While it's true she would be better than Trump, I want a serious candidate. It's not enough for me to win I want to win and have it be somebody competent in the role. To my knowledge, she has no experience in politics.

I would pick Bernie Sanders. or Elizabeth Warren, my states Senator Sherrod Brown (even though he doesn't have name recognition-he's still good), or anybody that's even a semi corporate democrat that's to the left of most corporate Democrats first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherrod_Brown
IDK if he could win but he would make a good president.

Maybe he's earned a shot at it, maybe he hasn't. Nothing personal against Oprah, but she hasn't.


I don't think it's even a winning strategy to try to imitate the Republicans by running someone with no prior experience.

Trump didn't win just because he wasn't a politician-He won because of the fake populism.

It's not likely Democrats could recreate that.

This strategy of 'find our own rich famous' person shows that people still don't quite understand why Trump got elected.

There's a skyscraper in the middle of NYC Trump built with his name on the front of it. If someone says what do you do, he can point to that. That's valuable in politics. Contrast with Romney who had a company that invested in other companies and helped turn them around. Even though that was a really big deal, he had to explain what he did, and people didn't really get it. Oprah will have the same problem. She's rich because of a tv show, magazine, radio, some licensing stuff, some good investments, and whatever else. But watching people turn celebrity into a shit ton of cash is sort of commonplace.

"I got rich by having my own tv show" is something Kim Kardashian can also say. I know it's more complicated than that, and that Oprah, or at least her handlers, have a lot of business savvy. And she has just as much money as Trump. But where is it when the average joe is looking? What is the tangibility of it. There's gravitas to construction.

If you're going to pick 'rich guy' it has to be someone like Bill Gates. And even then, I don't know if computers are going to resonate in the way that a fucking skyscraper does. Because construction workers build skyscrapers. That's blue collar labor. It's something I think average joe's take pride in, because they feel like they were a part of it.

What's the connection Jerry feels with The Oprah Winfrey show? His wife watched it?

I know everyone here will disagree with this personally, but it doesn't matter what we think. What matters is what certain voters think. And I think it's not the wealth, but the symbol of Trump's wealth, which is the construction of giant buildings, helped him win Ohio/Michigan/Pennsylvania.

I thought it was "economic anxiety".............?

(January 8, 2018 at 11:27 am)wallym Wrote: This strategy of 'find our own rich famous' person shows that people still don't quite understand why Trump got elected.

There's a skyscraper in the middle of NYC Trump built with his name on the front of it.  If someone says what do you do, he can point to that.  That's valuable in politics.  Contrast with Romney who had a company that invested in other companies and helped turn them around.  Even though that was a really big deal, he had to explain what he did, and people didn't really get it.  Oprah will have the same problem.  She's rich because of a tv show, magazine, radio, some licensing stuff, some good investments, and whatever else.  But watching people turn celebrity into a shit ton of cash is sort of commonplace.  

"I got rich by having my own tv show" is something Kim Kardashian can also say.  I know it's more complicated than that, and that Oprah, or at least her handlers, have a lot of business savvy.  And she has just as much money as Trump.  But where is it when the average joe is looking?  What is the tangibility of it.  There's gravitas to construction.  

If you're going to pick 'rich guy' it has to be someone like Bill Gates.  And even then, I don't know if computers are going to resonate in the way that a fucking skyscraper does.  Because construction workers build skyscrapers.  That's blue collar labor.  It's something I think average joe's take pride in, because they feel like they were a part of it.

What's the connection Jerry feels with The Oprah Winfrey show?  His wife watched it?  

I know everyone here will disagree with this personally, but it doesn't matter what we think.  What matters is what certain voters think.  And I think it's not the wealth, but the symbol of Trump's wealth, which is the construction of giant buildings, helped him win Ohio/Michigan/Pennsylvania.

No no no no,

This is garbage. 45 conned people into voting for him. Oprah wont have to con people like he did. 

Kim came from a well to do family already, just like 45. Oprah stared out with nothing. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

The Blue collar bigots will never vote for liberal regardless. The rust belt and swing state moderates would vote for her. Hillary only lost by 70k votes COMBINED in all the swing states. But, she had baggage for decades unfortunately, baggage she did not deserve, but still. Oprah does not have that baggage.

