AVENUE VIET Forum Index AVENUE VIET
An Online Community
 
AlbumAlbum   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of the webmasters, administrators and moderators of this forum. Refer to the complete disclaimer.
Looking ahead to 2020 (1)
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AVENUE VIET Forum Index » Politix
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dzu
Herald


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1245

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:49 pm    Post subject: Looking ahead to 2020 (1) Reply with quote

Admin's Note - We thought this thread had gone down with the crash but it hadn't. So now we have two "Looking ahead to 2020 threads...

Trump is already doing that, holding campaign rallies barely one month into his presidency...

But he's not the only one looking ahead!


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Democrat-national-committee-2020/2017/02/28/id/776057/

DNC Chair Result a Big Win for Hillary's 2020 Presidential Run
Newsmax

Last week's Democratic National Committee meeting in Atlanta, which elected former Labor Secretary Tom Perez as the party's new chairman, was a major boost to Hillary Clinton's plan (as fanciful as it may seem to others) to run again for president.

According to sources close to the Clintons, Hillary believes, by 2020, the country will be sick of Donald Trump (*) and ready to turn to a "seasoned, mature leader" (her words) rather than someone younger and less experienced. She will turn 73 years old in October 2020.

As a result, she waged a furious behind-the-scenes battle in Atlanta to defeat Perez's chief rival, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., because an Ellison victory would have blocked her control of the party's national apparatus and turned over millions in campaign funds to the far-left Bernie Sanders wing of the party.

These sources say Hillary sees Sanders' insurgent forces as a serious threat to her presidential aspirations. Sanders and his army of true believers have been trying to capture control of the party at both the national and state levels, and they have scored some initial successes in Hawaii, California, and Washington.

Among their chief goals is to rid the party of super delegates, who played a decisive role in Hillary's victory over Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary elections.

After weeks of lying low and licking her wounds, Hillary is described by friends as "re-energized." She has attended four Broadway shows, including the revival of Sunset Boulevard, where the audience gave her a standing ovation.

She has turned up at Ralph Lauren's impossible-to-get-a-table Polo Bar, and dined with Kate McKinnon, the comedienne who has played Hillary on "Saturday Night Live."

Hillary is writing her memoirs for Simon and Schuster and has signed up with a speaking bureau to make paid speeches (though not of the $350,000-a-pop variety). And she plans to launch a "listening tour" of the country similar to the one she did when she first ran for the Senate from New York State.

"She believes that she will attract record crowds," the Clinton sources said, "and she intends to take Bill along on some of the stops.

"Bill really doesn't want her to run again," the source continued. "He thinks that a second loss in a presidential election would stain her legacy. But Hillary doesn't listen to him. She says that she's positively intoxicated by the passion and excitement among progressives and the resistance to Trump. And she's ready to rumble."

(*) No need to wait until 2020, or even 2018. The country, with the exception of a few die-hard Trumpists, is already heartily sick of him. The only good thing is, late night comedy shows have become a lot more fun to watch!!
_________________
Một tô phở Pho một ly bia Beer là sướng thân!
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
inkpot



Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 1235
Location: On a desk, where else?

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:07 am    Post subject: Looking ahead to 2020 Reply with quote

Perez doesn't rule out a Hillary Clinton run for the presidency in 2020
By Kyle Feldscher

New Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez didn't rule out a Hillary Clinton run for the presidency in 2020 on Sunday.

Perez, speaking on ABC, was asked about Clinton's continued political statements in the wake of her 2016 defeat to President Trump, including just before the vote for the new DNC chairman Saturday. He said she can run if she wants.

"Everyone who wants to run should run," he said of the 2020 Democratic primary. "And, I'm confident we're going to have a robust field of candidates."

Perez wasn't much focused on the presidential race Sunday morning, instead touting a win in a special election for the Delaware State Senate Saturday night. That election could have swung the balance of power in the state's upper chamber, but the Democratic candidate won a convincing victory.

Perez said that's the kind of race he's going to be worried about in the future.

"We need an every-ZIP-code strategy," he said. "We need to redefine the role of the DNC so that we're helping to elect people from the school board to the Senate."

He emphasized that the party leadership was united and that he planned to use Rep. Keith Ellison, the Minnesota Democrat who finished in second in the race for DNC chair, as a partner going forward.

