1. There have been a few articles (in the Times, Washington Post & elsewhere) speculating that Hillary Clinton will run again. I'm skeptical but something is happening.
-
-
3. Clinton is probably too smart to want to re-enter the fray but she's also surrounded by many people who have an incentive for her to do so. If she runs, they're part of big project (one with lots of fundraising). If she doesn't they're has-beens.
Show this thread -
4. The argument for Clinton, Bloomberg, Kerry etc is that centrist Dems need a champion to take on Warren/Sanders. This seems very insulting to the large # of centrist Dems already running!
Show this thread -
5. Some thoughts on donor anxiety and why it's leading people into political fan fiction: https://www.thenation.com/article/money-politics-democrats/ …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Those people are delusional. They want to run either one of two veteran presidential campaign losers, or the wife of another popular president, because that worked so well last time?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The NYTimes has two consistent sources. Swing voters in diners & wealthy, socially liberal/fiscally conservative donors who belong to the publishers' country clubs. I don't want to discount every article the Times publishes, but we need to separate their sources from real voters.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm thinking the Times piece is in itself an attempt to muddy up the waters and create a controversy where there probably isn't any.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.