Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   One of the people on the list could very well be our next President. The bad news for the Democrats is that it's basically a list of either "too old" or "who?"   ( politico.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

3702 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jun 2017 at 10:15 AM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-06-18 08:00:28 AM  
static2.stuff.co.nz
 
2017-06-18 08:42:24 AM  
img.fark.net
The new boss, not the same as the old boss
 
2017-06-18 09:04:28 AM  
Why are we linking to a PDF?
 
2017-06-18 09:24:04 AM  

JerseyTim: Why are we linking to a PDF?


Maybe because no paywall
 
2017-06-18 09:29:04 AM  
Obama was a who.
 
2017-06-18 09:59:09 AM  

ginandbacon: Obama was a who.


Down in Whoville.
 
2017-06-18 10:00:19 AM  
Every single one of them would be an improvement on the current occupant and the whole world knows it.

/the whole world
/are you Republicans proud of that?
 
2017-06-18 10:13:44 AM  

ginandbacon: Obama was a who.


So wasn't Bill Clinton to most of America
 
2017-06-18 10:16:52 AM  

Nocrash: Every single one of them would be an improvement on the current occupant and the whole world knows it.

/the whole world
/are you Republicans proud of that?


The truth is what we really need to get things going in the right direction again is an unknown who hasn't spent time in DC.  Obama was there for less than 1 term so he wasn't fully DC converted, Clinton was an outsider and made a real difference.  I will be really pissed if the 2020 Dem primary is full of Congress Critters.
 
2017-06-18 10:18:34 AM  
The perfect president is a young expert in everything that is well known by everyone, but no one has a preformed opinion about.
 
2017-06-18 10:18:39 AM  

Nocrash: Every single one of them would be an improvement on the current occupant and the whole world knows it.

/the whole world
/are you Republicans proud of that?


Republicans aren't the ones that farked up.  Democrats ran a candidate so bad that Donald Farkin' Trump won the election.  I've come to believe that no matter who the Republicans ended up with, if everything else had remained the exact same, Hillary Clinton still would have lost.

She should have mopped the floor with Trump's hairpiece.  We all expected that to happen, whether we wanted her to win or not.

So I think the Democrats share equally in the blame.  You ran a low-energy candidate with the personality of a wet dishrag against an experienced huckster/media personality.
 
2017-06-18 10:18:42 AM  

Tom_Slick: Nocrash: Every single one of them would be an improvement on the current occupant and the whole world knows it.

/the whole world
/are you Republicans proud of that?

The truth is what we really need to get things going in the right direction again is an unknown who hasn't spent time in DC.  Obama was there for less than 1 term so he wasn't fully DC converted, Clinton was an outsider and made a real difference.  I will be really pissed if the 2020 Dem primary is full of Congress Critters.


But that will open the candidate up to Republican attacks on their lack of experience.
 
2017-06-18 10:19:41 AM  

Tom_Slick: I will be really pissed if the 2020 Dem primary is full of Congress Critters.


GetUsedToDissappointment.jpg
 
2017-06-18 10:20:53 AM  

Delta1212: Tom_Slick: Nocrash: Every single one of them would be an improvement on the current occupant and the whole world knows it.

/the whole world
/are you Republicans proud of that?

The truth is what we really need to get things going in the right direction again is an unknown who hasn't spent time in DC.  Obama was there for less than 1 term so he wasn't fully DC converted, Clinton was an outsider and made a real difference.  I will be really pissed if the 2020 Dem primary is full of Congress Critters.

But that will open the candidate up to Republican attacks on their lack of experience.


A candidate should not be selected for their ability to not be attacked, for all candidate will be attacked for everything. They should be selected for their ability to rise above the attacks
 
2017-06-18 10:21:22 AM  
T-Ducks...I wanna see the GOP try and go negative on a female minority disabled veteran.
 
2017-06-18 10:21:55 AM  

Delta1212: Tom_Slick: Nocrash: Every single one of them would be an improvement on the current occupant and the whole world knows it.

/the whole world
/are you Republicans proud of that?

The truth is what we really need to get things going in the right direction again is an unknown who hasn't spent time in DC.  Obama was there for less than 1 term so he wasn't fully DC converted, Clinton was an outsider and made a real difference.  I will be really pissed if the 2020 Dem primary is full of Congress Critters.

