Hey, there! Log in / Register

We're back down to just two Massachusetts candidates for president

Three if you include Medford native Mike Bloomberg, but in any case, the New Hampshire results persuaded Deval Patrick he has no chance of getting the Democratic nomination, so he announced today he's not running for president anymore.

Coupled with Elizabeth Warren's poor showing yesterday, can we assume the Liar in Chief was, again, lying, about the hundreds of buses of Massachusetts residents rolling into New Hampshire to flip elections? Yes, of course we can.

Topics: 
Free tagging: 
Ad:

Comments

Not a huge fan of Deval politically, but he always seemed like a sharp guy.

However, his 2020 'candidacy' was just weird if not borderline crazy from start to finish. Is he just angling for AG or HHS?

up
20

He would have made a good choice if he had jumped in the race earlier. Someone said to me, "Oh he's not running for President, he's running to VP." Could be. He would make a good VP.

up
11

I've been saying that since they both got in. Bloomberg needs help from the blacks (stop and frisk) and Democrats don't want to lose a sitting Senator-sorry Harris. Obama will get behind this ticket as well which is all the really matters to the powers that be.

Stop letting the candidates hand-pick their running mates, and have Vice President as a separate race on the ballot. That way, the decision will be up to the VOTERS instead of the current buddy-buddy system.

up
24

No one wants to deal with a whole separate set of folks running for VP (would there be Primaries ?) And you wouldn't want a VP from one party and a President from another, would we? So who would be on the ballot come November? (I agree that the current system is, at best, weird, but I'm not sure there is a better alternative.)

up
14

I have to make more decisions. So instead, you'd rather be forced to accept a person for VP you don't like in order to support a Presidential candidate you like (or visa-versa).

"And you wouldn't want a VP from one party and a President from another, would we?"

We tried that, and it didn't go well. Which is why we have the 12th Amendment.

Given that the VP doesn't really have many actual powers, this just seems like it'd lead to a situation where if the President and Vice President don't get along, the VP just gets completely sidelined and ignored for 4-8 years. At least with the current system, the President can (ideally) choose someone they work well with and adds some real capabilities to their administration. You might also look at the presidency of Mass native John Adams for more on what happens if the President doesn't get to choose their own VP...

up
15

None of the neoliberal stooges will make a good anything at the executive branch level in US government.

Watching the mainstream media liberal take down attempts on Bernie reminds us all that we have a major fucking problem in this country. Liberals want to vote to keep an economy that robs college students blind and promises them no future.

Stop being chicken shit liberals--you're so superior to the Maga barfbags....not

up
13

neoliberals aren’t classically liberal, hence the distinction. the group you’re trying to talk about is the democratic party.

...puzzling. Why show up late when no one knew who you were in the first place?

The problem with centrists is they don't stand out to anyone.

up
15

Taking the middle ground between two diametrically opposed ideologies is completely asinine. It only appeals to grifters and low information voters.

Ain't nothing in the middle of the road except a yellow streak and dead armadillos.

There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos.

They are full of NH residents, who then go vote after work in MA.

... or any other rail, for that matter. There used to be three railroad lines crossing the state; all three have been torn up. The one from Concord to Lebanon, which used to carry Boston - Montreal passenger service, is a bike/snowmobile path.

...the Liar in Chief was, again, lying...

I don't think Trump is a liar; I think you're giving him too much credit. Liars have at least some concept of "objective reality", of "truth vs. fiction". Usually, they know they're lying.

Trump is just a bullshitter. Like a guy sitting at the bar after three beers, babbling at random. He has little or no concept of actual reality -- he think all stories are equally valid, it's just a question of who's the most persuasive.

I've had a lot of experience with both liars and bullshitters in my life, and believe me, they're not the same thing. The liars tend to be smarter and more coherent. Trump is merely a bullshitter.

He's Star Trek's Harcourt Fenton Mudd. If he ever admits that everything he says is a lie, Twitter will self-destruct.

I believe that America is yearning for two things: better outcomes and a better way. Better outcomes in our citizens lives and a better way of achieving them.

Having delivered health care to 99% of Massachusetts residents, nation leading student achievement and energy efficiency, responsible budgets, and the highest bond rating in Massachusetts history, I believed and still believe we had a strong case to make for being able to deliver better outcomes. And having shown through legislative initiatives, economic recovery, natural and man-made disasters, and a terrorist attack that we can lead by asking people to turn to each other instead of on each other, I thought we had a pretty good case for a better way as well.

But the vote in New Hampshire last night was not enough for us to create the practical wind at the campaign’s back to go on to the next round of voting. So I have decided to suspend the campaign, effective immediately.

I am not suspending my commitment to help– there is still work to be done. We are facing the most consequential election of our lifetime. Our democracy itself, let alone our civic commitments to equality, opportunity and fair play, are at risk.

