SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Journal by fustakrakich
Yeap... From a practical standpoint, why not? Can't do any harm. Just keep Bill busy out in the rose garden or something.
There should be no doubt that would clinch the race
The key is Oprah. She's no dummy. Putting her out there as VP will repair almost 30 years of damage. Queen Bee diplomat with a great deal on scud missiles (still gotta pay tribute). America will be loved again. She is the chosen one.
I'm not really joking, eh? You people want a solution, this is it. Show me anything better. I dare ya!
Edit:
Lots of no votes against her here, and not a single solitary valid point. Oprah Derangement Syndrome is worse than that other one. Why do people cling so hard to broken bullshit? Are they that comfortable with it?
Reply to: Re:Seriously?
Post Comment
If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a
conclusion.
-- William Baumol
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday October 01 2019, @06:12AM
But you didn't mention Gabbard. At the moment I'm thinking I'll write her in if I have to.
Heed the warning of the 2016 elections - anyone and anything will win against HRC. Even the orange monster wins against a ticket with her on it.
Oprah? Another out of touch old millionaire. I realize she has a significant following, plenty of money and media connections, but HRC has all of that too, and they mostly overlap.
If you don't want 4 more years of Trump then you need someone with some crossover appeal. Not just a couple of people that will mobilize the same set of hardcore supporters that vote D every time no matter what. There's only so many votes to be had there, yes you can excite them so their turnout percentage is higher *but you're doing the same thing to Trump's base when you do that* so it's not really much of a gain.
So, think about this, traditionally Democratic groups that went for Trump last time in significant numbers; well blue collar has to be the top of the list. Sanders used to be able to talk to that group, but at this point I'm not sure if he can even remember that. There is not a single Democratic hopeful that really speaks to them as far as I can see. Trump isn't even very good at it but he's the only one that even makes the attempt. I'm optimistic Gabbard could get some traction there, but that might be wishful thinking, I haven't really seen it from her. I can't see any of the rest even trying to contest this anymore.
Antiwar? That's my primary affiliation, and it's traditionally a left wing stance, but lo and behold, Trump managed to be by far the most antiwar candidate last time; without being genuinely antiwar at all. That's how complete the grip of the war party is over both parties. And not just the parties; the NGOs, the mainstream media, even supposedly religious groups are all united in the conviction that we have a holy duty to maim and murder and bully on the world's stage. The antiwar vote was concentrated on the left for decades, but after successive fingers from Clinton and Obama that vote went for Trump hard in 2016 and if we nominate HRC again it will go hard for him again.
And rightfully so. We're talking about a woman who cackles with glee at the thought of bringing death, destruction, and torture to entire countries.