But that will open the candidate up to Republican attacks on their lack of experience.


They are already saying that the current occupant is "new to this" so they can't say...

I can't even finish that statement.

/IOKIYAR
 
2017-06-18 10:22:01 AM  

dittybopper: Nocrash: Every single one of them would be an improvement on the current occupant and the whole world knows it.

/the whole world
/are you Republicans proud of that?

Republicans aren't the ones that farked up.  Democrats ran a candidate so bad that Donald Farkin' Trump won the election.  I've come to believe that no matter who the Republicans ended up with, if everything else had remained the exact same, Hillary Clinton still would have lost.

She should have mopped the floor with Trump's hairpiece.  We all expected that to happen, whether we wanted her to win or not.

So I think the Democrats share equally in the blame.  You ran a low-energy candidate with the personality of a wet dishrag against an experienced huckster/media personality.


Who should they run now that the experienced huckster/media personality is also the incumbent?
 
2017-06-18 10:22:14 AM  
None of this matters until the mid terms are finished. Dems need to take both Houses before speculating on a candidate for President. That way a feel for direction becomes clear as to who should run.One step forward first.
 
2017-06-18 10:22:38 AM  
All the candidates should be whos. That's how they become known. The reason we don't have a field of well known candidates is that the last two primary cycles were dominated by Hilary. We've had a presumptive nominee since 2006. That left room for precisely two not-Hilary candidates, one who became president, and one who's too old, both of whom became household names because of the campaigns they ran.
 
2017-06-18 10:25:19 AM  
It's just too bad that there is no way to learn about any of the younger candidates. Who? is just too much to overcome.
 
2017-06-18 10:25:39 AM  

dittybopper: Republicans aren't the ones that farked up.  Democrats ran a candidate so bad that Donald Farkin' Trump won the election.


heisanevilgenius.pbworks.com
 
2017-06-18 10:26:22 AM  
What they need is someone marketable, who has not been around long enough to cement their views to the electorate, a blank slate if you will, someone we can project our hopes and dreams onto without making any real promises that can be pointed out as failures when they fall through. A standard bearer to distract from the neoliberal policies the establishment REALLY want.
 
2017-06-18 10:27:33 AM  

dittybopper: Nocrash: Every single one of them would be an improvement on the current occupant and the whole world knows it.

/the whole world
/are you Republicans proud of that?

Republicans aren't the ones that farked up.  Democrats ran a candidate so bad that Donald Farkin' Trump won the election.  I've come to believe that no matter who the Republicans ended up with, if everything else had remained the exact same, Hillary Clinton still would have lost.

She should have mopped the floor with Trump's hairpiece.  We all expected that to happen, whether we wanted her to win or not.

So I think the Democrats share equally in the blame.  You ran a low-energy candidate with the personality of a wet dishrag against an experienced huckster/media personality.


So you have one group who nominated Donald Trump from among a wide range of potential candidates all on their own, then voted for Donald Trump in the general and pushed him into office.

Then you have another group who criticized and opposed Donald Trump at every turn from the moment he announced his candidacy but ultimately failed to prevent him from being elected by the slimmest vote margin in history.

And these two groups are equally at fault for Trump's presidency in your mind?
 
2017-06-18 10:33:48 AM  
As for "the who?" factor, who knew who Obama was in 2007?

And with age, look at Jimmy Carter. Through his 80s he maintained a robust travel schedule easily working more hours than Trump currently does. He only slowed down in his 90s because of cancer. I'd be more worried about Trump given that he's overweight and eats fast food. Not being snarky, but didn't he have to be driven around in a golf cart at the recent NATO summit?
 
2017-06-18 10:35:42 AM  

Delta1212: dittybopper: Nocrash: Every single one of them would be an improvement on the current occupant and the whole world knows it.

/the whole world
/are you Republicans proud of that?

Republicans aren't the ones that farked up.  Democrats ran a candidate so bad that Donald Farkin' Trump won the election.  I've come to believe that no matter who the Republicans ended up with, if everything else had remained the exact same, Hillary Clinton still would have lost.

