[NYT] Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’

I think most journalists have let themselves become activists for corporations... that's why most are hit pieces.

 

lol same people complaining about no experience for Trump would vote for her.

 

Thanks. Your post has finally convinced me to vote for her. I was unsure but now... now I know.

 

She has more political experience than Trump. Plus, she has that shrewd Political mind of Barak Obama in her corner.

 

Saying he’s not fit to be president and lacking experience are two different things.

I trust Michelle’s judgement and believe she would put together a great cabinet. I would have no problem at all voting for her if she got in the race.

 

If it is actually Clinton v Trump again voter participation will plummet.

 

I expect the same if its one of the "Democratic Socialists" Vs Dumpster. Most of America isn't on the extremes.

 

Warren will likely be the candidate but as much as I like her she needs to realize that people are not ready for her hyper progressive policies yet. Like Hillary she won’t be able to capitalize on the first female president angle that will get lost in the socialism screaming fear mongers.

Despite the daily jaw dropping antics of Trump. (This week it’s Republicans that don’t bow and scrape are human scum) I’m really worried that since there isn’t a moderate Bill Clinton type Democrat he could win again.

 

I don't get it. This country's discourse for the past decade has been about how voters are tired of establishment career politicians who are involved in pay to play, influenced by corporate lobbyists but when push comes to shove we always go for that safe corporate establishment moderate with kids chalk full of nepotism. The country discourse wise says they don't want another Bill Clinton type establishment candidate but the DNC says that is what it's going to take.

 

You basically just threw a bunch of buzzwords out there and tried to tie them all together. They have nothing to do with each other. You can be establishment without being moderate (Ted Cruz!). You can be moderate without being establishment. You can be corporate without being establishment, nepotism is completely independent of all of the above, etc, etc. Bill Clinton was not safe, corporate, or establishment in 1992. He was a governor of a small state and wasn't the favorite for the nomination, nor was he propped up by the party.

 

She hasn't got presidential experience.

 

She is a glorified house wife. Seriously you can think of better.

 

She loat 4 out of 5 recent polls... to Creepy Joe.

 

I'd vote for a Stockton/Malone ticket if it meant getting Trump out of office.

#SingleIssueVoter

 

You defend this current president all the time who has no individual merit by nutting out of a 400 million dollar penis and think a person raised in a lower middle class family who found her way into graduating Harvard Law on her own individual merit and worked as a lawyer dealing with intellectual property law is not qualified and thinks she's a "house wife"?

 

How do you get presidential experience without being president? I don't think that's a prerequisite for the position.

 

She is a Havard School of Law graduate, that has practice law. Let's compared that to Trump, who barely graduated Penn (only got in because of his Father). Trump is a business who scammed his way to riches using Daddy's dimes.

 

More like Trump scammed his way into dimes using daddy's riches. Dude is massively in debt and only has the outward appearance of being wealthy from foreign banks like Deutsche Bank issuing him hundreds of million dollars in investment loans even with his defaulting history because he's probably money laundering.

 

Fine. The implication of the article though is that I should be wringing my hands because some rich people don't have an option they feel good about. I don't think I should be. If a candidate can't win without getting the rich people, we don't really have a democracy anyway.