Visit
——
The New York Times says insiders are still fishing for a better candidate for the Democrat party’s 2020 presidential nomination. After multiple debates among scores of candidates, millions of dollars spent, and exhaustive polling, the Democratic establishment still wishes it had someone who could beat President Donald Trump. Is that savior Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, Michelle Obama, or perhaps an existing second-tier candidate like Pete Buttigieg, Tulsi Gabbard or Amy Klobuchar?
Enjoy the full archive of Right Angle — with Bill Whittle, Scott Ott and Stephen Green.
Besides the hundreds of videos, Members get to enjoy special Backstage episodes, and access to the comment section, the Member-written blog, the new forums, and a private messaging feature — all designed to foster civil dialogue, rational thought, mutual encouragement and fun, without the toxins of social media. Join us now.
10 replies on “New York Times: Democrat Insiders STILL Fishing for Better 2020 Candidate”
I suspect Mitt Romney and Justin Amash are lining up to become the loyal opposition if the string of court cases and election defeats kills off the Democrat party.
It won’t matter who the Democrat spokesmouth is.
It’s the ideology, stupid. (or is it the stupid ideology)
Scott said the Democrats need to find someone they can believe in.
Unfortunately for them, Karl Marx is dead.
Best one liners yet!
“And How” Cracked me up
Because *you* control what you do here, even before you kick off a show, there are graphics to enjoy and perhaps some snark in a headline. And *then* you do that voodoo that you do so well! 😆
Wow, Scott. Obama really sounds like Lonesome Rhodes.
Grace and dignity , Michelle? Wafted ever upward on the wings of Affirmative Action and still angry over something or other.
I thought nobody could be worse than Obama, then Hillary ran. I thought nobody could be worse than her, but, oh, Lord, Michelle! Stupid and hateful and ugly and vengeful. Please, no.
Michelle Obama would be the perfect candidate to give the GOP an inroad with young voters. And it’s as simple as this:
“Hey, kids! Remember that stupid (female dog in heat) who took away the school lunches you enjoyed and replaced them with tiny morsels if inedible crap? She’s ready to do the same thing with every aspect of your life!”
Which of course, means that the Republicans won’t.
Better candidate? Define better: better for whom and why is it better?
At the very least it should be better than least worst. So far, it looks to me to be a race to the bottom for the Democrats. The difference between least worst and just sort of OK is huge!