Ellison was seen as the pick of the progressive wing of the party and many progressives were upset about his defeat on Saturday. Perez said he and Ellison are very much alike in their values systems and they'll try to make the DNC better reflect those viewpoints.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/perez-doesnt-rule-out-a-hillary-clinton-run-for-the-presidency-in-2020/article/2615807#!
"When we lead with our values, we win, and that's what we're going to do," he said.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Kim



Joined: 01 Jan 2010
Posts: 257
Location: Wandering Around

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:21 am    Post subject: The opposite view Reply with quote

From the Washington Post, no less!!

I should add that, though I find this article fairly well-reasoned, I disagree with its conclusions. IMO, Clinton's losses, especially in 2016, were not "devastating". She won the popular vote, for Heaven's sake!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/13/hillary-clinton-should-absolutely-not-run-for-president-in-2020-and-democrats-should-stop-her-if-she-tries/?utm_term=.162f4c73f4a9

Hillary Clinton should absolutely not run for president in 2020. And Democrats should stop her if she tries.
By Chris Cillizza

There's a purposely provocative piece in Politico magazine this week that aims to make the case that Hillary Clinton is going to run for president for a third time in 2020. Citing the scaling back of the Clinton Global Initiative and her plans to write a seventh book as evidence, Matt Latimer concludes: “Yes, barring some calamity, Clinton is running. And this brave columnist will go one step further. Not only will Clinton run again, she has an excellent shot at getting the Democratic Party nomination again.”

Wrong. And not just wrong on Clinton running again. But wrong on the fact that if she runs she could or would have the inside track on the Democratic nomination.

Let's take it piece by piece.

First, the idea that Clinton is angling to run again.

Ask yourself a simple question: Why?

Clinton has now lost twice in runs for the White House. And they were defeats of the devastating variety.

In 2008, Clinton was not only seen as the clear favorite but, up until December 2007, it looked like she would cruise to the nomination as then-Sen. Barack Obama struggled to energize his supporters. Fast forward a few months and it was clear that Clinton was going to lose on delegates alone, but she chose to slug it out all the way until June before bowing to the inevitable.

Then came 2016 when Clinton, again, was seen as the clear favorite for not only the Democratic nomination but also the White House. The Democratic field was significantly less talented than eight years prior, but Clinton was unable to put them away, and Bernie Sanders pushed the nomination all the way to the bitter end. In the general election, Clinton was regarded as a massive favorite against Donald Trump who did, literally, the opposite of what every seasoned campaign aide told him to do for the duration of the campaign. He was engulfed by a scandal regarding sexist comments caught by an “Access Hollywood” mic. She drastically outspent him everywhere. Polling showed she would win easily. And she lost.

One loss like that would be more than enough for most politicians. Two is approaching Greek tragedy levels.

Then there is the fact that Clinton will be 70 this October. She has two young grandchildren. A daughter and son-in-law. A husband. Why commit to spending — at least — two years more away from your family on an activity that has brought you nothing but heartache for the past decade?

The only possible answer is that Clinton is deeply committed to public service. That she promised not to fade away in her concession speech in November 2016.

I'd argue there are lots of ways that someone as high-profile as Clinton could remain relevant — to the country and her party — without running again. National spokeswoman. Fundraiser. Policy maven. Key endorser.

Which brings me to the second point: If Clinton showed signs that she truly is interested in running, Democrats should make very clear that they aren't interested.

Clinton ran two national campaigns. In each, she looked on paper to be a sure thing. In each, she didn't win. Why? Because there was something about her that people didn't like or trust. Her email problems in this past campaign exacerbated that problem, to be sure, but there was always an undercurrent of distrust surrounding her.

It's possible that as the Trump presidency continues, there will be buyer's remorse that benefits Clinton. I wouldn't be surprised if there is polling some time in the next few months that shows Clinton's popularity surging even as Trump's continues to sink.

But what we know about politics is that the perceptions people have of politicians rarely change all that much. Mitt Romney, had he run again in 2016, would have been saddled with the “out of touch rich guy” label he had to wear in 2012. John F. Kerry, if he had run again in 2008, would be the Swiss-cheese ordering, windsurfing Boston Brahmin.

So, too, with Clinton. The second she started to show interest in running for president again, people would remember all of the things they didn't like about her. The same trust and likability issues would dog her. She would be forced to grapple with perception issues beyond her control to fix. And, as the last two campaigns have proven, Clinton simply lacks the candidate skills — and they are significant — to have any chance of fundamentally altering the narrative about her. Had she been able to do so, she would have already done it in time for the 2016 race!

