What Republicans do

[Eric the Green]

(02-14-2017, 12:09 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-13-2017, 02:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-09-2017, 10:45 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 09:14 PM)Marypoza Wrote: To recap: X was wondering where our 21 century George Washington is. I have seen in other threads ppl wondering where our Roosevelt is.  I say he got sabotaged. To bring it in line with S&H: we had a chance last yr to have our own Washington/Roosevelt. The DNC shut him down. Not only that they "elevated" (their term) the Donald so that he would be the repug candidate.  So yeah, they stuck us with the Donald. & as a result this 4T is heading down a different path.

Those are facts. In black & white. Read the damn emails instead of arguing with me & anybody else here who mentions them.

I don't think Bernie had a real shot, to be perfectly frank.  He had a great message, and still does.  If it generates enough support to elect someone, it will  be someone else.  Start looking.  BS and EW are too old to be elected in 2020.  Sherrod Brown perhaps?

Sherrod is 3 1/2 years younger than Warren, who is 8 years younger than Sanders. Sherrod may be a possible winner, and has a Rust Belt advantage, but I am concerned about his ability as a speaker.

I am still waiting for David to say whether his VA governor is someone he could get behind. He may not be. But I do look at his horoscope score, and I see that he has the best chance, if he throws his hat in. He's 4 1/4 years younger than Sherrod.

I think Hillary was a weak candidate, for various reasons. Trump was vulnerable, but his better score carried the day. Someone in Hillary's range politically, but who could be a convincing speaker and good with people like Bill was, would have a good chance, whereas Hillary herself did not have as good a chance. As Trump, Reagan, JFK, and even Bill and George W. proved, show biz counts in the presidential election race.

McAuliffe might not be progressive enough for folks like Marypoza, or even myself (depending on your definition of progressive, I guess). And he does have some scandals in his background, in the tradition of the Clintons. But he might be progressive enough to get us back moving forward, and others will appear later and fill the lower ranks that could push things even further in the 2020s.

McAuliffe is wrong for the times.  There's a bloodlust in the air, and a politicrat like McAuliffe, competent as he has proven to be, is not a good fit.

Your analysis is spot on, very likely. Glad to finally get it I have a suspicion that "right for the times" may not matter, though; the electability of the candidate (as likely indicated by my scoring system) is what will matter the most. But it would be nice to have someone more in tune with our crisis mood; less "bi-partisan" and politically-calculating in the Clinton tradition. But, perhaps he can adapt, if he decides to run. He does seem capable of laying down some tough stands too. Or, maybe "bi-partisan" will seem like a good alternative in 4 years. We'll see who emerges.