https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_previous_experience
20 former Govenors. (Although only 17 were State Governors. 2 were Territorial Governors and 1 was a Military Governor)
18 former Senators. One was a Senator after being President. Maybe this can be AOC's path.
32 with prior military experience.
Only one with no prior military or government experience. (Guess Who?)
And, coincidentally, Harris never won a primary
Obama was never a Governor. JFK was never a Governor. It is very possible to win the Presidency as a sitting Senator.
I think she would make a fine President now, but a better one with two Senate terms under her belt.
The Senate is a good gig, it can be a lot easier to get foreign policy experience there than as a Governor.
I think the party has already made a deal with her: if she agrees to not run for President in 2028, they will clear the field for her to take Chuck's Senate seat instead.
He's the Next One Up, who the Establishment will be trying to push through the nomination. So unless some other candidate does what Obama did to Clinton in 2008, he's gonna be the guy.
No, he would fall flat on his ass then all the shit from his diaper would explode all over the ice
Maxwell has been arrested and is doing time, but she knows how to play the game and will likely be well taken care of as long as she doesn't implicate you-know-who
I'm no radiologist, but yeah. That makes the most sense. And I bet the doctors would have presented it in a positive way for your mother at the time, to prevent her from feeling any sort of guilt in regards to not knowing she was pregnant, and how it might have affected your twin.
It could also be plausible that your twin was not viable, and did not develop in utero. So when she says they found your twin in the ultrasound, perhaps what they saw was whatever remained after the earlier absorption.
Makes much more sense if this all happened at 7 weeks vs. 7 months.....
Progressives also have to realize that their candidates won't magically win in every district. Still, every primary needs to be contested, if for no other reason than to let the eventual winner know what their constituents value.
I don't think there is really a loser in a primary. The candidate that loses the election learns a bit about the people in their district, and about themselves, which they can take into the next campaign. In fact, I can make an argument that Democrats are in such dire straits right now because they don't have enough candidates losing primaries, and learning from that. That leads directly to weaker candidates in the General Election