you're going to win a national election in the US, you need to be in one of the two parties. Change won't happen in a 3rd party, so you either commandeer one... or likely waste a lot of time.
IF....(for example purposes only)
Oprah and Mark Cuban decided to run for POTUS/VP.... maybe they could create a viable option. You need money and name recognition. David Hogg (sadly) got a jump-start on name recognition...but he's light years away from being a household name.
shouldn't hogg or anyone who have opposing philosophical disagreements just start their own band?
wouldn't that be easier than trying to commandeer an established political party?
maybe a multi-party system like europe?
The GOP was pretty easily commandeered, so maybe they were just trying to re-cretae that model. But then again, the gop were already pretty far to the fascist end of the scale and just leaning moderate to appear 'normal' - Richard Nixon wouldn't have had a chance in the party since ~2000.
We've tried multiparty here for decades, but without the rest of the supporting governance rules, they just play spoiler to one of the two big parties. Even the handful of 'independents' we have are forced to caucus with one of the biggies to be of any value.
If youâve ever wondered why people are disillusioned with the Democratic Party, look no further than this slow-motion knife fight at the DNC.
shouldn't hogg or anyone who have opposing philosophical disagreements just start their own band?
wouldn't that be easier than trying to commandeer an established political party?
maybe a multi-party system like europe?
If youâve ever wondered why people are disillusioned with the Democratic Party, look no further than this slow-motion knife fight at the DNC. David Hoggâyes, that David Hogg, the one who survived a mass shooting and then made it his mission to wake up a sleepwalking partyâis now being cornered by the very institution he tried to revitalize.
Why? Because he had the audacity to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the Democratic machine should stop rubber-stamping incumbents and start earning votes again.
Letâs not sugarcoat it: Hoggâs real offense was breaking the unspoken rule of modern party politicsâdonât rock the boat unless itâs for a photo op. His proposal to spend $20 million challenging complacent Dems in safe districts was seen as heresy.
....
And now, unless this internal coup is stopped, itâll send a chilling message to every grassroots leader watching: sit down, shut up, and wait your turn. Even if the house is on fire.
If the Democratic Party wants to hold the moral high ground, it has to stop burying its own insurgents. The real problem isnât that Hogg wants reformâitâs that too many in power donât. And voters are watching.
If youâve ever wondered why people are disillusioned with the Democratic Party, look no further than this slow-motion knife fight at the DNC. David Hoggâyes, that David Hogg, the one who survived a mass shooting and then made it his mission to wake up a sleepwalking partyâis now being cornered by the very institution he tried to revitalize.
Why? Because he had the audacity to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the Democratic machine should stop rubber-stamping incumbents and start earning votes again.
Letâs not sugarcoat it: Hoggâs real offense was breaking the unspoken rule of modern party politicsâdonât rock the boat unless itâs for a photo op. His proposal to spend $20 million challenging complacent Dems in safe districts was seen as heresy.
The kind of heresy that terrifies party leadership far more than any MAGA rally ever could. Because heaven forbid someone hold blue powerbrokers accountable for drifting into corporate comfort zones and backroom deals.
So now the DNC is dusting off the procedural rulebook and doing its best impression of the GOP playbook: when someone threatens your control, change the rules. Hide behind credentials committees. Say itâs about bylaws, not backlash. Frame it as âcleaning houseâ while pretending not to notice the smell of hypocrisy in the air.
And letâs not forget the irony here: the party that champions youth engagement and gun reform is going after the most prominent youth gun reformer on its own team.
The same DNC that sends fundraising emails about saving democracy is now dogpiling a Gen Z activist for trying to use his democratic voice. You canât make this up. Actually, you donât need toâPolitico already did.
The establishment isnât just afraid of losing elections. Theyâre afraid of losing control. Hogg isnât being ousted because he failed; heâs being targeted because he dared to succeed on his own terms.
And now, unless this internal coup is stopped, itâll send a chilling message to every grassroots leader watching: sit down, shut up, and wait your turn. Even if the house is on fire.
If the Democratic Party wants to hold the moral high ground, it has to stop burying its own insurgents. The real problem isnât that Hogg wants reformâitâs that too many in power donât. And voters are watching.
Democrats haven't been this angry since republicans freed their slaves.
Let's go back over 140 years ago and re-weave history: Republicans in the 1860's had an articulate, hard working back woodsman, who taught himself to read and write and passed the bar to become a lawyer in direct contradiction to a potty-mouthed spoiled boy-brat who enjoyed toying with the help by threatening consequences to actions his lil diaper didn't like.
Selective Outrage also comes with your choice of sides: Peas, Green Beans or Cucumber Salad.