Then there is the matter of Trump. While it is, of course, possible that Trump doesn't make it to the point where he stands for a second term, that seems less than likely at the moment. (Trump has already established a 2020 reelection committee and is raising money into it.) And Trump beat Clinton with a simple message: She is the status quo you hate; I am radical change. She's a politician; I'm not. She is of Washington; I hate Washington.

The best way for Democrats to beat Trump, to my mind, is to not allow him to claim the outsider mantle again. Nominating Clinton would do just that. Sure, Trump will have spent four years in Washington by 2020. But Clinton, in the eyes of lots and lots of voters, will never be able to shake the image of being a traditional Washington politician. It's exactly the sort of race Trump wants to run — against Washington but needing four more years to truly overhaul it.

The simple fact is that the public has had two chances to elect Hillary Clinton president. Neither time has it done so. You can argue forever about her relative qualifications and how she has worked her entire life to hold that one job. But this is a democracy where the electoral college vote decides who the president is. And twice, the public has chosen someone other than Clinton. That's just the reality.

Clinton should not — and I believe will not — run again in 2020. But Democrats would be foolish to, again, place all their bets on Clinton. That time has passed.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
inkling7
Admin Pro Tem


Joined: 01 Jun 2008
Posts: 6209
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:36 am    Post subject: Third time lucky? Reply with quote

What about the saying third time lucky then? Why is 70 too old? Remember they say 60 is the new 40 and 70 the new 50. People are living longer and being more healthy and why should Hillary become a stay at home grandmother? OH I see it is OK for grandfathers like Trump to be President but not grandmothers like Hillary... double standards what!

The first thing the US needs to really do is have Trump removed from office - he is certifiably insane remember - and then abolish the Electoral College and make each vote count as one and not the gerrymander system they have now where the midwest et al votes count for more than one vote...
_________________
The Grumpiest Old Woman on Ave Viet.....
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Doan_Du
Herald


Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 1477
Location: Anywhere the mood strikes me

PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:14 pm    Post subject: Removing Trump? Reply with quote

inkling7 wrote:
The first thing the US needs to really do is have Trump removed from office - he is certifiably insane remember - and then abolish the Electoral College and make each vote count as one and not the gerrymander system they have now where the midwest et al votes count for more than one vote...

Easier said than done, Inkling! Very Sad shifty
_________________
Ta đây chớ ai
Trên đời dễ có mấy ai!
Khà khà khà
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageYahoo Messenger
Annamite_en_Amérique



Joined: 20 Jun 2009
Posts: 1652
Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:04 pm    Post subject: President Winfrey? Reply with quote

The 2018 Golden Globes: Oprah Leads a Decisive Feminist Takeover
By Michael Schulman

It shouldn’t have worked. Award shows are stage-managed, prettified, self-justifying, emotionally incoherent affairs at which, occasionally, something meaningful or surprising happens. The Golden Globes are the wackiest of the bunch, mostly because everyone gets to drink. And the red carpet is where the pageantry is at its most superficial. Yet last night it was the launch pad for a decisive feminist takeover that lasted until the final envelope was opened. Women, collectively and defiantly, ruled.

You’d have to go back to the AIDS ribbons of the mid-nineties to find a red-carpet political fashion statement half as effective as the black gowns (and tuxedos) that flooded the entrance to the Beverly Hilton, many affixed with “Time’s Up” pins. Naturally, the stunt had its detractors before it even took place. Was coördinated couture really the best response to an outpouring of sexual-assault horror stories? Would it look funereal? Were the activist plus-ones being reduced to accessories? As it turned out, the celebrities were, by and large, focussed and on message. “This is not a moment. It’s a movement,” Eva Longoria told Carson Daly. But the take-no-prisoners mood was set by Debra Messing, who told a reporter from the network E!, “I was so shocked to hear that E! doesn’t believe in paying their female co-hosts the same as their male co-hosts.” How wonderfully bad-mannered.

Not that the red carpet was a roaring triumph. The atmosphere was, by turns, awkward, inspiring, jittery, kick-ass, and wince-inducing. On NBC, Matt Lauer’s former co-workers from the “Today” show tried to balance the gravity of the moment with the usual red-carpet chitchat. “The movie ‘Greatest Showman’ is all about diversity!” Al Roker said, pivoting to Hugh Jackman, shortly before Natalie Morales introduced Billie Jean King as “the O.G. of gender inequality.” Most of the actresses were asked about #MeToo, but too few of the men—even the ones who wore Time’s Up pins on their lapels, among them Armie Hammer, Liev Schreiber, and Alexander Skarsgård, who played a domestic abuser on “Big Little Lies.” When Al Roker told Kerry Washington, “There is a real sense of celebration here,” I got the sinking feeling that everyone would just try to make nice.

