Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Commodore]

And if all goes as it should, there'll be a sequel: Chelsea vs Ivanka, 2024 

Well, the trendy projection at the moment is Michelle Obama, 2020...

The whole wife-of-el-presidente thing is very banana republic.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Besides, the rumors say that Michelle is sick of Washington and has no interest.

Booker has to demonstrate that he's not yet another empty suit for corporate interests. I'm not sure he's able to turn out his base that failed to turn out for a giant corporatist, or flip back the swing voters that are (legitimately) worried about their economic status. Remember, Booker came out in favor of Bain Capital. Duckworth, well, I have no idea what her positions are.

Tulsi Gabbard is a name I've heard thrown around, who would do well to inherit the mantle of Sanders. She even has some foreign policy cred. It should be easy draw a contrast as well, she can bring out an affirmative message (that Clinton completely bungled) that can contrast with Trump's inevitable betrayal of his base.

Also, Chelsea is a god damn terrible idea.

[Krill]

You guys are more than welcome as the 51st state if going it alone proves too much .

Darrell

Whilst normally I'd insult you, I'm just going to bask in the sheer terror you must be feeling already. It makes me feel good.

(Also, as a Floridian, I'm not surprised that you need someone to do your job for you. Sorry. Couldn't resist).

[ipecac]

Also, Chelsea is a god damn terrible idea.

Can't be worse than Hillary.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Yes, worse than Hillary. Hillary has the advantage of wonkishness and being super detail oriented, Chelsea has nothing. Even if everyone has been calling the Clintons a political dynasty, but I have never considered it a thing, unlike the Bushes and Kennedys and Roosevelts. Hillary has always had her own independent judgements even when Bill has a mere governor.

That changes if Chelsea tries to be politically relevant. She brings nothing to the table but nepotism, and would further weaken the standing of the DNC.

[T-hawk]

Chelsea has no interest in and stays as far away from politics and the media as she possibly can.

The Clintons were a political dynasty during the time it was assumed that Hillary would be the next president, which lasted from around 2006 (minus between Obama's nomination and election) until this week.

[ipecac]

Yes, worse than Hillary. Hillary has the advantage of wonkishness and being super detail oriented, Chelsea has nothing. Even if everyone has been calling the Clintons a political dynasty, but I have never considered it a thing, unlike the Bushes and Kennedys and Roosevelts. Hillary has always had her own independent judgements even when Bill has a mere governor.

That changes if Chelsea tries to be politically relevant. She brings nothing to the table but nepotism, and would further weaken the standing of the DNC.

Chelsea doesn't have Hillary's massive weaknesses, which makes her a more viable candidate.

Chelsea has no interest in and stays as far away from politics and the media as she possibly can.

Things change. She campaigned for her mother over months this election cycle, and was apparently not too shabby for it.

[Krill]

Yes, worse than Hillary. Hillary has the advantage of wonkishness and being super detail oriented, Chelsea has nothing. Even if everyone has been calling the Clintons a political dynasty, but I have never considered it a thing, unlike the Bushes and Kennedys and Roosevelts. Hillary has always had her own independent judgements even when Bill has a mere governor.

That changes if Chelsea tries to be politically relevant. She brings nothing to the table but nepotism, and would further weaken the standing of the DNC.

Chelsea doesn't have Hillary's massive weaknesses, which makes her a more viable candidate.

I don't have Hillary's massive weaknesses either, still not going to make me POTUS.

[pindicator]

I would have voted for you Krill, considering the other options

[Bobchillingworth]

Oh, I thought suggesting Chelsea was a joke?


She'll never, ever be president.

1. She has no real accomplishments to her name which can't be attributed to nepotism, and this perception (or reality) will dog her for decades to come.

2. She has very little charisma.

3. She has displayed absolutely zero political ambitions.

4. "Scion to a failed dynasty" does not a winning biography make.

5. The Democrats aren't so incredibly lacking for talent on their bench that they'd be desperate enough to nominate her just on the basis of name recognition.

6. By the time she'd be realistically able to run, the Sanders-leaning millennial cohort would have a much stronger presence in the party and primary process. I seriously doubt many would support Chelsea.