I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Pretty Little Flower]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81o_migAagY

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Trending overnight

#calexit

#nyexit

I volunteer. As tribute.

if NY exits, Trump is no longer a natural born citizen. think. about. it.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Clintonism is dead. And China is very pleased at the first casualty of the Trump election, TPP.

Schumer, Kaine and Gillibrand will be the leading candidates for something like Clintonism. But they'll do something between rebranding and reengineering.

If that's the best we can do, we will lose, and we should. Every one of those three has the taint of being tied to one or more special interest. Kaine a bit less so, Schumer more so. They all have perception problems.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

If that's the best we can do, we will lose, and we should. Every one of those three has the taint of being tied to one or more special interest. Kaine a bit less so, Schumer more so. They all have perception problems.

My point was clintonism isn't really going to be a continuing thing in the Democratic party.

That said, I don't think Schumer has aspirations to do anything but what he is now. Gillibrand and Kaine each are strong potential candidates. Every politician who is worth their salt is tied to a so-called "special interest" - supporting civil rights, for example, is viewed as catering to minority communities. Gillibrand has done great work on issues of rape in the military - she's going to be viewed as part of that Emily's List Establishment that got attacked in the primaries.

We are all special. We all have interests. If you don't like Schumer because he is tied to Wall Street, say that. If you don't like Gillibrand because she's helped agriculture in upstate NY, say that. (Along this lines, it was amusing to see Ellison getting attacked because he's getting support from "establishment" figures like Bernie - welcome to the party, Bernie, you're now the establishment.)

There are lots of people in the non-Clinton part of the party, but the only one you'll find who will be hard to connect with one special interest or another is Michelle Obama.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

if NY exits, Trump is no longer a natural born citizen. think. about. it.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My point was clintonism isn't really going to be a continuing thing in the Democratic party.

That said, I don't think Schumer has aspirations to do anything but what he is now. Gillibrand and Kaine each are strong potential candidates. Every politician who is worth their salt is tied to a so-called "special interest" - supporting civil rights, for example, is viewed as catering to minority communities. Gillibrand has done great work on issues of rape in the military - she's going to be viewed as part of that Emily's List Establishment that got attacked in the primaries.

We are all special. We all have interests. If you don't like Schumer because he is tied to Wall Street, say that. If you don't like Gillibrand because she's helped agriculture in upstate NY, say that.

There are lots of people in the non-Clinton part of the party, but the only one you'll find who will be hard to connect with one special interest or another is Michelle Obama.

What about someone outside the beltway? Gavin Newsom? Or does his affair preclude him? We always wax rhapsodic about the Castro brothers down here, but I have no clue about their broader appeal. Kamala Harris is also a pretty kick ass (I realize she's a senator, but not exactly inside the beltway type, yet anyways). Kirk Watson would be a profound loss to the Texas Senate, but if he has other aspirations, I'd wholeheartedly support going higher (I'm kinda hoping he mounts an assault on Cruz).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

Thanks for this list. While it is incomplete, I'm sure, it is a good start. (When you say in no particular order, I'd point out that the first group on the list have to be first in ranking too.) There is plenty of blame to go around and while I'm trying to move on with positivity for the future, it is important to reflect a bit on what got us here.

Can we go back to posting on the Fashion Board now? I think my brief stay on this board is coming to a close.

I am finding that I'm much more interested in the mea culpas - the "what did I do wrong" or "what did we do wrong" articles - that in the j'accuse articles.

I really don't care who else's fault people think it is, it was close enough so any number of things might have changed the outcome. I mean, the Berners drove me batty during the campaign, but building more bridges to them might have helped, especially in getting out the young vote in places like Michigan and Wisconsin.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

What about someone outside the beltway? Gavin Newsom? Or does his affair preclude him? We always wax rhapsodic about the Castro brothers down here, but I have no clue about their broader appeal. Kamala Harris is also a pretty kick ass (I realize she's a senator, but not exactly inside the beltway type, yet anyways). Kirk Watson would be a profound loss to the Texas Senate, but if he has other aspirations, I'd wholeheartedly support going higher (I'm kinda hoping he mounts an assault on Cruz).

Lot's of outside the Beltway possibilities. I've always been a fan of the Castros, my sister is a big Kamala Harris fan, and governors often make good presidential candidates.

Do we think an affair precludes anyone after what just happened?

I think we got to go young as much as possible.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

If that's the best we can do, we will lose, and we should. Every one of those three has the taint of being tied to one or more special interest. Kaine a bit less so, Schumer more so. They all have perception problems.

Democrats need to stop looking to a single leader to be a savior, and especially not to a Senator. In two and four years, they are going to be running against Washington and a bunch of fat cuts Republicans who are not trying to solve the problems that real Americans face. For example, the GOP is going to repeal Obamacare, but it doesn't have any solutions that will work as well -- so once this happens, the Democrats need to make sure the Republican governments owns the problems with health care. There are new leaders out there, and Democrats need to develop them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Gillibrand and Kaine each are strong potential candidates.

Just stop. Senators make shitty presidential candidates. Obama is the exception who proves the rule.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

What about someone outside the beltway?

How about someone from a state that's not California, New York or Massachusetts?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

How about someone from a state that's not California, New York or Massachusetts?

You mean other than Tim Kaine? Senator Tim Kaine?

I'm ready to run Ana Navarro for something, anything.

It's just way premature to think about President, we need to run 50 states worth of strong Congressional candidates in 2 year and we need to take back some state legislatures and Governorships.

Even though I know she and I would disagree on more than half of all issues out there, every time I see her I know I'm ready to just say, Go Ana!

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

How about someone from a state that's not California, New York or Massachusetts?

How about some new Tribe Called Quest? I know, I know, Sebastian will note how tribal the new Tribe is, with all the believing in things and caring about stuff that got us into this mess in the first place, but so be it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAoqWu6wmfI

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Interesting exchange between John Judis and Theda Skocpol: this and then these.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My point was clintonism isn't really going to be a continuing thing in the Democratic party.

That said, I don't think Schumer has aspirations to do anything but what he is now. Gillibrand and Kaine each are strong potential candidates. Every politician who is worth their salt is tied to a so-called "special interest" - supporting civil rights, for example, is viewed as catering to minority communities. Gillibrand has done great work on issues of rape in the military - she's going to be viewed as part of that Emily's List Establishment that got attacked in the primaries.

We are all special. We all have interests. If you don't like Schumer because he is tied to Wall Street, say that. If you don't like Gillibrand because she's helped agriculture in upstate NY, say that. (Along this lines, it was amusing to see Ellison getting attacked because he's getting support from "establishment" figures like Bernie - welcome to the party, Bernie, you're now the establishment.)

There are lots of people in the non-Clinton part of the party, but the only one you'll find who will be hard to connect with one special interest or another is Michelle Obama.

Hence my suggestion the party needs new blood