Hell, no. “Good evening, ladies and remaining gentlemen,” the host, Seth Meyers, said in his opening monologue. Meyers had a weird job, and he knew it: his mere presence was off message. Comparing himself to the first dog to be sent into space, he told zingers both crowd-pleasing and oddly crowd-scandalizing. (We can’t make fun of Kevin Spacey’s Southern accent?) Then he made himself scarce, which was probably the best approach: better to cede the floor to the cavalcade of women eager to make themselves heard. “I do believe, and I hope, we can elicit change through the stories we tell and the way we tell them,” Nicole Kidman said, accepting an award for “Big Little Lies.” Elisabeth Moss, winning for “The Handmaid’s Tale,” quoted a line from the Margaret Atwood novel—“We lived in the gaps between the stories”—and countered, “We no longer live in the gaps between the stories. We are the story in print, and we are writing the story ourselves.” Barbra Streisand was introduced as the only woman to win a Golden Globe for directing, to which she responded, “That was thirty-four years ago. Folks! Time’s up!” The only “time’s up” message that failed to get across belonged to the conductor, who was filibustered by the director Guillermo del Toro (“The Shape of Water”).

James Franco delivered the evening’s sole Man Cave moment, as he stood next to Tommy Wiseau, whom he plays in “The Disaster Artist,” and read a speech off his phone in which he aspirationally compared himself and Dave Franco to the Coen brothers. Then it was back to sisterhood. Fortuitously, all the winning productions were female-centric: “Big Little Lies,” “The Handmaid’s Tale,” “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel,” “Lady Bird,” and “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.” And yet there were some uneasy undercurrents. Frances McDormand may seem like a fitting #MeToo heroine in “Three Billboards,” beloved by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, but the film is an uneven vessel for political messaging, with its flip racial undertones. Tonya Harding, the subject of “I, Tonya,” was in the audience, lauded by Allison Janney (who plays her mother) as “a woman who was not embraced for her individuality.” True enough, but there was another pertinent reason she was not embraced—you wonder what it’s like to be Nancy Kerrigan this awards season. Few of the male winners said anything about Time’s Up, except obliquely. As the evening wore on, the tone threatened to falter, with feminist rallying cries wedged alongside Aziz Ansari’s shout-out to Italian food. Were the Golden Globes really up to this?

And then came Oprah. No one on earth is better equipped to modulate tone in a tricky television situation than Winfrey, who was there to receive the Cecil B. DeMille Award for lifetime achievement. The DeMille speech is fast becoming a kind of alternative State of the Union address. Last year, Meryl Streep gave a full-throated (despite her laryngitis) rebuke to the newly elected President. This year, Winfrey seemed to grab hold of every live wire of rage, sadness, hope, and uncertainty dangling around the room and channel them into a truly breathtaking oration. As the first black woman to receive the honor, she spoke of watching Sidney Poitier claim his historic 1964 Oscar for Best Actor; of the power of the press “to navigate these complicated times”; of Recy Taylor, a black woman raped by six white men in Jim Crow Alabama, who died just over a week ago. “She lived as we all have lived, too many years in a culture broken by brutally powerful men,” Winfrey said. “For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dared to speak their truth to the power of those men. But their time is up.” Then she repeated, in that ringing inflection that makes you feel like you might get a new car, “Their time is up!”

It was a galvanizing and important speech, forward-looking and inclusive: the kind we used to hear from the person running the country. No wonder everyone on Twitter immediately posted “OPRAH 2020.” No one should have had to follow it, and yet someone did: Natalie Portman, presenting the award for Best Director. “And here are the all male nominees,” she said, before reading the list of names. How wonderfully bad-mannered.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-2018-golden-globes-oprah-leads-a-decisive-feminist-takeover
_________________

Công Hòa Viêt-Nam Muôn Nam!
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Doan_Du
Herald


Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 1477
Location: Anywhere the mood strikes me

PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:02 pm    Post subject: Oprah for President? Reply with quote

Oprah for President? Why Oprah Winfrey’s Golden Globes Stump Speech Just Changed Everything
More than an acceptance speech, Winfrey’s rousing Golden Globes speech played like a sermon or, optimistically, a presidential campaign speech. One fan on why it was so powerful.
BY Kevin Fallon

Oprah Winfrey, as she is wont to do, just gave the most galvanizing, inspiring, and possibly life-saving speech in awards show history. (And, as she has been wont to do lately, just set off a powder keg of speculation about a potential presidential run.)

