(11-12-2025 01:37 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:27 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:22 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The correct answer is none. I think you are about to finally see the Dem tea party revolt happen. Not sure what it's going to be centered around, I'd prefer it be some sort of policy plank but what I suspect it's going to be is the current leadership having zero guts and ability to even pretend to fight effectively against Trump.

Schumer is all kinds of done, he wouldn't even publicly admit who he voted for in the NY Mayor race when Cuomo was literally endorsed by Trump and no one on earth believes he didn't essentially green light the cave on the shutdown even if he technically voted no on it. Whether I like him or not I have no doubt on earth if Harry Reid were in charge of the Senate he would have kept his caucus in line and kept them all voting no if that's what he wanted the outcome to be. Hell even as pathetic and weak as Schumer is if you look at the people who caved it people who are either not going to run again or aren't up for reelection until at least 2028. The base of the Dem's are furious at this cave, they caved for nothing, they got nothing, they caused the pain for nothing, and polling and the election results from last week show that they weren't taking the blunt of the blame for the shutdown. Schumer allowed the cave because he never wanted to fight in the first place, and is not the type of person who wants to "fight" anything. He's a yes man to big money donors, that's it and that's all.

the party left Manchin and Sinema ... now Fetterman sees the light (finally) ... now it's game on with the Schmuckster...

however, there's a lot of deliverable monies on the Schmuckster side of the equation ... not ne'r none on taTTTas that can dance...

Schumer has been in the pocket of the donors who control the leadership of the Dem party, and I suspect they are going to realize he's far too damaged with the average Dem voter to be the vehicle for their will and desires for much longer. If they are smart they'll have the other people they own and control come out and publicly turn on him and get him out as minority leader. Then just prop up I'm not sure who but someone younger and who at least postures enough to the Dem base that they want to be adversarial and fight against Trump.

As much as I'd prefer the Dem base was shifting towards economic populism all I think they are doing is realizing that the current leadership are completely gutless clowns. If the money people are smart they could probably sub in a younger version of Schumer on every single policy position they actually care about as long as he just publicly fought against Trump and didn't cave on everything. Now they might not be smart, they might think their money is enough to keep overcoming everything, and if that's the case that could actually cause a real shift if the Dem base sees the only people actually fighting are the left flank. If the money people don't want that to happen they need to back their type of "centrists" who meet the Dem base desire to show fight.

I'll simply address the following ... if they likely remain the minority, why would you choose to replace?!

his replacement would've done the same - starve 'em - therefore, what would change other than the uncertainty of a deliverable...

(11-12-2025 01:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:14 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Which was the purpose of my question. I don't see who is filling the void left by Pelosi.

And Obama is losing sway quickly. He didn't come close to bailing out Kamala.

Obama is indeed losing sway in the Democrat Party. Maybe not as quickly as you say he is (with all due respect) or as we in the GOP would like, but his influence is most definitely waning. What's keeping him around, if you will, is the leftist legacy media. They seem to fall all over themselves all over again when he speaks. They still get that "thrill" up their leg (thanks, Chris Matthews for saying such an inane thing) when he makes an appearance. Once they truly fall out of love with him, his influence will truly be gone.

Just to be clear, I am not a member of the GOP. I dislike the party. Just not as much as I dislike the Dem party, lol.

I remember, Andy. I was saying we in that I was talking about myself being a member of the GOP.

Now? I think you mean ever. At least in modern history.

(11-12-2025 01:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:14 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Which was the purpose of my question. I don't see who is filling the void left by Pelosi.

And Obama is losing sway quickly. He didn't come close to bailing out Kamala.

Obama is indeed losing sway in the Democrat Party. Maybe not as quickly as you say he is (with all due respect) or as we in the GOP would like, but his influence is most definitely waning. What's keeping him around, if you will, is the leftist legacy media. They seem to fall all over themselves all over again when he speaks. They still get that "thrill" up their leg (thanks, Chris Matthews for saying such an inane thing) when he makes an appearance. Once they truly fall out of love with him, his influence will truly be gone.

Just to be clear, I am not a member of the GOP. I dislike the party. Just not as much as I dislike the Dem party, lol.

I don't understand what that means ... you'll never vote donk, yet you're indy ... is it a political stigmata thingy ...

I'm a registered voter ... that's all I know...