She should have mopped the floor with Trump's hairpiece.  We all expected that to happen, whether we wanted her to win or not.

So I think the Democrats share equally in the blame.  You ran a low-energy candidate with the personality of a wet dishrag against an experienced huckster/media personality.

So you have one group who nominated Donald Trump from among a wide range of potential candidates all on their own, then voted for Donald Trump in the general and pushed him into office.

Then you have another group who criticized and opposed Donald Trump at every turn from the moment he announced his candidacy but ultimately failed to prevent him from being elected by the slimmest vote margin in history.

And these two groups are equally at fault for Trump's presidency in your mind?


If people are continually being dragged down by bad policy, the lunatic offering radical change is preferable to more of the same.
 
2017-06-18 10:37:20 AM  
Booker Book it Done.
 
2017-06-18 10:38:27 AM  
Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I think it's too soon to assume there will be a 2020 election.

A lot can happen between now and then and I'm not optimistic about our current trajectory.
 
2017-06-18 10:40:07 AM  

dittybopper: Nocrash: Every single one of them would be an improvement on the current occupant and the whole world knows it.

/the whole world
/are you Republicans proud of that?

Republicans aren't the ones that farked up.  Democrats ran a candidate so bad that Donald Farkin' Trump won the election.  I've come to believe that no matter who the Republicans ended up with, if everything else had remained the exact same, Hillary Clinton still would have lost.

She should have mopped the floor with Trump's hairpiece.  We all expected that to happen, whether we wanted her to win or not.

So I think the Democrats share equally in the blame.  You ran a low-energy candidate with the personality of a wet dishrag against an experienced huckster/media personality.


The blame rests on one group, and one group only. People who voted for Donald.
 
2017-06-18 10:40:21 AM  
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com
 
2017-06-18 10:42:31 AM  
Remember all the buzz all over the nation about Obama in 2005? Wait, what's that? There wasn't any? Oh.

/Politico is just concerned, as usual
 
2017-06-18 10:43:57 AM  
Is Donnie Two Scoops "too old"?  Donnie is playing 4-D chess, & then there's his sex tape.  Look what the sex tape did for Paris Hilton.

// "One Night inside Donnie"
//Unleash the limp sprout
 
2017-06-18 10:45:31 AM  
Too old? Seems to be a double standard there. Trump is older than Clinton, but she's the only one who had to defend herself against being too old for the job.
 
2017-06-18 10:45:46 AM  
Maybe Biden could pull it off.  I'd take his goofy gaffes over the current train wreck any day.
 
2017-06-18 10:46:27 AM  

J_Kushner: Is Donnie Two Scoops "too old"?  Donnie is playing 4-D chess, & then there's his sex tape.  Look what the sex tape did for Paris Hilton.

// "One Night inside Donnie"
//Unleash the limp sprout


"Raising Trump Tower: An epic five month saga"
 
2017-06-18 10:47:02 AM  

dittybopper: Republicans aren't the ones that farked up.  Democrats ran a candidate so bad that Donald Farkin' Trump won the election.


The Republicans ran fifteen candidates so bad that Donald Farking Trump won the nomination.
 
2017-06-18 10:50:04 AM  
If you are only worried about name recognition when it comes to nominees this far out then yes we are doomed to only reality TV stars at this point. Isn't part of the pony of an 18 month election cycle that 25 percent of that time is "getting to know your candidate?"
 
2017-06-18 10:53:58 AM  

dittybopper: Nocrash: Every single one of them would be an improvement on the current occupant and the whole world knows it.

/the whole world
/are you Republicans proud of that?

Republicans aren't the ones that farked up.  Democrats ran a candidate so bad that Donald Farkin' Trump won the election.  I've come to believe that no matter who the Republicans ended up with, if everything else had remained the exact same, Hillary Clinton still would have lost.

She should have mopped the floor with Trump's hairpiece.  We all expected that to happen, whether we wanted her to win or not.

So I think the Democrats share equally in the blame.  You ran a low-energy candidate with the personality of a wet dishrag against an experienced huckster/media personality.


No coont, Republicans farked up, it's the fault of Republicans . They nominated him, and they overwhelmingly voted for him.
 