We had joked on Twitter that the speech was so emotional, a gale force of truth-to-power, that we’d need a week to recover from it. But the truth is that it was packed with such rousing, fist-raising immediacy that the only possible recourse is to take her words as marching orders and leap into action now.

“I want all the girls watching here now to know that a new day is on the horizon!” Winfrey bellowed over a Golden Globe Awards audience that was on its feet in ovation, hollering in support for a solid minute as the cultural icon spoke.

Winfrey was there Sunday to accept the Cecil B. DeMille Award for her career of contributions to the entertainment industry. But as she has done time and again throughout that career, she used the platform to empower the rest of us.

Who knows if Ms. Winfrey is serious about any presidential future, but this would make a helluva launch speech should a campaign ever be considered. (Her partner Stedman Graham told The Los Angeles Times that “it’s up to the people” if she’d run: “She would absolutely do it.”)

Yet even pontificating in such hypothetical realms is reductive of her speech. It’s a speech that might just ensure that the #MeToo and Time’s Up conversation that has dominated recent months didn’t reach any sort of finish line at the Golden Globes, but instead passed the baton for a long, fruitful race ahead.

It takes someone who understands human connection in the uncanny way that Winfrey does to wring out the rest of our humanity, and encourage it to spread. That’s why her Globes speech transcended what critics could deride as the pageantry of the rest of the night’s activism. It didn’t speak to an echo chamber inside of one of Hollywood’s glitziest, most unrelatable rooms. It spoke to all of us.

Read more and watch videos:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/oprah-for-president-why-oprah-winfreys-golden-globes-stump-speech-just-changed-everything?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
_________________
Ta đây chớ ai
Trên đời dễ có mấy ai!
Khà khà khà
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageYahoo Messenger
Annamite_en_Amérique



Joined: 20 Jun 2009
Posts: 1652
Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:53 pm    Post subject: Oprah Would ‘Absolutely’ Run for President, Partner Says Reply with quote

Oprah Would ‘Absolutely’ Run for President, Stedman Graham Says

Oprah Winfrey’s fiery acceptance speech for her lifetime achievement award at the Golden Globes on Sunday night triggered calls for her to run for president in 2020. Accepting the Cecil B. DeMille Award, Winfrey urged women to “speak up” about sexual abuse and promised that a “new day is on the horizon” in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal. She recalled the story of Recy Taylor, a young black woman raped in 1944 by six white men who were never brought to justice. Taylor, like today’s women, lived “in a culture broken by brutally powerful men,” Winfrey said. “For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dared to speak their truth to the power of those men, but their time is up,” she said. The powerful speech quickly got audience members calling for a presidential run. Stedman Graham, Winfrey’s longtime partner, told the Los Angeles Times a White House run would be “up to the people.” But “she would absolutely do it,” he said. The popular talk-show host had previously said she was reconsidering the viability of running after President Trump took office.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mog-golden-globes-oprah-president-20180107-story.html
_________________

Công Hòa Viêt-Nam Muôn Nam!
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Annamite_en_Amérique



Joined: 20 Jun 2009
Posts: 1652
Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:18 pm    Post subject: Oprah ‘Intrigued’ by Idea of Running for President Reply with quote

Gayle: Oprah ‘Intrigued’ by Idea of Running for President

Gayle King publicly commented Tuesday morning for the first time on calls for her best friend, Oprah Winfrey, to run for president following a rousing Golden Globes speech. “I do think she’s intrigued by the idea,” King confessed to her CBS This Morning co-hosts. However, she clarified, “I don’t think at this point she is actually considering it. But listen, there are people who’ve said they want to be her campaign manager.” King also claimed that when Stedman Graham told the awards-show press that his longtime partner Oprah would “absolutely” run in 2020, “he thought the reporter was saying would she be a good president.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gayle-king-oprah-intrigued-by-idea-of-running-for-president
_________________

Công Hòa Viêt-Nam Muôn Nam!
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Do Quy



Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 830
Location: Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea

PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:04 pm    Post subject: How An Oprah Presidency Would Look Reply with quote

How An Oprah Presidency Would Look
While Oprah's Golden Globes speech has many curious about her political ambitions, one man was way ahead of us.

https://youtu.be/NHFhHeBG8X0


_________________
Nhất quỷ nhì ma thứ ba học trò
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AVENUE VIET Forum Index » Politix All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group