Obama won the swing states too, I don't see Oprah losing them either.

I think 45 is going to be in some very deep shit if she runs.

(January 8, 2018 at 11:13 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Have you lot forgotten the last time a TV star with zero political experience became president?

Boru

Have YOU forgotten that the electorate seems to be comprised of star-struck idiots?

(January 8, 2018 at 10:51 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 8, 2018 at 10:37 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Definitely more restrained/less flamboyant then 45. 

WHAT?

Yea, playing a character in a movie is bad how? Reagan acted too.

Now show me where Oprah has vilified entire races, entire religions, shit on military service, shit on intel, and the free press, on a daily basis like 45. 

Not getting the comparison between her and 45.

Yabbut all of the Gipper's roles were dignified .. like copiloting with a chimp.

(January 8, 2018 at 12:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(January 8, 2018 at 11:13 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Have you lot forgotten the last time a TV star with zero political experience became president?

Boru

Have YOU forgotten that the electorate seems to be comprised of star-struck idiots?

Oprah is a star sure, but she isn't grifter nor is she dumb. 

She was not my first choice, Michelle Obama would have been and Warren. But I am also a pragmatist, if she were to bet nominated Oprah would have a damned good shot, and she would not set up a circus either. 

I would suggest to anyone reading this, pick your battles. 

President Winfrey? 

Or

4 more years of of the sane saying, "KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF THE BUTTON YOU ORANGE FUCKFACE".


AND again, the worst part of the loss this last time, is not enough people took SCOTUS into account. Say what you will about Oprah, but I damned sure would think, considering where she came from, and how liberal she is, she WOULD pick SCOTUS picks that Obama would have.

It has not happened yet, which is why I titled the thread the way I did. POINT IS we need to get the GOP out in November first, but in 2020 if the orange goon is still there we need to boot his ass.

---

(January 8, 2018 at 12:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(January 8, 2018 at 11:13 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Have you lot forgotten the last time a TV star with zero political experience became president?

Boru

Have YOU forgotten that the electorate seems to be comprised of star-struck idiots?

Public servant or business person, everyone becomes a "star" once they make the national stage. 

Obama was unknown until he ran, and he too became a star. It is impossible not to become famous regardless of party, if you are running for that office.

I would prefer someone who was competent rather than someone with the name recognition to win elections.  Nonetheless it seems we have passed the point of no return on that.

(January 8, 2018 at 12:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I would prefer someone who was competent rather than someone with the name recognition to win elections.  Nonetheless it seems we have passed the point of no return on that.

Why would you think Oprah is not competent? 

That's just insane. She isn't dumb nor is she a grifter.

No no no no, she is NOT the same as electing even Reagan. She is business savy and yes she DOES have the name recognition, yes, so?

I bet you'd have no problem electing Bill Gates or Stephen Hawking.

Nobody knew who Obama was nationally until he ran. Nobody knew who Warren was nationally until the "Occupy" movement when she made that famous video in her home.


She is quite competent and I am quite sure she would get support from Obama AND Michelle, so if they throw their support behind her, are you going to doubt them too?

If fame cost us anything, no matter how wrong it was, and it was, Bill's affair, and Hillary being in the public spotlight all that time allowed that fodder.

Hillary has had the same amount of long term fame too. 

Oprah WOULD not spend her campaign being a jackass. She would not be watching MSNBC every day, nor take off every weekend golfing. She would NOT surround herself with incompetent goons like Conjob or Omarosa. 

I think she would in very short order, reconstitute the EPA, bring back Obama's health care policies, AND protect medicare and medicaid. BUT 2018 will be a huge help to WHOMEVER we nominate and if we have a majority and a DEM president ALL of them will work together. 

I wouldn't focus on her celebrity as much as I would focus on how she would use it. AGAIN, Hillary would have made a fantastic president, but she was famous for decades too.

Not saying trump is a decent prez. Far from it. But right now i fail to see why Oprah would be a good one. Maybe if indeed she ran, she could show why she actually would make a good leader for one of The mayor world-players. But until she does, i'm going to assume people are banking on fighting The fire of The trump-circus with a similar fire of their own.
I might be mistaken, but if that is The plan, even a democrat victory would still feel like a loss to me.