(11-12-2025 01:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Now? I think you mean ever. At least in modern history.

(11-12-2025 01:42 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:37 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:27 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:22 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  The correct answer is none. I think you are about to finally see the Dem tea party revolt happen. Not sure what it's going to be centered around, I'd prefer it be some sort of policy plank but what I suspect it's going to be is the current leadership having zero guts and ability to even pretend to fight effectively against Trump.

Schumer is all kinds of done, he wouldn't even publicly admit who he voted for in the NY Mayor race when Cuomo was literally endorsed by Trump and no one on earth believes he didn't essentially green light the cave on the shutdown even if he technically voted no on it. Whether I like him or not I have no doubt on earth if Harry Reid were in charge of the Senate he would have kept his caucus in line and kept them all voting no if that's what he wanted the outcome to be. Hell even as pathetic and weak as Schumer is if you look at the people who caved it people who are either not going to run again or aren't up for reelection until at least 2028. The base of the Dem's are furious at this cave, they caved for nothing, they got nothing, they caused the pain for nothing, and polling and the election results from last week show that they weren't taking the blunt of the blame for the shutdown. Schumer allowed the cave because he never wanted to fight in the first place, and is not the type of person who wants to "fight" anything. He's a yes man to big money donors, that's it and that's all.

the party left Manchin and Sinema ... now Fetterman sees the light (finally) ... now it's game on with the Schmuckster...

however, there's a lot of deliverable monies on the Schmuckster side of the equation ... not ne'r none on taTTTas that can dance...

Schumer has been in the pocket of the donors who control the leadership of the Dem party, and I suspect they are going to realize he's far too damaged with the average Dem voter to be the vehicle for their will and desires for much longer. If they are smart they'll have the other people they own and control come out and publicly turn on him and get him out as minority leader. Then just prop up I'm not sure who but someone younger and who at least postures enough to the Dem base that they want to be adversarial and fight against Trump.

As much as I'd prefer the Dem base was shifting towards economic populism all I think they are doing is realizing that the current leadership are completely gutless clowns. If the money people are smart they could probably sub in a younger version of Schumer on every single policy position they actually care about as long as he just publicly fought against Trump and didn't cave on everything. Now they might not be smart, they might think their money is enough to keep overcoming everything, and if that's the case that could actually cause a real shift if the Dem base sees the only people actually fighting are the left flank. If the money people don't want that to happen they need to back their type of "centrists" who meet the Dem base desire to show fight.

I'll simply address the following ... if they likely remain the minority, why would you choose to replace?!

his replacement would've done the same - starve 'em - therefore, what would change other than the uncertainty of a deliverable...

Why? Because they can't afford to long term lose all support of leadership for the generic Dem voter. I ain't talking about me (who they already lost a long time ago as a reliable Dem voter) or anyone who is anywhere close to my political leanings, they don't want any of us as a part of their coalition and would love to build one that could completely exclude us, win enough of the time, and blame us forever for all of their defeats. I'm talking about the generic vote blue no matter who voter who is enraged at Schumer and views him as a completely pathetic, old, out of touch, coward. They want someone who is younger and at the very least public postures like they care about fighting. If everyone in the corporate/centrist group gets viewed as the same level of coward as Schumer is and the only people they can catch fighting are the people much further left that the money people don't like that's a big problem for them long term.

If they are smart they will see this problem and throw Schumer under the bus as the scapegoat. They could prop up some younger donor creature who's on the same side of every issue they actually care about but could be sold as more of a fighter, like a Corey Booker just throwing out a younger Zionist corporatist who at least had that viral moment of doing the pointless talking filibuster for 24 hours. He's also pathetic same as Schumer, but the vote blue no matter who type would probably view that as enough of a "changing of the guard" and view that talking filibuster as enough proof of him having fight to be tricked into thinking that's real change when it changes nothing for the money people. That's if those people are smart, and while they are smart enough to earn that much money they are arrogant enough to believe they don't have to placate the lessers in any way so I'm not convinced they will do something like that.

Zionist Corporatist...kids are great.

(11-12-2025 02:15 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Zionist Corporatist...kids are great.

I'm nearly 40, bald, with a bunch of shoulder and back pain. I ain't been called a "kid" in a decade, but I guess compared to the average age of this board I could be. If there is a leadership replacement they will be a Zionist and a corporatist, I'll bet any amount of money you want to lose on that. The farthest "descent" they'd ever be allowed to go on Israel is that maybe Bibi is a bad actor, and even that I don't think AIPAC would ever allow.

