I think he's smart enough to know he wouldn't enjoy or thrive in it. He could easily pull an Al Franken in a smaller state. NY and NJ...the grease levels there would probably break any do gooder.
I think he's fairly uniquely qualified. He's smart, politically engaged, has familiarity with most of the pressing topics, has an every man touch, has empathy, can debate and speaks well. He also has the name/brand recognition to pull it off. I think he could be really popular. I also doubt he "wants" to be President but whether he "wants" to be President or not, If I knew him, I would press him, it's not about what you want, its about service and duty.
lol. clearly this is just the Heartland Institute asking leading questions to make Democrats look stupid Majority of Democrats, young people want to abolish Supreme Court: poll https://nypost.com/2022/07/11/majority-of-democrats-young-people-want-to-abolish-supreme-court-poll/ excerpt: A majority of Democrat voters believe the Supreme Court is a racist, sexist institution that ought to be abolished, according to a new poll commissioned by the Heartland Institute. And in a clear threat to the court’s future, almost as many young people aged 19 to 39 feel the same way. The national survey of 1,025 US voters split strongly down party lines, with 53% of Democrats in favor of abolishing the current Supreme Court and replacing it with a “new, democratically elected . . . court with justices chosen by the American people directly,” and 33% “strongly” in favor. Just 21% of Republicans and 38% of independents favored the proposition. A majority (54%) of young people aged 19 to 39 wanted the court abolished. Overall, just 37% of total voters agreed, according to the Rasmussen poll conducted on July 6 and 7, almost two weeks after the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade decision on abortion. *** On the radical proposition of a constitutional amendment to give the United Nations the power to reverse Supreme Court decisions on decisions it believes violate human rights, fewer than half (47%) of Democrats were opposed, with 39% in favor with 11% undecided. Among Republicans, 77% were opposed to UN oversight and 17% were in favor. Just 37% of total voters favored the idea, but young voters aged 19 to 39 were more positive, with 48% in favor, compared to 27% of those aged 40 to 64 and 9% of those aged over 64. *** “What this poll shows is that a majority of Democratic voters are utterly delusional about public policy and completely out of step with the vision most Americans have of their country,” said Justin Haskins, the Heartland Institute’s Editorial Director. *** “More than a half-century of liberals running America’s K-12 schools and colleges has clearly paid off,” said Haskins. more at the link
Clickbait headline. Accurate headline would be: Reform Court with a “new, democratically elected . . . court with justices chosen by the American people directly,” Not new idea. Texas (and 20 other states): Supreme Court justices are elected in statewide elections.
I don't think any sane person actually wants to be President once they understand what it takes to get there. Who would want to put up with the grind of the primaries, fundraising, attack ads and being under scrutiny all the time. It does take a narcisst or someone with a Messiah complex to do it.
I’m sure some or many are like this but all? I don’t like it. Maybe someone with a strong sense of duty to a nation, it’s people and the law every president sworn to this after all: “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
In this political environment who in the hell would want to be President? You age like no other profession, half the country hates your guts and spends all day telling the world how dumb you are, you have people on both sides of the aisle with there own agenda and constantly back stabbing you. I guess some people just crave and need power OR you really want to change the world and then you get into office and find out that's not possible. I take my hat off to anyone who runs in 2024.....one thing is clear the Dems need a new voice, and I dont think it can be one of the recycled politicians from yester year, give me a Booker or Abrams, someone that can inject some NEW messaging. The left has such a large umbrella that I don't know we can satisfy everyone, the progressives like AOC will never be fully on board until there agenda is met, the moderates dont want to rock the boat and the conservative left doesn't agree with the progressives and meanwhile the leader has to juggle every agenda, always pissing off someone. The gop does it right, they don't mad mouth anyone in there party, now they take that to the extreme and don't say anything about whack jobs like MGT but they stay on point.....even f they never really have a point, they can finger point and name call with the best of them
