Progressives (Liberals)

Yes. Let's call them the Bentley Bros.

Sure, we can disagree on the fairness of this or that detail, but it is a fact she spent 8 years in the White House already, and that's a long time. There are term limits for a reason. It's also a fact that she benefitted heftily from her husband's career, that those two built a powerful political machine, and that they acted as one. And also that they had at times a creative relationship with morality and propriety. Such as the shoddy pardons at the end on Bill's second term.

I'm pretty clear-eyed about her problems going well beyond the Republican propaganda machine. She was deeply disliked by many a Democrat voter, including in New York whence she was senator. And of course very close to Wall Street.

Candidates supporting cannabis legalization:
• Michael Bennet
• Cory Booker
• Tulsi Gabbard
• Kirsten Gillibrand
• Kamala Harris
• Beto O'Rourke
• Bernie Sanders
• Elizabeth Warren

Candidates opposing cannabis legalization:
• Joe Biden
• Amy Klobuchar
• Donald Trump

Plus, why are people on this list who aren’t even in the race, and who is this Bennet guy?

February 23, 2019

'I don’t love marijuana. I’d rather people not use it heavily. But it’s vastly safer than people becoming addicted to opiates like heroin. And our criminalization of it seems stupid and racist, particularly now that it’s legal in some states. We should proceed with full legalization of marijuana and pardon those in jail for non-violent marijuana-related offenses. It’s a safer, less addictive means to manage pain for many Americans.' - Andrew Yang

I early voted for Lori Lightfoot, progressive, in Chicago’s mayoral runoff today.

Could be first female black mayor for Chicago. She would also be the first homosexual mayor in Chicago o believe.

I guess that is one up. You have already had a cross-dresser.

Clinton was uniquely positioned to lose the election because she screwed up royally. She fiddle-f*cked around for three weeks after the convention, because she seemed to assume it was a coronation and not an election. Then when she finally got her lazy @ss in gear, she ran an incredibly stupid campaign. She wasted a lot of her time and eventually, Mr. Obama's considerable political capital in Florida, a state she never had a hope in hell of winning. At the same time, she neglected states that Mr. Obama had won in 2012 with ease. In particular, she lost Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania--not because of any conservative resurgence, but because potential Democratic voters stayed home. Had she worked those states as they should have been worked, and especially if Mr. Obama had joined her, she'd be the president today.

I get tired of various stories which are now being circulated to the effect that some great truths of electoral politics explain why Clinton lost. Clinton lost because she was lazy, and ran an idiot campaign. She could have shown some spine, she could have insisted that Plump stand still in the debates instead of playing the creep. She could have used the convention as a launching pad for a vigorous campaign. She could have actually serviced the Democratic base. She did none of those things--and that's why she lost. She lost because she ran a sh*t campaign.

Criticism here of the source material, and not those posting about it.

Lori Lightfoot is a cop, not a progressive.

Sanders-inspired Our Revolution Chicago endorses Lightfoot


https://www.google.com/amp/s/chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-mayoral-runoff-lori-lightfood-endorsement-our-revolution-chicago-bernie-sanders/amp/

Ah yes, the putative progressive Lashes out at another Democrat. That's so helpful.

Just starting to research him, but I like what I’ve seen so far.

I haven't been reading the thread, lately. A few times I scanned a couple of posts and put in a few thoughts. This thread was not started specifically for the purpose of supporting just any Democrats. Only progressive ones. I don't give a **** about Biden, Harris, Beto and such. It's the issues of restoration, not status quo that matter. The truth or nothing. If a candidate is not for us, I am not for the candidate, regardless of party. People can come here and whine about it as is their right. My response:

True. I guess the question that still emerges is the "why?" of it. Why did a seasoned politician with backing and brains run such a bad campaign? That's where a lot of the accompanying narrative begins. I don't think you can count out the influence (taint) of her husband and his reputation. I don't think you can count out the fact that she'd been in the public eye for twenty-four years. Or that she came to be defined as a succession of caricatured figures — harpy, libber, cuckquean, bitch, crone. It's sort of the backstory to her loss and led, in large part, to the decisions she made.

People who think they can even preserve a status quo, when the status quo has all but vanished, by electing the same Democrats they have been electing, since Reagan, are as deluded as the Republicans. It is a strategy that has delivered every aspect, nearly, of federal and local government to the far right. I mean, why don't you just run up a white flag now, and get it over with.

This seems exactly like my stance. Glad to see this view among more candidates.

Nevertheless, she won the popular vote. To ignore how lame her campaign was, how she showed this silly sense of entitlement, and then blew the campaign, begs the question of why.

And of course the fbi reopening the e mail investigation just days before the election helped hiller greatly.

The primary problem with Hillary is that the people didn’t choose her. You hope to begin with a field of several candidates, hear what they have to say, and then the most popular candidates rise to the top-others fall away.

The DNC establishment decided she was their candidate long before the season began. They used their power to keep all others from competing. Bernie Sanders gets in to try to pull that party to the left and is completely surprised-as is Clinton’s campaign-that he catches fire.

People don’t like Hillary Clinton. Had the campaign been normal-with five or so candidates, she would not have been #1... or#2. She has never engendered an upswell of popularity in an election.

Even juxtaposed with an imbecile like Donald Trump, she couldn’t win.

Due to her special brand of elitism and complete dismissal of real economic struggles of midwestern people, she took for granted that several key states that had always been in the back pocket of the DNC would automatically vote for her. In her famously pathetic post-mortem series of books and excuses, she basically accused everyone who didn’t vote for her of racism when they were tired on the Dems refusing to address their economic desperation.

It was just about her. It should have been about them. She still doesn’t get it.