(11-12-2025 09:05 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The Democrat Party is being split in half by the "Democrat Socialists". Their party has gotten to the point where they aren't ashamed of calling themselves "Socialists" and they actually get people to vote for it. THAT has nothing to do with Republicans. The "Socialist" voters are just plain stupid and have no idea of history. The "Elites" think it won't affect them, just like the Elites thought throughout history. They were ALL wrong and paid dearly for it, some with their lives. There will be current Democrats and "Independents" in office now that will be members of the Democrat Socialist Party, or whatever they end up calling it before the 2028 election. They will run against Democrats. Mark it down. Look at the Seattle mayor race currently. They will "find" enough ballots for the Socialist to begin, because they will use the tactics the Democrats have been using for years. Those same tactics will be used against them, and there is nothing they can do about it, because they have been telling people "That doesn't happen".

If not for the deck being stacked against him and not officially being a Democrat, Bernie, an avowed socialist, might have won the nomination in 2016.

(11-12-2025 02:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 09:05 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The Democrat Party is being split in half by the "Democrat Socialists". Their party has gotten to the point where they aren't ashamed of calling themselves "Socialists" and they actually get people to vote for it. THAT has nothing to do with Republicans. The "Socialist" voters are just plain stupid and have no idea of history. The "Elites" think it won't affect them, just like the Elites thought throughout history. They were ALL wrong and paid dearly for it, some with their lives. There will be current Democrats and "Independents" in office now that will be members of the Democrat Socialist Party, or whatever they end up calling it before the 2028 election. They will run against Democrats. Mark it down. Look at the Seattle mayor race currently. They will "find" enough ballots for the Socialist to begin, because they will use the tactics the Democrats have been using for years. Those same tactics will be used against them, and there is nothing they can do about it, because they have been telling people "That doesn't happen".

If not for the deck being stacked against him and not officially being a Democrat, Bernie, an avowed socialist, might have won the nomination in 2016.

which is why they squashed his crazy arse...

(11-12-2025 01:54 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:30 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:14 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Which was the purpose of my question. I don't see who is filling the void left by Pelosi.

And Obama is losing sway quickly. He didn't come close to bailing out Kamala.

Obama is indeed losing sway in the Democrat Party. Maybe not as quickly as you say he is (with all due respect) or as we in the GOP would like, but his influence is most definitely waning. What's keeping him around, if you will, is the leftist legacy media. They seem to fall all over themselves all over again when he speaks. They still get that "thrill" up their leg (thanks, Chris Matthews for saying such an inane thing) when he makes an appearance. Once they truly fall out of love with him, his influence will truly be gone.

Just to be clear, I am not a member of the GOP. I dislike the party. Just not as much as I dislike the Dem party, lol.

I don't understand what that means ... you'll never vote donk, yet you're indy ... is it a political stigmata thingy ...

I'm a registered voter ... that's all I know...

I have been a registered voter since 1968. No party declared. I don't vote in primaries.

I have voted D twice for president (Carter #1 and Clinton #1), and R 3 times (Reagan #2 and Trump #2 and #3). All the other times, I have voted third party, or did a write-in where possible.

I have no intention of voting for an R next time (or any time), unless it's someone I like over the other possibilities, third parties included. If I like nobody, I write in a random name. If that isn't allowed (it is different in a few places), I vote third party.

That's about as Indy as one can be.

(11-12-2025 09:43 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 08:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 06:21 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  You frame this as if it is a problem for the Democrats, 3A. It is not. It is actually their secret strength.

If the absence of an acknowledged party leader was a problem for the Democrats, they would have been wiped out in the off-year VA and NJ elections. They weren’t. They swept those elections with a set of very uninspiring candidates. How? Because none of these candidates were anything close to “leaders” of the Democrat Party. They each and all were a bunch of personality-challenged doofuses who only had to present themselves as “Not Trump”. And it worked.

Most of the board here will sneeringly dismiss this as irrelevant, since it happened in blue-leaning states. Then, to make yourselves feel better about it, you will pull out the ever-reliable “TDS” card, and s.k. will throw in a “Reeeee” for good measure.

