Posted on 11/22/2016 4:56:32 PM PST by GuavaCheesePuff
Does seeing a woman elected President “trump” every other consideration such as the safety and general welfare of all American citizens? Or the nation’s ability to successfully respond to national security threats? People who think it does are idiots.
Stalinist racist and viscerally pro-criminal/open borders.
LEFTIST to the left of me - Ms Harris, LEFTIST to the right of me, Ms Warren. Qualifications for President, per the Huffington Post? Lack of gonads! Oh joy!
From the article-
“she spoke at length about police killings of black men and women, arguing that states should take steps like keeping track of the data on officer-involved shootings and increasing training to reduce police bias.”
1) The data is already tracked
2) The Left simply refuses to get the message from this election. Female parts and policies directed at minuscule parts of the population won’t win Jack Squat (if we still have an Electoral College).
That may be a fun fight to watch. In four years, blacks will still represent about 11% - 12% of the population. But Hispanics will probably be over 20% by then. She’ll have to overcome one of the Texas Castro twins in the primary, and she’ll have to do it without most Hispanics, because they will have a real dog in the fight by then. And with democrats outing themselves as America’s minority party, more disaffected white voters may reregister as republicans. She could possibly lose California’s primary to a hispanic opponent.
Yes. All good points.
It will be a hoot.
Are you kidding? We’re 20t in the hole and no one cares as long as the ebt cards work.
I am a 70 year old straight white male and I have a better chance of being the first female President than does that woman. By the time an opening comes, Kammie will be in jail.
We could run Tiger Woods against her.
I overhear comments that tell me it’s going to be a while before any black is elected president. A black female may have a better chance than a black male.
black female may have a better chance than a black male
Hopefully the Dems will keep emphasizing the importance of the type of genitals their candidates possess rather than issues that American working families ACTUALLY care about.
This is what rats think they can do to win. Push a relatively unknown radical “person of color” and this time a woman, and pray for white guilt to carry them thru to the end.
Hey it worked 2 times with Zero.
The only way the Dems know how to win without having a “Clinton” on the ticket (which has proved past its sell-by date now) is putting a “POC” on the ticket and stirring up black/latino identity politics turn-out. They’ve decided to go “all-in” on accusing Trump of being a KKK/Nazi racist. That makes it far more likely they will try to run another black on the next ticket, to go all-in on black turn-out. Cory Booker has the seniority and just seems more reminiscent of Obama in general. After failing with a woman on the ticket they may realize it makes more sense to make her V.P. next time and build her up to be the first woman President down the road. Cory Booker will look like the “safer” choice, an easy compromise between the radical left and the establishment.
What law did they manage to pass that turned it into a one-party Senate race? Are they just going to outlaw Republicans entirely next time?
Kind of like having the goods on Obama ten years ago. You might want to create a horde of all the weak performance data with articles etc on this gal. Might come in handy for us not in the area when we want to profile her to others in a few years.
The law--which was promoted by a Republican legislator named Abel Maldanado and passed by the voters as a ballot initiative in 2010 abolishes single-party primaries and replaces them with a "jungle primary" in which everyone is on the ballot regardless of party. The two top winners are on the November ballot, and there is no provision for write-ins.
What in the world is the rationale for such a system?
It was argued that this system would reduce partisanship and extremism and result in the election of more moderate candidates.
Haha! Of course they want to reduce partisanship in California by taking Republicans off the ballot. All this does is protect the Democrats from any scandals that arise during the year by eliminating the GOP candidate months ahead of time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.