Americans are hurting. Having to hold two or three low wage jobs to survive, trying to keep up with tuition, the rent or a mortgage, and health care premiums, doubting whether the schools in your neighborhood will prepare your kids for life and work — these are the challenges too many Americans face. In the midst of such economic anxiety and social unease, some will divide us for political gain. Others will use this moment to unite us. Both paths are, historically speaking, American. Only one is patriotic. I choose patriotism.

Patriotism demands, now more than ever, that we reject false choices. Despite our righteous anger, Democrats don’t have to hate Republicans to be good Democrats. We don’t have to hate business to fight for social justice or to hate police to believe black lives matter. In that same spirit, we don’t have to hate moderation to be a good progressive. I say that because, unlike most other candidates, I have actually delivered progressive results using a moderate approach. Leaving room in our plans and our hearts for people who may not agree with us on everything is the only way to make lasting change. I don’t fit in an ideological box and most people I meet don’t either. We cannot, and will not, defeat Donald Trump by relying exclusively on old labels, poll-tested messages and cable news hits. We must meet people where they are and ask them to do the same for us.

Many in the media have noted that I entered the race “late.” As a direct and limiting consequence, I’ve met many people on the campaign trail who lament how they wished I had entered the race sooner. As I hope you know, I entered this race when I could, and not a moment before I should have. More importantly, I entered the race months before anyone had cast a vote. We cannot keep mistaking media narratives for political outcomes. Political outcomes are entirely up to voters. I encourage you to keep on respecting their power to make their hopes a reality — even when the media confuses its essential responsibility to report what happens with its extraordinary power to influence what will.

I could see last night in the faces of many of our supporters that this setback is hard. But let’s keep our perspective. Hard is choosing between paying the heat or the rent in the same month. Hard is not knowing if you’ll be able to afford the prescription drugs that keep you alive. Hard is serving your country in the military and not being able to live off the streets when you come home. Hard is being called the N word by fellow citizens leaving and inspired by a rally for the President of the United States. Hard is trying to vote when your own government doesn’t believe you should have a say. Hard is wondering whether you or your family will be deported from the only country you’ve really ever known, to which you’ve paid taxes or for which you’ve worn the uniform, because you once sought refuge from violence or despair. Hard is facing a cancer diagnosis, especially if you don’t think you’re covered. These and similar questions can only be answered by deciding the character of the country. That’s what’s at stake right now. I’ve never been afraid of doing what’s hard -- only of missing the opportunity to do what’s right.

Doing what’s right and fighting for justice are my life’s work. That work doesn’t end here because it didn’t start here. On the South Side of Chicago, where I grew up, people have felt for generations the urgency so many Americans feel now. We have a unique opportunity to use our shared pain redemptively to bring the country together. No one can stand on the sidelines at a time like this. I, for one, will not. Failing to engage risks losing a lot more than an election next November.

Despite our righteous anger, Democrats don’t have to hate Republicans to be good Democrats. We don’t have to hate business to fight for social justice or to hate police to believe black lives matter.

up
16

neoliberal moralizing bullshit. hate is not worth talking about in this context. why doesn't this softhead explain more about how washington is pay for play and the system, if left un changed, is inevitably crashing? you know why--because he is a stooge

Liberals see capitalism's injustices, and believe they can correct them. They think they can tame capitalism, harness it to work for everyone's benefit. If that were true, Ronald Reagan would never have been elected, and we'd still be experiencing the prosperity of the 1960's.

Socialists say capitalism cannot be fixed, that the injustices are baked in, that they are the very essence of capitalism. Socialists say capitalism must be abolished.
Not even Bernie Sanders is a socialist, as much as he likes to use the word. They are all of them liberals.

"Socialists say capitalism must be abolished."

Bullshit. You have no clue what you're talking about. Your description is closer to "communism" (not the same as "socialism" which is a very, very broad range of beliefs) -- but even communists nowadays tend to be ardent capitalists (see China) although they play games with the terminology.

Since you have no idea what you're babbling about, why don't you just STFU?

Sure he continued the momentum - but the stuff he takes credit for seems to have been going on long before and long after his tenure as governor. Decent guy - but I kind of chalk him up to being a bit of a placeholder for 8 years. Didn't break anything, didn't really fix anything (especially the T).

...and he seems to have been a capable executive. But he left the Governor's office for the private sector. It's hard to make a convincing argument that he felt strongly called to public service.

And more fiscally responsible of him to simply email each viable candidate to say "hey, I've been in the sidelines and virtually unrecognizable for years now, how about a cabinet position? I dont really have the cash for an ambassadorship (although, my war chest would likely support that now)...

I had completely forgotten that he was even running.

up
12

Has Bailey the dog been sent back to the shelter, yet?