Kind of irrelevant what her reasoning is. It’s a bad and stupid move politically. People are frustrated with the dems and are disengaging. They need change in leadership if they want to remain relevant. Pelosi and her ilk are out of touch and will run the country into the ground if they don’t step aside.
Just checked on that because I was curious. Looks like they only allowed fundraising for Rittenhouse once he had been acquitted.
I hope if we’re allowed real opposition parties in the future we can dump the dems and form a real leftist party.
Under Kamala? Just how much power do you think a VP has over foreign policy.
He might be the best candidate for hateful idiots though. The guy’s a chud whisperer. I’m not sure if any smarter more articulate Republican could hold together the same radical coalition.
I’d put it almost on par with Hollow Knight. One of the best modern Metroidvanias I’ve played.
Even if it is impossible with the current math, it’d be nice to hear some politicians loudly calling for expanding the court or impeachment. Seems to me if we want to get a strong majority, we need some leadership that actually promises some things people really want. Aside from AOC, nobody seems to want to talk about real ways to fix the court. They seem to be content to just ride it out and hope at some vague point it gets better.
Important to note that Nate Silver works for Peter Theil, who has donated heavily to Trump pacs, and is responsible for giving us JD Vance.
Seems to me, if you could successfully pull this off and not look like an idiot while pausing to listen to instructions, then that’s pretty impressive in itself and shows the kind of skills coordinating and multitasking that you probably want in a president.
He works for Peter Theil now, so I take everything he says with a huge grain of salt.
First we need to shift the Overton window left by repeatedly defeating Republicans.
I think conventional wisdom on political strategy is long overdue for an update.
“My name is JD Vance and I approve this loveseat.”
I don’t know. It’s been pretty clear for a while that the traditional Democrat strategy of winning by courting centrists and staying the course has been less and less effective every election. Tapping into enthusiasm for leftist policies and energizing the base to increase turnout has seemed like the better move for a while. That’s what Obama won big on and then completely failed to deliver.
Staying the course with the “nothing will fundamentally change” candidate was always a path to losing, and after his disastrous policy on Gaza we were in a nosedive.
Tim waltz seems like a good pick. Seems to have a bit of the Bernie, no-bullshit, authenticity that plays well with independents.
I would argue that even if your state is guaranteed to go one way or the other (aside from down ballot races which are obviously very important) there’s still value in voting for president, if only to illustrate the discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college. The higher we run up the margins, the more it makes it obvious to everyone that we need to ditch the electoral college.
I don’t know. I think with abortion on the ballot having a woman at the top of the ticket will be a benefit.
And then what happened?
Why do it that way, though? It’s always felt like it must have been a retcon to explain why they messed up and went with Hitler in 38. Why call someone horrible “person of the year” and give them more attention. Seems like time could be spent better on someone that had a positive impact.