I feel like the Dem field is missing the young, rising, clean reputation guy that would just clean up in this field. An Obama-type. Beto hasn't taken off at the national level. Buttigieg is maybe the closest, and he was the first one to come out of nowhere to relevance (and he's still trading equally to Sanders on PredictIt), maybe there will be another.

I haven't looked for a while but Warren always fared the worst against Trump in head to head polls. I don't think she's remotely electable, but, I also know the perils about nominating based on perceived electability.

I saw Michael Bennet speak at a town hall for a few minutes the other day. Seems like a smart, relatively moderate guy who would make a good President and would've been a great candidate 20 years ago. I also had little idea who he was, no idea he was running, and he's not from Florida or a rust belt state so I doubt he'll even be in the VP nominee mix.

Which is insane considering not so long ago Trump claimed his own father was born in Germany.

It never ceases to amaze me the double standards these Trump supporters will accept.

So, Obama was someone who was pretty rare in US electoral politics. A rising star who rocket shipped up to the nomination of his party for President. Trying to find that every election is a fools errand, IMO.

Doesn't "rising star who rocket shipped up to the nomination of his party for President" describe the last three Democrat nominees who actually won in November?

Edit: (or last 4, if you skip the unique circumstances of LBJ's election).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...343_story.html

Max Boot is among those in the most interesting channel of politics right now, I think -- self-proclaimed Republican but now anti-Trump and somewhat homeless on policy.

I wonder if trump claims victory for wiping his own ass in the morning?

Well, he is the greatest Ass wipe to ever hold office, so there is that...

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...d-of-democracy

A fairly short discussion on the movement within the right to favor social conservatism over democracy.

It's been interesting following opinions of Boot, Jennifer Rubin, Bill Kristol, George Will. At the same time, I feel like they are just screaming into the void.

It's kind of difficult to characterize that for Bill Clinton. He was a multiple term, 10+ year Governor when he ran for President. Jimmy Carter, perhaps, but he was less a rising star and more of a "wait, who?" who won due to post-Watergate strangeness. And Kennedy was a 3 term Congressman and was in his second term as Senator when he ran for President - he had 6 more years in Congress than Elizabeth Warren has right now. And had plenty of national exposure at the time.

I mean one can argue that Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, and Pete Buttigieg would all would fit your Obama-like young, rising, clear rep person far better than Kennedy or Clinton when they declared for President.

At the same time, Harris is 54. She'd be 56 and 3 mos. on inauguration day -- older than LBJ, Harding, Nixon, Wilson. Not terribly young, really.

dola: Clinton was 46. And yes, he had been Governor of Arkansas. But...Governor of Arkansas. In the 70s/80s. Not super high profile.

He was Chair of the National Governor's Association (after giving the Democratic Response to Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address). And gave the opening address at the 1988 Democratic National Convention (a speech that famously bombed). And headed the DLC.

He may have had accomplishments, but it's still not like he was super well-known though.

What More Than 40 Years Of Early Primary Polls Tell Us About 2020: Part 1 | FiveThirtyEight

Looking at the '92 primary results, Clinton did a little better early than I remember. I thought it was basically an afterthought for longer. The Dem field was underwhelming because Bush was thought to be unbeatable. But Clinton finished a strong second in New Hampshire and then started rolling and swept the south.

It's hard to tell where Clinton stood in the pecking order earlier than that, because campaigns started so much later back then. He didn't even announce until October 1991. But my recollection is that he was a random guy viewed as having no chance until New Hampshire. (He gave the "comeback kid" speech in New Hampshire). I would categorize him as a rising star who just shot past Tsongas and Harkin once America got to know him.

Edit: That new 538 post has some primary polling info, the version from a few years ago has some more detail. '92 was wacky. The top 9 candidates in the early Dem polls all declined to run. The early frontrunners weren't Tsongas and Harkin, they were Cuomo, Gore, Bentsen, Jackson, and Gephardt, and none of them ran. Clinton was polling at 8% in late 1991, but that was actually the highest in the field relative to his name recognition, which was very low (he was known to only 30% of voters.)

A Brief History of Primary Polling, Part II - The New York Times

So according to those articles, even if you have low numbers at this point, the real test is your poll numbers relative to your name recognition. I'd guess that Buttigieg has the best ratio for that right now.

If he announced he had indeed succeeded in wiping his own ass, I still might not believe it.

it is somewhat childish of me but I'm hoping Xi purposely does not meet with Trump.

Stocks rise; look to extend win streak as China moves to bolster economy - MarketWatch

Exactly this. Clinton didn't run against the big names of the Party (but note that he was still among the highest of the not-rans, as small as that was). Among the runners, he was one of the most well known. H.W.'s 90% approval in 1990 rating scared the Hell out of the big names. Tsongas was polling less than Clinton in the first half of 1991 and Brown didn't even enter until the second half. Clinton probably would have never won if Cuomo, Jackson, and Gephart stayed in (I remembered what a massive shock it was that Cuomo said he wasn't going to run).

It would be akin to Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Harris not running for 2020 and going "Well no one knew Booker/O'Rourke beforehand".

Clinton wasn't all over the TV, but he was a "Oh yeah, that guy" (though a lot of Republicans remembering his terrible 1998 DNC speech were licking their chops). And remember in 1991 CNN was really the only 24 hour news avenue. The internet wasn't a big source for most people and the vast majority got their news from newspapers and the Nightly News (whichever anchor you preferred).

