-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
- Thread starter aspiegamer
- Start date
- Status
BlastProcessing
Member
Noooooooooooo
Autodidact
Banned
Go for the Blue Lives Matter crowd...
BoogieWoogie
Banned
This is fucking obscene.
You Know Nothing
Member
Surprised he didn't encourage police to rough up the "agitators" while he was at it.
Wanda/Wander
Member
Every single time I see these I have to check if they're true because they're so unbelievable.
Mutanthands
Member
No need for him to even pretend now. He doesn't give a fuck about anyone but his base. He's going to run with being President Deplorable for now on.
Aaron Strife
Banned
#HonorableTinaFey
Has he ever pretended to give a fuck about anyone but his base? I'm fairly certain Trump actually does not understand that he is supposed to be working for everyone, including those who didn't vote for him
BlastProcessing
Member
He really, really wants a full on riot.
2020 is still four years away. Prospective candidates don't need "brands" as much as they need signature accomplishments they can point to. The brands are built around the accomplishments.
(This is the Cory Booker problem: all brand, a questionable record)
Aaron Strife
Banned
Trump can never put himself on higher moral ground than anyone else, so he only does "well" when he gets to play the both sides card.
This isn't really true, and even accomplished legislators need a visible brand they can tie their successes to.
Trump has a brand. Warren has a brand. So did Bernie in his way. Hillary even, with all of her individual accomplishments, had the name 'Clinton' to tie them to. That name came with power as well as liability. Cory Booker's brand as the good-guy politician is becoming so solidified that by 2020 I guarantee the spots on his record won't even register to most people. Harris is quickly becoming the Democratic vanguard in the Senate and the figurehead of California politics.
Gillibrand needs to expand her brand. Because her accomplishments alone guarantee her nothing but middle-of-the-pack status. That politician who looks perfect on paper...but for some reason she's just not resonating with the people.
This is criminal. like seriously. America using first ammendment for true good and the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES declares American citizens the enemy.
Obama kept his head down his first two years and did just fine going from 'unknown' to president.
In general, I think it's a terrible look to run for president when there's a critical midterm just around the corner. Your job as a Democratic senator/gov/whatever between now and 2018 is to elect other Democrats, not build your own brand.
This is the difference between being a John Edwards and being a Barack Obama (or even a Hillary Clinton).
Gillibrand is from the tiny, media-shy state of New York. Once she boxes out Cuomo (who is a terrible candidate) and if/when she decides that she wants national attention, she'll get it.
Everyone needs to expand their brand. But she's at least starting with a few natural constituencies (pro-choice women), which is better than most candidates that can say.
I suspect (as someone else in this thread - apologies I've forgotten who - keeps posting) that she's keeping a low profile in part as she backchannels Cuomo out of the race and consolidate the NY fundraising $$
I guess I don't want Dem Senators trying to "build their brand" right now. I don't see how that helps anyone
In general, I think it's a terrible look to run for president when there's a critical midterm just around the corner. Your job as a Democratic senator/gov/whatever between now and 2018 is to elect other Democrats, not build your own brand.
This is the difference between being a John Edwards and being a Barack Obama (or even a Hillary Clinton).
Gillibrand is from the tiny, media-shy state of New York. Once she boxes out Cuomo (who is a terrible candidate) and if/when she decides that she wants national attention, she'll get it.
Everyone needs to expand their brand. But she's at least starting with a few natural constituencies (pro-choice women), which is better than most candidates that can say.
I suspect (as someone else in this thread - apologies I've forgotten who - keeps posting) that she's keeping a low profile in part as she backchannels Cuomo out of the race and consolidate the NY fundraising $$
I guess I don't want Dem Senators trying to "build their brand" right now. I don't see how that helps anyone
funkystudent
Member
I keep seeing these.
Does some poor soul at the WH seriously do official white house press releases for every Trump tweet?
no, someone made a bot to do it because the WH claimed Trump's tweets are official statements
funkystudent
Member
Oh thank god.
Legally meaningless difference since the whitehouse has confirmed it on the record. And the beauty of this self inflicted wound is that it will likely be evidence in the obstruction and collusion trials.
I don't think you actually get that much exposure as a VP. How much has Pence been in the news, how much was Biden ever, really?
As VP to a successful president, you get their tailwind helping you out, but you haven't been brutalized by the press.
BoboBrazil
Member
Trump just tweeted something that is obviously too nice to be him. Maybe Kelly tweeted it for him lol
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
I don't mean to "nah" the whole thing but, nah. Haha.
