• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bullshit Trump Says

Yeah, it would have been better to just shrug off the Pocohontas stuff than to come out with proof that you are 6 generations removed from your Native American ancestry.

Somewhere in the White House a fat cheetoh is laughing thinking he goaded her into this.
 
Jamison2Carter said:
I don't think she can beat Trump. I'm not even sure it'd be that close.
Click to expand...

I agree with the others that the test isn't a net positive for Warren. And while I personally like her, I also question how electable she is. I don't think she's as unelectable as Bernie is, but I don't think she'll play well outside of the coasts. I still think she probably beats Trump, but it's iffy. You can probably write off VA and NC, not sure about FL or the upper midwest. There was a piece a few months ago where the journalist asked several Pub stategists which Dems scared them and which they wanted to run against. The ones they wanted to run against the most were Sanders, Warren and Gillibrand. Biden and Booker were the 2 they least wanted to run against, though my fear with Booker is he could have a hard time sealing the deal with progressives, and he admitted to a 1990s grope. Of the people running, I'm thinking Biden or Hickenlooper with Harris as veep would be the strongest ticket.
 
In the past 100 years, no first time Dem nominee for POTUS who was 60+yo won. Thus, no Joe, no Warren, no Bernie.

New blood...
 
PhDeac said:
Right. It’s a tone deaf move at a time anybody can easily get a DNA test.

I didn’t think Warren had a shot anyway. I think she tanked her chances with this.
Click to expand...

If twitter is any indication, she is being roasted for it.
 
RJKarl said:
In the past 100 years, no first time Dem nominee for POTUS who was 60+yo won. Thus, no Joe, no Warren, no Bernie.

New blood...
Click to expand...

I agree with RJ here, although I think Biden could buck that trend.
 
I can’t see Democrats selecting anybody older than 60 as the nominee. Wouldn’t be shocked to see a 40 something nominee. That’s younger than Harris and Booker. I also think it will be somebody who isn’t in the spotlight right now.
 
ConnorEl said:
Well at least nobody will call her Pocahontas now.
Click to expand...

I expect people to triple down on it now.

I do respect Warren for all her transparency lately. 10 years of tax returns, the DNA test...stark contrast to the Trump admin.
 
cville deac said:
I agree with the others that the test isn't a net positive for Warren. And while I personally like her, I also question how electable she is. I don't think she's as unelectable as Bernie is, but I don't think she'll play well outside of the coasts. I still think she probably beats Trump, but it's iffy. You can probably write off VA and NC, not sure about FL or the upper midwest. There was a piece a few months ago where the journalist asked several Pub stategists which Dems scared them and which they wanted to run against. The ones they wanted to run against the most were Sanders, Warren and Gillibrand. Biden and Booker were the 2 they least wanted to run against, though my fear with Booker is he could have a hard time sealing the deal with progressives, and he admitted to a 1990s grope. Of the people running, I'm thinking Biden or Hickenlooper with Harris as veep would be the strongest ticket.
Click to expand...

The record of Massachusetts pols as presidential candidates hasn't been all that great since JFK got elected in 1960. Dukakis in 1988 and Kerry in 2004 both lost, in part due to attacks on them as tax-and-spend Massachusetts liberals. Even Romney, who had served as Governor of Mass, failed in 2012. If Warren runs she'll be portrayed by the GOP and much of the news media in the same way Dukakis and Kerry were, and she'll also have the added disadvantage of being a female candidate. If the economy tanks I guess she could win, but in a normal presidential election cycle I just don't see her winning either. She's better off to stay in the Senate, where the Democrats will have a great chance of regaining the majority in 2020 (the map really favors them in that one), and she could become the chair of some pretty powerful committees, and be a real leader in a Democratic-controlled Senate.
 
Highland, I hadn’t really thought about how one state has disproportionately been represented among major party nominees. But it’s disproportionately represented in our history as well.
 
What's worse -- rubes thinking you lied about having Native American ancestry, or rubes knowing that you have Native American ancestry and are not pure Aryan? Probably the latter.
 
PhDeac said:
I can’t see Democrats selecting anybody older than 60 as the nominee. Wouldn’t be shocked to see a 40 something nominee. That’s younger than Harris and Booker. I also think it will be somebody who isn’t in the spotlight right now.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree, though I do see Uncle Joe as being 1 of the few potential unifying Dem candidates out there. So which out of the spotlight candidates do you think have a chance? At this point, I'd sorta rather go governor than senator. That would include Inslee, Hickenlooper and Bullock. Or maybe O'Rourke if he loses to Cruz.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Yeah, it would have been better to just shrug off the Pocohontas stuff than to come out with proof that you are 6 generations removed from your Native American ancestry.

Somewhere in the White House a fat cheetoh is laughing thinking he goaded her into this.
Click to expand...

All she needed to do was vindicate some oral history she heard from her family, right? Anyway, I'd rather see her not engage the idiots, but I think this is mostly negligible, maybe a small net positive from the very small contingent on the left that thinks she should own up to a public mistake. IMO, the matter will be out of the news cycle and back to right-wing troll sites within a month.
 
That’s the thing. It was just some oral history in her family. That’s all it ever was. But conservatives think Warren executed some grand conspiracy to con people into thinking she is Native American. Nothing can convince them otherwise. The prior truth didn’t. New truth won’t either.
 
cville deac said:
I agree with the others that the test isn't a net positive for Warren. And while I personally like her, I also question how electable she is. I don't think she's as unelectable as Bernie is, but I don't think she'll play well outside of the coasts. I still think she probably beats Trump, but it's iffy. You can probably write off VA and NC, not sure about FL or the upper midwest. There was a piece a few months ago where the journalist asked several Pub stategists which Dems scared them and which they wanted to run against. The ones they wanted to run against the most were Sanders, Warren and Gillibrand. Biden and Booker were the 2 they least wanted to run against, though my fear with Booker is he could have a hard time sealing the deal with progressives, and he admitted to a 1990s grope. Of the people running, I'm thinking Biden or Hickenlooper with Harris as veep would be the strongest ticket.
Click to expand...

What is the main difference between Booker and Biden which leads you to that fear with Booker? Do you have those same fears with Biden?
 
 
Newenglanddeac said:
Click to expand...

Welcher in Chief
 
Highland Deac said:
The record of Massachusetts pols as presidential candidates hasn't been all that great since JFK got elected in 1960. Dukakis in 1988 and Kerry in 2004 both lost, in part due to attacks on them as tax-and-spend Massachusetts liberals...
Click to expand...


Yep.

Because in the dysfunctional mindset of Republicans, government taxing and spending are bad things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top