No one running for President in the 2008 field was openly in favor of gay marriage. It's telling that the second-tier candidates didn't try to use that as a way to stand out from Obama, Hillary and Edwards (and that Edwards didn't use it as a way to distinguish himself from the top two.)
The 2020 race is a bit different in that there will always be candidates willing to address most controversial issues.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
Xenophobia played a role, but by far the greatest impulse behind the Brexit vote was just the desire to Make Britain Great Again, with the continued reliance on the EU being the most potent symbol of the country's diminished power and prestige on the world stage. Of course, nothing that anyone can do at this point will be able to resurrect the British Empire and we should all be thankful for that, and so until the British are able to come to terms with that we can enjoy watching them flail about impotently, demanding to be taken seriously.
Meh, I seriously doubt that there's some kind of radical lurking beneath the surface there. Obama's views on gay marriage largely lined up with those of the country as a whole, in 2008 it was still one of those issues that most people knew would probably win out one day, but were anxious about openly supporting because gays are icky and what not. I don't think it was a coincidence that he happened to evolve on the issue just as public opinion started to turn dramatically in its favor.
Last edited by PwrdOn; 01-15-2019 at 08:21 PM.
Democrats are getting more aggressive on expanding healthcare, which I am totally in favor of.
They also need to get incredibly aggressive on climate change. And UBI. And other important issues.
I assure you, given that the campaign is just getting underway, we'll be hearing more about all those things, just like we'll hear talks about Warren's handling of the native american issue and medical device loopholes she inserted into bills.
In the meantime, I'm not ruling anyone out or pretending that any of them are free from baggage. Harris stands a good shot at winning the nomination as it sits, certainly better than Gabbard and with a more natural constituency than Gillibrand. Castro is gonna be the O'malley of this thing, I think. I already outlined why I'm not supporting Harris outright, soooo...
I'm not ready to throw my support behind any candidate beyond NOT GABBARD.
Look, I sure hope it doesn't come down to Garbbard or Bloomberg(assuming he attempts a run). I don't want to even think about a situation where I have to try to justify a vote for one of those two.
That said, it shouldn't be "We'll Be Hearing About..." when it comes to those kinds of issues. You need to be trying to deal with them before they wind up dealing with you.
Hahaha.
The supine Repiblican lead senate will do no such thing.