In this case I actually disagree respectfully. With reconciliation, the Dems really only have one shot to get a bill passed of any relevance, and at every single turn every time Chuck Schumer or Biden would make a concession to get them to move, not only would they balk, but they would give no specifics of what they actually needed to see change, go back on their word from weeks prior of where they were, and would hog up all the press coverage, and bask in the praise from FoxNews. So yeah I do think they should be judged because there was only one chance to get something passed so millions of people who voted in 20 could say they got something for taking a chance on Dems, and those two ALONE stood up and said no.. the 70+ million that voted for Dems... you'll have to elect more Democrats if you want legislation passed. What a slap in the face to those voters. Even if you don't like the reconciliation bill if you are Manchin and Sinema (who both actually praised nearly all the elements in weeks prior), you negotiate to a win-win. I understand your position here in theory, and respect where you are coming from, but on the merits of these particular two Senators, they are massive problems even if they really are just representative of a system of bureaucracy and mild corruption that plagues the Senate. On your point about the filibuster representing Democracy, based on the history of the filibuster I would disagree and say that the filibuster is put in place to represent the opposite of Democracy. Alexander Hamilton wrote extensively how detrimental this super majority requirement would be. He stated something along the lines of saying that the filibuster will create inaction which will create anarchy with the people who will see a government that does nothing but serve itself.... needless to say if you look at the sentiment of Americans who are pissed off at DC, this sentiment certainly applies, and while people who are pissed and want anarchy on either side will not say it's the filibuster exclusively that they are pissed off at, government inaction and self serving politicians will always be at the top of what they are pissed about. ......... On your first point I put in bold, I remember for months when I was talking about what the Republicans might try to do using the House and the 12th amendment, you always pointed to me that Im overreacting, and everything would be fine. Low and behold I actually lacked the creativity as to what Republicans and Trump actually would do which is far worse than I could have ever imagined. I'm not saying I'm always right, but in this case, I would hope that everyone... especially Joe Manchin would move mountains to clarify for the courts exactly what can or cannot be allowed with states trying to throw the election. I don't know if they can or not, but they really really need to clarify better too what the House cannot be allowed to do in their role in certifying the vote. My best bet is that Jim Jordan is the most likely person to be House Speaker if the Republicans win. If Kevin McCarthy is, he'll be a shill anyways, and everyone will want his scalp. We are in for a sh$t show in 24 and I don't share your comfort that our Democracy is going to be fine. I hope I am very very wrong.
book review of Michael Kazin's new history of the Democratic Party: An Old Recipe for a New Left https://lawliberty.org/book-review/an-old-recipe-for-a-new-left/ excerpt: When Jimmy Carter came to the White House, Kazin argues that he did not advocate “policies that might win the support of poor and working-class Americans buffeted by job insecurity and high inflation.” Had he signed a strong Humphrey-Hawkins bill that guaranteed a job to every working American, Kazin implies that Carter might have won the loyalty of working-class voters, effectively preventing working-class Democrats from supporting Ronald Reagan’s bid for the presidency. Kazin concludes that a “rush to the right thus paled before Carter’s failures at home and abroad.” Not surprisingly, Kazin disdains the Democrats’ attempts in the 1980s to steer the party to the center/right, favoring the more radical programs proposed by Jesse Jackson. The Democrats, he believes, were filled with Democratic Leadership Council figures who were “friendly to big business and the wealthy.” Today Kazin hopes for a resurgence of a real and powerful left, that can lead a “robust progressive insurgency” to awaken once more after decades of what he calls “a long spell of insularity and division.” If that is his hope, it may already have been shattered. There are already strong indications that voters, especially in the Midwestern states Democrats hope to win, are alienated by the far-left rhetoric and programs advocated by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders. Kazin knows that the 21st century left “shared no unified identity, constituency, or set demands.” An old-fashioned moderate social democrat, he wants his party to emphasize working-class concerns over identity politics and culture war issues. He notes that the Democratic Socialists of America have grown from a group with 5,000 members to one with over 100,000 in chapters across the country. This gives him some hope. Yet, he acknowledges that the candidates they backed largely lost, as centrist voters in the heartland rejected what they had to offer. He also ignores the new socialists’ growing sectarianism, and their old-fashioned, left-wing isolationist foreign policy views. Kazin notes that Joe Biden was elected in 2020 as “the safer, more familiar, more electable choice,” over Sanders who favored Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. The Democrats are still facing the quandary that Roosevelt’s 1932 victory was meant to solve, struggling to unite further-left progressives with a moderate and right-leaning working-class base. Rather than move left, when Barack Obama’s two terms in office ended, the country slowly moved to the new populist-nationalist right, whose leaders co-opted much of the economic program of the left and combined it with conservative cultural policies. It is hard to say what Kazin’s readers will take from his book, since they come from different corners of the Democratic coalition. Progressives will feel their side has been slighted, especially since Kazin urges all sides to respect each other and avoid supporting purges. It would be surprising if his readers succeeded in following his advice. To paraphrase Will Rogers again, the Democratic Party remains a group of factional interests, each refusing to attempt the hard work of building a winning coalition. more at the link Kazin's book:
