AOC is nailed on to be President one day imo. She’ll be 35 at the time of the next election, which means she’s legally allowed to run (the US has a legal minimum age of 35 for President or VP).
Is it possible that, to others, you come across as someone who is more interested in pushing an agenda, than actually having a conversation? That you have decided that those who may not agree with this agenda must be stupid? If this is your notion of 'having a pair,' then might you want to question your definitions of childish and weak. Perhaps others disagree with these definitions and - in part at least - are thus more inclined to choose Biden rather than Sanders to be the democratic nominee to face Trump. Who knows, maybe some see Biden as someone willing to have a conversation with the whole of America, whereas Sanders is more seen as someone who wants to try and push his own agenda onto the country, whatever the cost may be (eg 4 more years of Trump). In this way, Sanders is just another version of Trump albeit on a different political wing. A wannabe strongman, to which Biden provides a real alternative. A choice for change beyond that of a different novelty wrapping. Is Biden the glitziest package, that promises the most to the world? Probably not but maybe that's not what people want - instead what might seem like step back, with which the country can then move forward on a more assured footing. Maybe even with a candidate that is more in line with your ideas - but, more importantly, in the context of the wishes of america as a whole.Or,as Biden might put it, its 'soul.'
Could be — but I suspect (a) the nation remains too conservative in the intermediate term and (b) Trump’s debacle of a term is going to make Americans a bit suspicious of candidates perceived to be Mavericks. But if she can gain some experience, power and leverage as a longer term House member or Senator sitting on important committees she can build a resume and a profile. Also she may decide she can accomplish more if she can become Speaker (assuming she’s stays in the House). One to watch for sure.
Fair point :) I suppose Bigga's point is that the lead isn't cause for comfort as similar leads have been overcome before. But like you said, better ahead than behind.
Yeah! But Sanders was twatting Trump in the polls too. In fairness I don't think Trump cared who he got. He cockily believes he can beat any of them. My sense was that prior to the pandemic he was probably right. Presidents in Economic booms almost never lose. No matter how much Foggy might personally hate them.
I agree. She's an extraordinarily talented politician so you never want to say never, but I think it's more likely she settles into a Nancy Pelosi-esque role or becomes an influential Senator instead. With the way the electoral college looks at present it's unlikely that anyone perceived to be as liberal as she is could actually win a national election anytime soon. Plus, by the time she runs she'll have been every conservative news outlet's favorite punching bag for like a decade. It's stupid, but that takes a toll over time.
What he doesn’t get or understand is the fact that whilst I (as in me personally) would rather vote for Sanders and his policies over Biden, the US is a great deal more conservative (small C).
Yep. What you write comes across as intelligent reasoning for me. DIsagree or agree on opinions/facts etc for sure. But to call it stupid just seems a bit self -defeating and doesn't really ring true. As I see it you and Bigga are in agreement as to wanting policy goals closer to Sanders' than Bidens but the practical part of how to come to this, is a bit of a bone of contention. Bidens policies seem a whole heap closer to Sanders than Trumps. Or is that a contentious statement, also?