Obama was a Dem rock star but he was still not expected to run until 2012 at least because, well, he wasn't much of a national figure.
Bill Clinton was an Arkansas governor mostly known for a spectacularly boring convention speech.
I'll concede that snooty coastals might need to do some heartland-outreaching. But overall, eh. If you can sell yourself as President, you can sell yourself as President.
Exactly.
Was it that "heel" post?
Politically I don't think Gillibrand and Kamala are different enough to warrant any mudslinging. If they run against each other, it won't be anything like the ideological microcosm that was Bernie versus Hillary. Translating the 2016 primary onto this particular battle is unproductive and dangerous.
Because there probably won't be an outspoken leftist in the running, it's not useful for left-of-center folks like myself to tear down either candidate. The best we can do is offer constructive criticism of their policies and encourage them to respond. They both seem substantially more progressive than Hillary or Obama or any serious prior candidate not called Bernie Sanders, so there's not much to complain about. That both of them seem open to social democratic solutions and some reduction of our imperial footprint is wonderful, and suggests that something we're doing is working.
My only real fear is that that whichever one of them gets the nomination ends up sliding to the center to appease the Booker and Biden fans.
Because there probably won't be an outspoken leftist in the running, it's not useful for left-of-center folks like myself to tear down either candidate. The best we can do is offer constructive criticism of their policies and encourage them to respond. They both seem substantially more progressive than Hillary or Obama or any serious prior candidate not called Bernie Sanders, so there's not much to complain about. That both of them seem open to social democratic solutions and some reduction of our imperial footprint is wonderful, and suggests that something we're doing is working.
My only real fear is that that whichever one of them gets the nomination ends up sliding to the center to appease the Booker and Biden fans.
nature boy
Member
What's with the Phantom Cheeto
Well, I find Tim Kaine to be an empathetic, endearing politician, which is pretty rare these days. Alas.
I also think his lack of charisma is way overstated. He's self-deprecating and genuine. Just miscast as an attack dog in the Hillary campaign.
I don't really understand these groupings. Are they ideological or geographic (or a little bit of both)? Demographic?
I also think his lack of charisma is way overstated. He's self-deprecating and genuine. Just miscast as an attack dog in the Hillary campaign.
I don't really understand these groupings. Are they ideological or geographic (or a little bit of both)? Demographic?
VendettaRed07
Member
Tim Kaine's debate against Pence was fucking tragic
...but how exactly do you think one sells themselves as President? You build alliances and win constituencies one by one by demonstrating your appeal.
Obama did it with his 2004 keynote address that brought him national attention at an unexpected level and a dominant Senate run.
Bill Clinton did it by being one of the most charming men alive, expertly playing off his sex scandals in a way that actually broadened his appeal (thanks to Queen's quick thinking), and playing the sax on the Arsenio Hall show.
So neither of these two men fit as examples of people "just selling themselves" as President. There was step-by-step work.
I suppose I'm not saying that Gillibrand (or any Democrat) should be out there right now shouting "HERE I COME!" It's very early. But still...social media has made it so that everything is early, and several popular figures have already begun positioning themselves for successful runs and in comparison, I just don't see Gillibrand even beginning to leverage what little appeal she may have outside of New York. We're years away and she's already fallen behind. I suppose I just don't see it for her or why she's always mentioned in these discussions. Klobuchar has more appeal and recognition than she does.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Historically VP has mostly worked as a path to the Presidency in the "intended" way, i.e., upon the president dying or otherwise no longer being in office. Before Bush the last sitting VP to win election was Can Buren in 1836. Nixon was elected with his last office being VP, but he wasn't holding the office at the time.
That's a great question. I don't think so.
Hell, just five vice presidents have actually been elected president.
I stand corrected!
FDR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1920
Edit:
John Tyler was also on a losing ticket as VP in 1836, then a winning one in 1840 (still as VP), and when William Henry Harrison died, he became President. But obviously that's a slightly different situation.
No way in hell he typed that. Wasn't there a way back during the campaign there was a way of telling if a tweet came from an iphone or a android phone and it was from the iPhone it was from a staffer and not him. Is that still possible?
Either way it's not believable. He's shown to the world (again because it was always there) he's a racist bigot who is sympathetic to nazis, kkk, etc.
VendettaRed07
Member
FDR I think
This voting record: not an accident.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/whos-voting-for-donald-trumps-nominees/515943/
Part of the reason Gillibrand has to be less overt: she's up for re-election next year and it's a major political faux pas to explicitly announce you're planning on running for another office and hope your current one is a stepping stone.
- Status