Ready For Someone Else!™
Last edited Tue Feb 10, 2015, 08:38 PM - Edit history (3)
Random synaptic misfire: What if we started a movement called Ready For Someone Else, and started collecting money for whoever we support when Hillary announces she'll continue to not run through the 2016 elections (or she decides to run and needs to be primaried by an FDR Democrat)?
I think it would be fun.
UPDATE: just acquired readyforsomeoneelse.org. Get this thread up to 100 recs and I'll *do* something with it.
SECOND UPDATE: please, no more recs! Three more and I'm hosed.
THIRD UPDATE: you people suck.
FOURTH UPDATE: uh, uh...
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)FDR ...one of the top 3 presidents this country has ever had.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Who would you count as the other two?
sgmcenroe
(30 posts)George Washington, cause he could of been king but didn't.
Abraham Lincoln, cause the country would be a whole lot different without him.
zipplewrath
(16,692 posts)Lincoln's reputation extends predominately from his treatment after being assassinated as anything he actually accomplished as president. He got off to a VERY slow start, and the end result was a very long and drawn out war.
TR probably has as much claim to our modern situation as Lincoln.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Spanish, but he was a great reformer.
zipplewrath
(16,692 posts)FDR, JBJ, Lincoln, they all had major mistakes associated with war.
nikto
(3,284 posts)It was said he was deeply shaken and never the same after his son's death.
Weird to think that up until then, he seems he must have felt, to some degree, some strange kind of invulnerability regarding war.
His feeling towards war was clearly shaped by his swimmingly successful engagements in Cuba.
Quentin's death changed all that, albeit late in TR's life.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)" He got off to a VERY slow start, and the end result was a very long and drawn out war.' Could sort of be said for FDR, also.
But,, really a non-sequitor, I know...
zipplewrath
(16,692 posts)FDR was "in" the war before it was declared. I'm not sure anyone particularly claims that FDR did anything to lengthen the war. Some will suggest he was partially responsible for Japan attacking us. That's a bit complicated, but I'm not sure that particularly "lengthened" anything.
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)Washington, the most important thing he did was to retire after two terms. That stopped the impetus for an imperial presidency. I also respect that he gave form to our government, using the words of the Constitution. He created a government where none existed.
Carter, for his non-aggression.
whathehell
(29,802 posts)but some considered him 2nd, after Washington.
He was a GREAT president, absolutely, and if you're a Boomer or older, you were
raised with the legacy of his "New Deal" programs, the ones the Repukes are now trying to dismantle.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)that would bleed the last ounce of blood from them to feed the already engorged super rich vampires that are expecting it from Hillary on a silver platter.
She would have no problems in helping with the bleeding or with acting as their server.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I'm in.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And we'll start the thing.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)with poop while scream-yipping like chihuahuas on an ether binge.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas, the lizards in the bar specifically.
Edited to add:
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)good threads that are becoming standard procedure in GD.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Every time I end up in GD I have to answer moronic nonsense (most recently from a pundint that argues like a child - you always hate my friends - you never say anything nice)
peacebird
(14,195 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Democratic principles. After all, if we are going to get screwed by the Oligarchy, it might as well be by someone we elect.
*electable is code for "the Oligarchs will let her win"
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It is after all the Oligarchs that let them win via supplying the large war chest used to purchase their candidates.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)helps make people "electable". Ask Karl Rove.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)out of the winning spot in the Iowa primary, which basically ended his run. It was the HC visit and work by her (DLC) supporters that convinced the Iowans not to vote for him - This could be seen so clearly when the debate was televised - and every other Dem candidate (there were many) except for Barbara Lee picked on Dean instead of giving their own views.
I hate that word "electable," because it effectively discards integrity as being important.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Very well said.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)that have stepped in some giant piles of shit. They just want an opportunity to clean them off on our carpet.
I'm mean you CAN'T expect them to clean the shit off their own shoes...
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The sad reality of American campaigns is that they start earlier and earlier. There's not much time left for a "someone else" to come forward and set up the organization, recruit the staffers and early donors (especially, alas, big donors), etc.
My current highly subjective take on our options:
1. Warren won't run despite "draft" efforts. (If she does run, I'll throw myself into helping her campaign. I'd quit my job... if I had one.)
2. Sanders will run and will run as an FDR Democrat. For several reasons, though, it's hard to see him being nominated or elected. Supporting him might nevertheless have value in pulling the party to the left. I'll certainly vote for him over Clinton if, by the time of my primary, he's her leading opponent.
3. Other people who are likely to mount credible campaigns are Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb. One possibility at this point is for one of them to emerge as a more-or-less-FDRish Democrat and get our support. I think that's unlikely in Webb's case but O'Malley might make the grade.
4. In the next tier, in terms of likelihood of running, is Brian Schweitzer. He seems to be a mix of populist and Western conservative Democrat. I evaluate him as both less likely to run and less FDR-ish than O'Malley.