A Great Realignment? As Democrats gain college-educated voters, they're losing Hispanics and men. https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/a...m_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-great-realignment citing these pieces: The Democratic electorate's seismic shift https://www.axios.com/2022/07/13/democrats-biden-white-college-graduates-poll and: The great realignment https://www.axios.com/2022/07/14/republicans-democrats-hispnanic-voters excerpt from the last link: Shifts in the demographics of the two parties’ supporters — taking place before our eyes — are arguably the biggest political story of our time. The big picture: Republicans are becoming more working class and a little more multiracial. Democrats are becoming more elite and a little more white. Why it matters: Democrats’ hopes for retaining power rest on nonwhite voters remaining a reliable part of the party’s coalition. Democrats’ theory of the case collapses if Republicans make even incremental gains with those voters. • Even small inroads with Hispanic voters could tip a number of Democratic-held swing seats to the GOP. What the data show: Democrats are statistically tied with Republicans among Hispanics on the generic congressional ballot, according to a New York Times-Siena College poll out this week. Dems held a 47-point edge with Hispanics during the 2018 midterms. • An NBC News poll in April found Democrats held a 38-point lead among women with college degrees — up from 10 points from 2010. Democrats lost ground with nearly every other demographic group tested in the survey. • Nearly every House pickup in the 2020 election came from a woman or non-white challenger. The GOP’s ability to win back a House majority this year rests on the success of candidates breaking the party’s typical mold. more at each
additional commentary: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/07/hispanic-voters-on-the-move.php excerpt: Kraushaar’s work picks up on a theme that Ruy Teixera has pursued on his Liberal Patriot (Sustack) site. Today his post “Working Class and Hispanic Voters Are Losing Interest in the Party of Abortion, Gun Control and the January 6th Hearings” amplifies Kraushaar’s analysis. Much work remains to be done on it to assess permanence and impact. I would like to know more about the effects of the movement Teixera and Kraushaar observe. I would only like to add that the progressivism of the Democratic Party has become a form of conspicuous consumption for the wealthy, the professional class, and the overeducated. This is an observation that has become increasingly obvious over the years. The Biden administration has served to add an exclamation point to it. more at the link
One person we have not heard enough of as possible Democratic candidates for 2024 is Gretchen Whitmer. Her likely (it seems) holding on to Michigan despite the 'red wave' would bring some momentum for her to raise her aspirations. Also, the abortion issue isn't going away and she could be a strong voice for that issue as well as the whole first woman thing which can't be ignored. Clinton had a lot of baggage and I think after a few more years of terrible stories of women harming themselves and being targeted for trying to have abortions a lot of women will probably feel it's time to have a female president. I could see a strong Obama like movement getting behind a female candidate in the next 10 years... definitely won't be Kamala. She also had first hand experience with the fascists trying to violently take over the country with the whole kidnapping plan against her so if Trump does run she'd be a good opponent for him and illustrating the dangers of giving men like him power. I'm sure she wouldn't be the progressive wing choice though but I think they could get behind her knowing the opposite will be Desantis or Trump.
that's a little weird, I use Safari and it's fine, just checked Chrome and it didn't show up. I'm thinking that has to be a Chrome setting somewhere also checked Firefox, displays fine. gotta be an issue with Chrome
more discussion: The Great Realignment: Woke, white progressives are defining the Democratic Party https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/07...ves-are-defining-the-democratic-party-n482780
So they actually don't want to abolish the Supreme Court but just want Justices to be elected. This is peak O's loud and wrong.
Thanks for illustrating my point. There have been multiple things that have passed that have benefited the millions of people who voted for Democrats but for some reason, they don't matter and this is the most important thing? Is that really a healthy way to judge a political party or a president? Do you look at your significant other or child or job based on specific traits or policies you don't like or want? My entire disagreement with you was about trump being elected president again and the death of democracy you kept talking about, none of those things have come true. I don't know what you think has been proven.
