If “we” are the posters on this board having a policy discussion then I agree. If “we” are the Democratic electorate, then just like most other elections it will end up being more about the candidates and who is more likeable and who seems most capable of beating Trump. IMHO we (Americans as a whole) can’t afford to nominate a Democrat who has slightly better policy positions (compared to the other Democratic candidates) but who lacks charisma and the ability to dish it out and take it in a slugfest with Trump.
That’s why they SHOULD run and force a younger candidate to beat them. Not every field of young attractice candidates has an Obama or JFK. Most of the time it’s just Rubios. You don’t want to go into the general election with a Rubio. If there’s an Obama or JFK here, they’ll overcome the old farts easily. If not, be glad you have a likeable, experienced nominee(Biden).
Sanders is the only one who is suspect on that count. For everyone else it’s a given.
Sanders is the only candidate who has proven that he will support the eventual primary winner.
There’s some dispute as to how all in he was on that.
Agreed. To be fair this time around he’s going to have a much harder time with any kind of claim the eventual winner was anointed by party elites and superdelegates. If he does that this time (assuming he doesn’t win) he will look more like a sore loser rather than an outsider railing against a corrupt establishment.
This may be the truest thing you’ve ever said. Sadly, as a Florida voter I am occasionally faced with a Rubio. Who wins, because the Democratic alternatives are not particularly compelling either.
That said - and bearing in mind I’m an independent, so apply appropriate caveats - I don’t think it’s unreasonable to insist that the Democratic candidate ought to be a Democrat. Also, I think Sanders - and Warren - would be more effective in Congress than in the White House.
However, unless the eventual nominee turns out to be someone really far out there (like Michael Moore) I’m almost certainly voting for the Democrat against Trump or Pence.
I’ll say this: Beto is the best suited person to handle Trump’s rhetoric. And he is the best person to handle Trump in the debates.
The optic look good for Beto.
I think that is certainly the case when trying to take votes away from Trump.
If O’Rourke’s case is that he can deliver Texas, then he’s dead in the water. He couldn’t win a statewide race against Cruz, and Trump is more popular than Cruz in Texas. Ergo, he won’t be able to win a statewide race against Trump, either. He would probably make Texas closer than any of the other candidates could, but this isn’t horseshoes or hand grenades. Close doesn’t matter.
I suppose that you could argue that he could flip a state that’s like Texas but more purple, except that the list of states that’s like Texas consists of: Texas.
Not to shit on Rubio too much, because he still has potential and could be President someday. But the vast majority of politicians don’t become Presidential material in their 40s. It happens in their 50s and 60s or even 70s. Joe Biden is a great example of that. In 1988 he was nowhere near ready, but I really think he’s the ideal guy for this time.
I’m not surprised Beto is in the race. If he does very well he can get the presidential nomination. If he doesn’t get that, he looks like the best running mate for any woman who gets the nomination (sorry, Julian). Worst case, he gets neither but has kept his name in the news until he announces another go at the senate.
That’s a horrifying thought, and Rubio deserves to be shat upon from a great height. He is definitely a second-rater; it’s just that he looks good by comparison with the vast number of far less competent Republicans in Congress these days. Had the Democrats put up someone more robust (and less shady) than Patrick Murphy in 2016 he would have had a competitive race. Still, you vote for what you have. And sometimes you have a Rubio.
Rubio would probably be a terrible president. I would welcome the improvement over the current situation.
A lot of truth in this. If the Democrats win Texas, then the Democrats didn’t need Texas anyway. But I put him in the first tier of people that can win, along with Castro, Biden, and Harris. Bernie and Warren are too easy targets and might as well have a hammer and sickle tattooed on their faces.
I’m very active on social media and Beto’s ads are all over my feeds today. Not sure this is a good thing, too much too early in my opinion.
I just don’t think there’s any way Castro is in the top tier, especially with a much more charismatic fellow-Texan in the race. This is going to be a race for who can get the small donors to flock to them. The “thing” right now is for candidates to swear off those big-time and corporate donors. That’s what worked in the midterms. So unless your name is Beto, Bernie, Joe or Kamala, I think it’s going to be hard to attract the number of small donors to stay “pure” and still have enough money in your coffer to run effectively.
I’m guessing it’s to boost first-day/week fundraising numbers as much as possible.
This time is even more important than the last. Now we are not tasked with preventing the destruction, but repairing. Which is always harder and more expensive.
As so many pundits have noted, our national politics is pulverized. There is a massive tug o’ war, and whoever is pulling on my side of the rope is an ally. I trust Sanders and Warren in that regard, to keep on keeping on. It is good to have leaders who don’t insist on being followed.
At least we have choices, they don’t.
I think the usual strategy is a busy rollout period to get a bump in the polls, then go easy until the debates. Sanders got a +6 bump and Harris a +3, so Beto would love to top that so the media can report on his surge.
Weld 2020!