5. There are plenty of us who are ready for someone else but that fact has not enticed the likes of Sherrod Brown, Russ Feingold, Alan Grayson, or Sheldon Whitehouse into the race. Here's where the time factor comes in. If one of those four or some other progressive were thinking about running, we'd already be hearing about the meetings with donors and strategists, even if not yet the formal exploratory committee. The door hasn't completely closed but I have to rate it as highly unlikely that one of them will run.
Sorry if I sound pessimistic. I am pessimistic. I think Clinton will run and will win the nomination. If she doesn't run, I think Andrew Cuomo will jump in and be an immediate front-runner, and I'd actually rather see us nominate Clinton.
My ideal candidate is something along the lines of O'Malley's bio (executive experience, most electable age group, no S-word on his rap sheet) combined with Sanders's ideology. I expect to be disappointed.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Hunter S. Thompson said that.
We're in weird times now, so I expect the unexpected.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Works for me.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Maybe he would be willing to run with Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. They could hire Krugman for Secretary of the Treasury.
If Clooney asked, Warren would probably say yes. What woman could resist him?
I'm a woman, 71, but still a woman. I think I can speak for a lot of women (although maybe not all -- well -- maybe all).
Clooney could win the all categories of women vote -- and maybe a few men too.
But who would need the male vote if Clooney ran. He would insure a Democratic victory.
What he would do in the White House is a big question? But any and every woman would vote for him, and WE ARE IN THE MAJORITY.
druidity33
(6,556 posts)you think Jon Stewart could do it?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)As for your question, I'm sure Jon Stewart could do it. The issue is whether he would. He's probably happier having his own TV show than breaking ties in the Senate.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)life miserable for the corrupt Republicans in his party. At least there is a strong argument for that assertion. Teddy Roosevelt was a problem. The vice presidency was a nothing job.
Teddy Roosevelt ended up being the president and turning the country around. He was stubborn, extremely intelligent and well educated and a fighter.
We need someone like Teddy Roosevelt right now.
And finding him may be a matter of serendipity. Being a runner up in the 2016 race could be a good thing.
Anything can happen now. Scandals are afoot. The world, including the political world is in a state of flux. A number of issues and facts could bring unexpected results.
So I am staying open to the possibility that we could get a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren no matter how plump and pretty Hillary's war chest is.
These are strange times. And in strange times, anything can happen.
The middle class is discontent and for good reason.
Jim Webb, Schweitzer -- no way. They just don't cut it. And it is time for a woman.
Elizabeth Warren does not think like a Barack Obama or a Jim Webb. She doesn't really think she could be elected. She could. She probably will no matter how reluctant she is to run now.
Our government is so corrupt, and Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are two rare politicians who are not part of the corruption.
So, anything can happen.
JEB
(4,748 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Not that it will mean anything because I have no money and money is what it is all about.
And ordinary people cannot raise as much as the oligarchs can spend on an election.
Our only hope is a populist that can turn out the people who are fed up with the parties and the control of big money over politics...and that is why they want Clinton v Bush...a choice between two insiders.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)If it is, then only the oligarchs can win.
We need to find plan B.
mwooldri
(10,390 posts)Vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party! You know it makes sense!
Though setting up a political action fund defining who the "Someone Else" should be and when that "Someone Else" turns up - yup shoot out some money in their general direction for their political campaign.
moonbeam23
(340 posts)If i can't have Warren i want Grayson...(does this count as a rec?)
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And I don't see you in the rec list yet...
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)the bottom left of the Original post of this thread.
onyourleft
(726 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Exciting!
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Because challenging Hillary will be a great story. And Hillary had better realize that before she steps into the race.
Even a Republican challenging Hillary will get a boost simply because he is brave enough to defy the Clinton machine.
But I am telling you that I think that the winning slogan in the 2016 election will be: It's the scandals, stupid.
The corruption in our country has reached such a level that, like an overheated volcano, it has to explode.
Bernie Sanders says he does not and never has run a negative ad. But he won't need to if he runs. The two parties will rush out there to reveal all the corruption. It is very obvious to the insiders. And they will use it against each other this time around.
Mark my words: It's the scandals, stupid.
Hillary has a past. So does Jeb Bush. It's just a matter of when those pasts are brought into the light.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Hail and farewell!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)There's work to be done. We could use your help.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Sixty more to go.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in a speech he made recently.
I think if he or Elizabeth Warren were running, that would be more than possible. Would it be enough? I don't know, but if not, then we could double it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)alright, alright
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Seriously.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 10, 2015, 11:19 AM - Edit history (1)
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Really interesting article~
Rogue donors not ready for Hillary?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)liberals who actually WERE on the right side of issues, like 'getting the money out of politics'. I knew about Ben and Jerry, but compared to the Right, including Third Way, who seem to have endless Corporate donors, the Left seems to have few who themselves are on the Left.
Warrens lawyer has even gone so far as to disavow Ready for Warren. But its proceeding anyway, with the two-pronged goal of demonstrating to Warren that there would be sufficient financial support for her campaign and also building political infrastructure around the country that could be tapped by any such campaign. Its a model similar to but on a much smaller scale than the one that Ready for Hillary pioneered early last year.