2017-06-18 10:54:12 AM  
List fails without Dwayne Johnson.
 
2017-06-18 10:54:20 AM  
Hillary 2020

It's her turn.

No seriously, stop laughing.  Put down that knife!
 
2017-06-18 10:55:24 AM  
Subby...  Donald trump became our president when we all laughed at the thought of him running.  Anything is possible
 
2017-06-18 10:55:36 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-06-18 11:00:36 AM  
Eh.  Who heard of, say, Obama or Bill Clinton at this point before they were elected?

And Jesus it's farking 2017.  Stop trying to make this a never-ending election cycle.

And what's farking next, people will start complaining that the Dems don't have their next candidate planned out already and then five minutes later the same people will biatch that the Dems are planning their candidates before the primary.
 
2017-06-18 11:00:54 AM  

ImOscar: [img.fark.net image 425x594]


Kamala Harris/Matt Heinrich 2020
 
2017-06-18 11:03:25 AM  

sparks2021: dittybopper: Nocrash: Every single one of them would be an improvement on the current occupant and the whole world knows it.

/the whole world
/are you Republicans proud of that?

Republicans aren't the ones that farked up.  Democrats ran a candidate so bad that Donald Farkin' Trump won the election.  I've come to believe that no matter who the Republicans ended up with, if everything else had remained the exact same, Hillary Clinton still would have lost.

She should have mopped the floor with Trump's hairpiece.  We all expected that to happen, whether we wanted her to win or not.

So I think the Democrats share equally in the blame.  You ran a low-energy candidate with the personality of a wet dishrag against an experienced huckster/media personality.

No coont, Republicans farked up, it's the fault of Republicans . They nominated him, and they overwhelmingly voted for him.


If you can't produce a viable alternative how can you be upset at the inevitable outcome?
 
2017-06-18 11:04:01 AM  
I have no farks to give
 
2017-06-18 11:04:28 AM  

Minus1Kelvin: T-Ducks...I wanna see the GOP try and go negative on a female minority disabled veteran.


Considering that they're never shy about going negative on the first pair, and that Saxby Chambliss successfully smeared Max Cleland for purportedly being weak on defense issues...?

Nothing is out of bounds for GOP scum.
 
2017-06-18 11:05:41 AM  

Tom_Slick: ginandbacon: Obama was a who.

So wasn't Bill Clinton to most of America


But as a governor, he had a fairly extensive record people his opponents could run against. Obama was counseled by either Byrd or Kennedy to run before finishing his term exactly because he was so unknown at the time--it allowed him to define himself. 

I will never forget when Clinton decided to refuse a stay of execution for Rickey Ray Rector. It was disgusting. He lost in 1980 because of a perception that he was soft on crime, and he sacrificed all moral legitimacy in that case for an election. I voted for him anyway, but that stuck in my craw. 

Obama was a complete unknown. It was part of what got him elected. You could project whatever you wanted onto him.

Minus1Kelvin: T-Ducks...I wanna see the GOP try and go negative on a female minority disabled veteran.


I would knock over old ladies and small children to cast that vote. She's amazing. She's on the committees on Environment and Public Works, Commerce, Science and Transportation, Energy and Natural Resources, and Small Business and Entrepreneurship. She's solid on defense and national security, is  unimpeachable in her voting record, and seems to have a lot of respect among her peers. And her speech at the DNC was riveting (like a certain other Senator from Illinois...). I adore her.
 
2017-06-18 11:05:52 AM  

MrBallou: List fails without Dwayne Johnson.


when dems suggest a republican as their candidate you know they're in trouble.
 
2017-06-18 11:17:22 AM  

ginandbacon: Obama was a who.


Came here to say that.

And for those who say "B-b-but the keynote address...", I will just say that need always fills a vacuum. We NEED a different president. Desperately. A decent, winnable candidate WILL appear.

I will generally say that we should invoke a "No Over-50" rule. No one older than 50 should run. The boomers have had their day, and their ideas are mostly old. Time for Gen X to shine.
 
2017-06-18 11:19:17 AM  
Doesn't really matter who Democrats vote for, it matters who the DNC wants them to vote for.
 
Displayed 50 of 196 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report