Democrats Take Back House

[Darth Wedgius]

Democrats won't be exhausted by all the poutrage?

I didn't see as much reeeeaction to this one on either side (but might have missed it). And, well, I've heard of a study to the contrary, but I think a lot of people seem to be more energized by outrage than enervated by it. Forty years from now might be a great time to buy stock in blood pressure medicine, though...

[LittleRaven]

Everyone is busy gearing up for 2020.

As they should be.

[clearspira]

Everyone is busy gearing up for 2020.

As they should be.

Again, not going to pretend to understand how your system works all that well, but the mid-terms are small fry compared to the actual election and they were largely a draw with one house each. Preparing for 2020 is the most important thing now.
Do the Democrats have any figurehead that is as charismatic as Trump? At least Clinton was a very famous figure that could rally people. I know we don't like to admit it, we like to think that campaigns are fought on promises and policies; but modern elections are fought on star power. Any man or woman that looks as if they are not giving as good as they get against Trump will have a bloody hard time of it.

[LittleRaven]

Again, not going to pretend to understand how your system works all that well, but the mid-terms are small fry compared to the actual election and they were largely a draw with one house each.

This belief is quite common. It is also quite wrong. 2010 was a midterm year. It was boring, and Democrats didn't bother to show up against an energized Republican base. They have paid for this sin ever since.

Why? Because 2010 was a census year. That meant that the new Republican administrations that were swept into power got to gerrymander everything. And oh my did they. That's why the Democrats can pump out almost 8% more votes than the Republicans but only barely eek out a victory in the House.

Midterms matter. Vote every time.

Do the Democrats have any figurehead that is as charismatic as Trump?

Not yet. But the race is on.

[Yukaphile]

There's speculation. Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar are the ones I wanna see who are making headlines as possible contenders. I don't dispute the men on the short list of possible candidates are also very good, but frankly, I'm sick of the male privilege. The stranglehold men have had on the White House. These ladies would do a fine job, and if they run, any one of them would deserve the job.

[LittleRaven]

Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar are the ones I wanna see who are making headlines as possible contenders.

Jesus. What a horrible selection. Trump will absolutely wipe the floor with any of them.

Kamala? A California liberal with a suspiciously dark skin color? Gillibrand? A New York elistist with the 'can I speak to your manager' haircut? Warren?!? Mrs. Pochahontas herself? Klobuchar?...well, actually, she might work. But she'll have to get a LOT better about raising money. Like, a LOT.

[Yukaphile]

What do you mean "suspiciously dark?" Obama won. I don't see any reason a black woman can't win. Unless you think there's something else that's wrong about her skin color... and engaging in the petty name-calling Trump engages in? Nice. Let's be clear that I don't trust the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, but I also don't have any reason to suspect her of lying about her heritage. Who would you prefer, huh? Nina Turner or Tulsi Gabbard? They will never make it past those in the middle given their baggage and close association with Sanders. Those in the center see them as traitors. And you're forgetting Clinton's voters are still around. You... people... and your damned purity tests! This is why we've never had a woman President! Any of those I listed would do a damn finer job than Trump. What is it when electing female leaders that gets insecure men and women to wanting them to be as "pure" as the wind-driven snow, huh?

[Yukaphile]

All politicians have flaws. But somehow it's magnified when dealing with female leaders because of that sexist idealized view we have of women, we don't want female leaders to have flaws we'd be willing to overlook in men. Gargh! This is precisely why we are very likely to get a female Vice-President in 2020, and not an actual female President, even though by logic any female Vice-President deserves the top job if she must be prepared to assume it someday. It's because people just are not ready for it. They'll see her as "too flawed, too young" or other sexist buzzwords to show they're only okay with women playing second fiddle and not actually having real power. And that's why I quit voting. If we're that much of a misogynistic, patriarchal country, then I frankly don't care about this place anymore.

[Robovski]

I really don't care about who is running for President right now as I'm old school and will ignore all the ''hopefulls'' until primary season is back. Don't support the never ending election cycle.

[Yukaphile]

Yeah. It's not my problem. Not even voting.