Manny should click that link because once we get to 100 recs and we're more than halfway there now, we might want to get in touch with them!
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Cracking the rusted canard of inevitability...requires options and a contrary mind to consider the possibilities. Even if nothing worthwhile roils to the surface, at least we will have reckoned the depth of our empty rhetoric. I'm in.
ReasonableToo
(505 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)malokvale77
(4,879 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)So I asked her if her school was excited about Hillary running, and her response was "nobody wants Hillary, we want Warren" Smart women!!!
Autumn
(46,333 posts)I am past Ready For Someone Else!
mimi85
(1,805 posts)yellowwoodII
(616 posts)"Taking "her" for granted was your first mistake." If it's Hillary, Count Me Out.
hay rick
(8,212 posts)Lesser evil Third Way Democrats is a prescription for continuing decline.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)ready for honesty.
alberg
(412 posts)mak3cats
(1,573 posts)MustBeTheBooz
(299 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)At this point in time Bernie is the only acceptable candidate to have publicly stated an inclination to run. I love EW, but I love Bernie too, and if he runs, he has my support and my vote.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Bernie has my full support!
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)The discussion about how we will move forward.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)Hoser!
Is there anyone that can fill those shoes?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)You nailed it, Manny!
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)blondie58
(2,570 posts)I clicked the like too fast.
NuttyFluffers
(6,811 posts)therefore i cannot not support it. kick!
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)Ask the Koch bros for finacial contributions.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Nah. Big nasty strings probably attached.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)I was sitting in my shrinks office while reading your OP. As he came out to usher me in for my appointment I hit the 'post' button for that post. My doctor wanted to know what was so amusing so i showed him. (He is a Democrat btw, likely a very Progressive one). I have never heard him laugh harder! I figured that you would get a kick out of it too.
Sadly, and it hurts my head to think such thoughts, I had to ask myself if the Koch's would actually invest in Progressives who want to field candidates willing to go up against corporate Dems. The divide and conquer concept would not be lost on them while the cash for a cash starved grass roots movement would not be lost on the 'movers'. What interesting times we live in huh!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I'll need to rethink my position, then. I'm sure that there's a pragmatic solution.
Fortunately, I expect the site to go nowhere, so no moral dilemmas will be faced. But let's give it a shot. These people have been running the Democratic Party for 20+ years, and it's not gone well for us.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)I check in at DU infrequently and randomly so my apologies for not getting back to you sooner.
Here is my thought: (On second thought maybe it is best I post this thought to your inbox.)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I have almost no skills in this field, terrible at advertising. All I can do is play music, and a little more.
But, I will do what I can.
What about a FB page at some point?
I would certainly support it and post on my own timeline...
Oppss. humm, Would DUers then know who I REALLY am?
Fearless
(18,458 posts)navarth
(5,927 posts)Alkene
(752 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I'm ready for Yanis.
merrily
(45,251 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)out there that has HRC running a close "Third" behind ReadyforSomeOneElse and AnyOneButHRC.
Here's a link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=3788
olddots
(10,237 posts)this can replace "Who Wants Soup ? "
TheKentuckian
(26,250 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Merrily suggested you may want to link some relevant sites on your fabulous new readyforsomeoneelse.org site once its all put together & ready to go~
This one just might be Manny-approved ~
http://dearelizabethwarren.com/home.html
^^^on the new interactive site to Draft Liz:
(new video)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)populist candidates elected from the local to the national level also. They had some success also in the mid terms.
We might want to follow the progress of the new Greek Populist Government, the first in Europe to officially reject the Third Way/Neo Liberal/Austerity policies that have devastated the working class across the globe where they have managed to implement them.
They are already under attack from the usual suspects and are going to need a lot of support world wide.
But for now, they have demonstrated that populism can rise above even the most determined and brutal efforts by the Austerity crowd and take back their country.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to back off. I wouldn't hold it against her. Sen Sanders said a lot when he said that asking someone progressive to run for president would subject them and their family to untold attacks. The Powers That Be are very powerful and have more money than Dog.
But in spite of their threats, the populist movement will continue.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Can't beat somebody with nobody. I'll sign on if Warren steps up, but it seems unlikely. I'm on board with Bernie if he runs, but I fear his history of not being part of the Democratic party will hurt him in the primary.
I say we need a "Draft Barbara Lee" movement. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have drained this country of blood and treasure and there is no end in sight. Let us turn to the one brave woman, the lone prophetic voice in our Congress who stood against these travesties and whose warnings have sadly come true.
I'm Ready for Barbara Lee -- the only member of Congress wise enough to vote NO on the AUMFs of 2001 and 2002.
Demand the BEST for our beloved country! Draft Barbara Lee!
antiquie
(4,299 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
jeepers This message was self-deleted by its author.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Has this started yet?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Oops, still not right.
What's the status of this fine enterprise?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Should have something in a few days.