Jackson would've been particularly problematic because he would've made it much harder for Clinton to roll through the south. That's what happened to Gore in 1988.

Trump pledged that he wouldn't spy on Kim Jong Un the way past presidents have.

Shame on congress for skipping the 9/11 victims fund hearing.

Good for Jon Stewart nailing them.

This country has some serious soul searching to do.

It isn't Congress, it's the GOP. If Dems ran the Senate there wouldn't be a funding problem for this fund.

But I understand why Stewart isn't telling the truth. If this becomes partisan it has almost zero chance of passing the Senate.

What was the purpose of the hearing?

To permanently authroize the 9/11 first responders club. (It's scheduled to expire next year)

The fund is set to expire in 2020, and the special master who runs it previously announced plans to cut payouts by between 50% and 70% to ensure all are paid. The fund paid out $7 billion in damages when it originally operated from 2001 to 2003, was reopened in 2011 and extended for another five years in 2015.

That's what is generally happening with it. From what I gather, today's hearing was before just the House Judiciary Committee and no full vote was scheduled.

Both parties' leaders have expressed that they intend to see this pass and funded. While words are of course only worth so much, it doesn't appear to me that this specific hearing was a necessary step in the process. As an extension of funding seems to have bipartisan support, I would presume it is likely to happen at some point before funding runs out.

Not to blast a party here but Republicans have been the ones holding this up. They were also the ones who filibustered it in 2010. Pretty much every Democrat supports it and has tried to push it through.

Kapernick sat for the anthem to protest "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."

Rapinoe did stand but stood silent for the match but she did support Kapernick and knelt in matches earlier.

Not going to change any minds here. I assume she has "relented some" by standing and staying quiet so okay with this compromise.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/megan...world-cup-2019

Thousands of people in every sports crowd stand and don't sing the national anthem or put their hands over their hearts. Who gives a shit.

If you are referring specifically to Kapernick's protest, apparently many.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fir...priate-n904891


And dependent on what race you are.

How Do Americans Feel About The NFL Protests? It Depends On How You Ask. | FiveThirtyEight

I'm not. I'm talking about not singing along or putting your hand over your heart for the national anthem. I think I actually said as much in my post, oddly enough.

Are you like one of those Russian Facebook trolls?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...n-usa-cost-fix

We know how to greatly reduce lead exposure, we can afford to do it, and we know the benefits from lower childhood blood levels.

So, of course, we have plans to do anything about lead.

Nope, I thought you were responding to my post which was about Kapernick/Rapinoe so that's why I checked first.

I always gauge the content of somebody's character and their beliefs by whether they stand and sing along with their hands over their hearts for the anthem. That, and whether they are pledging their allegiance daily to a symbol of our country. I mean, how much do they love America if they cannot repeat words that somebody told them to repeat to show their love and faith.

Talking head on FOX News just said the reason why Trump has this attitude towards Un is because he wants to stay in his graces because he is close to negotiating a settlement.

Not that there was ever a doubt FOX was Trump news network, but jesus...

The people upset about kneeling also worship a guy who trashed a gold star family, diminished the record of a war hero, and had to have ship covered and crew banned from an appearance because the site of the war heroes on the ship made him angry.

It's all faux-patriotism to cover up for what the issue really is.

House Oversight Committee just voted 24-15 that Barr and Ross should be held in contempt for not providing asked for documents-goes before the full House now. Vote was by party, with only Republican Justin Amash voting with the Democrats.

That thought has NOT not occurred to me.

Just look at his posts and titles of started threads. At least half are about subjects which could very easily cause contention or worry (Middle East, politics, religion, the economy, disasters).

Just incredible. The President says "the FBI Director is wrong" in claiming that a campaign approached by a foreign government should notify authorities. pic.twitter.com/1S8xjoi2EV

— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) June 12, 2019

The President is throwing the doors wide open for foreign meddling. Sure would be nice if the Dems could at least temporarily get their shit together. Hearings with the greatest hits of the Nixon admin just won't cut it.

Don't forget the latest one re: Constance Wu.

That's the final proof. We all know she is secretly Putin's lover. Hail, comrade! How goes the SVR?

Hah. Wait till poll #101 comes out this weekend.

The Office of Special Counsel has recommeded that KellyAnne Conway be fired from her job for repeated violations of the Hatch Act and ignoring all efforts to get her to abide by the Act:


A Federal Watchdog Says Trump Should Fire Kellyanne Conway For Her Political Activity

Law and order party

Sarah Sanders leaving the White House at the end of the month. Boy not a good day for witches in this adminstration huh?

How will they ever find another person to not hold press conferences for months at a time?

She's already been very clear about her feeling on this... saying something to the effect of "well, he's not going to fire me, so end of conversation."

This is a tiny example of the things people talk about when they say "breakdown of norms" and so forth, that sounds like abstract egghead shit that the MAGA crowd couldn't care less about. We have layers on layers of institutions built on the concept that a sitting executive would presumably have the dignity or pride or whatever to take this sort of thing seriously. We just didn't think through the possibility of somebody this shallow and terrible in the office. He's the presidential equivalent of the eggshell plaintiff, to mangle an analogy.

It's weird that the people who use crime as the reason for stronger immigration enforcement also seem to be OK with crime. Almost like it's not really about crime.

We did, we just didn't imagine Congress being complicit.

And the white house has requested that the office rescind their recommendation based on it being biased and partisan. And this will play wonderfully.