Have at it. I’d hate to be the one to spoil the fun for you guys. But for the record, my concern is that if the Republicans do take seriously how effective the “Not Trump” message is over this coming year, the midterms are going to be an absolute wipeout.

Why? Because the answer to your question is a terrifying one. The leader of the Democrat Party is Donald Trump himself. And he has shown himself to be a very willing and very effective leader for that America-hating organization.

You know I love ya man but that's way out there. I'm unsure of your meaning regarding the bold section. Please clarify.

Clarify: The Democrat Party not only lacks a leader. It lacks a core message (at least one that it can publicly acknowledge). It's only defining thread is a hatred of basic American values.

How does any political party manage to win any election under these circumstances? Because it doesn't need a message when it has an all-purpose villain.

That is, in my assessment, what allowed them to sweep the VA and NJ elections. Both of those states have elected Republicans before. And if there ever was a year in which Democrat initiatives have been shown up as complete failures, this was the year. Donald Trump has been stunningly successful on all fronts (the tariff nonsense excepted).

Yet that message gets lost. Maybe it's specific to these two blue states. If believing that to be so lets you sleep better, be my guest. I don't happen to agree. Maybe the very persuasive arguments put forth by Bartlett ("AM being AM"), Rath ("what a miserable person AM must be") or by shere ("Reeeee") are convincing to you. This is a free forum, and you are welcome to accept whatever arguments you choose.

I just don't see it that way.

These are blue states and they get their mindless goosesteppers to fear the Great Don. If not DJT, it would be someone else (Barry Goldwater, Tricky Dick, Ronald Reagan, Contra Bush, Dick Cheney, Mormon Romney, etc.). All they need to do is to match Republican turnout and they win in those states.

(11-12-2025 02:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 09:43 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 08:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 06:21 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  You frame this as if it is a problem for the Democrats, 3A. It is not. It is actually their secret strength.

If the absence of an acknowledged party leader was a problem for the Democrats, they would have been wiped out in the off-year VA and NJ elections. They weren’t. They swept those elections with a set of very uninspiring candidates. How? Because none of these candidates were anything close to “leaders” of the Democrat Party. They each and all were a bunch of personality-challenged doofuses who only had to present themselves as “Not Trump”. And it worked.

Most of the board here will sneeringly dismiss this as irrelevant, since it happened in blue-leaning states. Then, to make yourselves feel better about it, you will pull out the ever-reliable “TDS” card, and s.k. will throw in a “Reeeee” for good measure.

Have at it. I’d hate to be the one to spoil the fun for you guys. But for the record, my concern is that if the Republicans do take seriously how effective the “Not Trump” message is over this coming year, the midterms are going to be an absolute wipeout.

Why? Because the answer to your question is a terrifying one. The leader of the Democrat Party is Donald Trump himself. And he has shown himself to be a very willing and very effective leader for that America-hating organization.

You know I love ya man but that's way out there. I'm unsure of your meaning regarding the bold section. Please clarify.

Clarify: The Democrat Party not only lacks a leader. It lacks a core message (at least one that it can publicly acknowledge). It's only defining thread is a hatred of basic American values.

How does any political party manage to win any election under these circumstances? Because it doesn't need a message when it has an all-purpose villain.

That is, in my assessment, what allowed them to sweep the VA and NJ elections. Both of those states have elected Republicans before. And if there ever was a year in which Democrat initiatives have been shown up as complete failures, this was the year. Donald Trump has been stunningly successful on all fronts (the tariff nonsense excepted).

Yet that message gets lost. Maybe it's specific to these two blue states. If believing that to be so lets you sleep better, be my guest. I don't happen to agree. Maybe the very persuasive arguments put forth by Bartlett ("AM being AM"), Rath ("what a miserable person AM must be") or by shere ("Reeeee") are convincing to you. This is a free forum, and you are welcome to accept whatever arguments you choose.

I just don't see it that way.

These are blue states and they get their mindless goosesteppers to fear the Great Don. If not DJT, it would be someone else (Barry Goldwater, Tricky Dick, Ronald Reagan, Contra Bush, Dick Cheney, Mormon Romney, etc.). All they need to do is to match Republican turnout and they win in those states.

Dick Cheney....iswydt

Solid nickname game

(11-12-2025 01:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Which was the purpose of my question. I don't see who is filling the void left by Pelosi.

And Obama is losing sway quickly. He didn't come close to bailing out Kamala.

I think Jeffries is clearly the leader of the House Democrats. He's as nutty as AOC.

(11-12-2025 02:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 01:04 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Which was the purpose of my question. I don't see who is filling the void left by Pelosi.

And Obama is losing sway quickly. He didn't come close to bailing out Kamala.

I think Jeffries is clearly the leader of the House Democrats. He's as nutty as AOC.

Yes, but I said Dem party, not just House Dems. Jeffries doesn't tell Senators what to do. And Schumer just went bust. And Pelosi just announced her retirement. And Obama didn't do so great helping Kamala.

So who's the main man now? Or woman?

They are in a battle to see who becomes the defacto leader. It is going to take time for them to figure that out.

(11-12-2025 02:50 PM)mlb Wrote:  They are in a battle to see who becomes the defacto leader. It is going to take time for them to figure that out.

Now we're getting somewhere. That was my point. So whom do you think it will turn out to be?

Honestly, I have no clue.

(11-12-2025 01:16 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Leader, as in Individual? Or leader of whatever movement this appears to be.

If the former, that remains to be seen, the most vocal are all decidedly idiots.

I'd suggest it is not a person, but the most vocal and influential is pretty clearly The Crazy that make up our public school teachers, aka influencers. They are the loudest and most belligerent at the protests, purple hair and bone in the nose required.

Right behind are the teachers unions that are pushing the Marxist agenda and are heavily funded not buy just the members, though that is significant, but also the dark monies from Jorge and now lunatic son Alex Soro's as mentioned above.

The Unions pour sooooo much money into these races it is insane. The footsoldiers, the classroom "teachers", are the front line of attack trying to turn young students into radicalized leftists and they have 7 HOURS a day to ply their trade while unwitting parents do their Instagram and sports ball viewing.

What's not to like?

I meant one specific politician who usually speaks for the entire party. It was Obama, then Pelosi at some point (never Biden).

I'm trying to figure out who's next. It is usually obvious, but not right now.

(11-12-2025 02:52 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 02:50 PM)mlb Wrote:  They are in a battle to see who becomes the defacto leader. It is going to take time for them to figure that out.

Now we're getting somewhere. That was my point. So whom do you think it will turn out to be?

Honestly, I have no clue.

I don't think anyone has a clue. AOC has a base, but I don't think she can get the majority of Democrats. Newsome? Maybe, but he as of yet has not created a large wave of support. Other than them I don't see anyone making big waves... yet. After mid-terms I expect many more to come out of the woodwork.

(11-12-2025 02:52 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-12-2025 02:50 PM)mlb Wrote:  They are in a battle to see who becomes the defacto leader. It is going to take time for them to figure that out.

Now we're getting somewhere. That was my point. So whom do you think it will turn out to be?

Honestly, I have no clue.

I don't think anyone knows. If the money people who have controlled the party for years are smart (which I don't think they are) they'll get everyone they own to throw Schumer under the bus and rally behind someone younger, who's viewed as more adversarial to Trump (which is all I think the base Dem voter actually cares about) but will stand for everything they care about. I think that only solves the short term crisis of who leads the party currently though, not who's going to lead it in 2028.

The reason Dem leadership was much more popular with their voters during Trump 1.0 was they were at least viewed as fighting against Trump constantly and a part of the "resistance." Now it was performative, pathetic, fake, and on the dumbest/fakest/and in a lot of cases completely made up out of whole cloth issues, but the generic Dem voter believed leadership was fighting. Now they believe Dems cave to Trump on everything, and that belief is supported by reality. You had a bunch of Dem strategists and mouth pieces publicly saying right after the 2024 election that the Dems should just be quiet for essentially all of 2025, mostly let Trump and the GOP do the stuff they have the votes and power to do, and then let it be unpopular and run against it in the midterms next year. The problem for them is they've run on Trump being a fascist that has to be fought and stopped at all costs for like a decade. You've convinced a huge part of those base voters to believe it's true, and at that point you can't then just say we are going to sit back quietly and let him do what he can and then run a normal oppositional mid term campaign in 2026. You convinced these people he was near Hitler (obviously he never was) and then you want to literally act like Chamberlin (that comparison is actually a lot more accurate) and of course the generic voter who believed that will lose it.