You do not want an intelligent woman candidate. This is a turn-of for most men. I was part of an interesting conversation yesterday. None of the people involved was American except me, but it was still interesting. One person, I will call J (he is French Canadian), asked a second person, E, to explain how come, two years ago, E and his confrere M (both Argentinian by birth) argued heatedly that Hilary was the worst possible choice and strongly supported Trump. J said to E that he had emailed them at the time asking what they held against Hillary and neither of them was able to supply a single actual fact to explain their enmity. The fact is that the Reps have spent the last 25 years denouncing her with no actual evidence and the lies have stuck. They have done the same thing with Nancy Pelosi and are doing it with Elizabeth Warren. No evidence, nothing to point to, just ridicule. It will be interesting to see what happens when a couple of new Dem congressmen who have pledged not to vote for Pelosi have to decide. But my main point is that a certain kind of male just cannot accept that a woman can be smarter than them.
I agree that personality is more important than politics. We may not like that, but it’s a fact. Personality and an ability to connect with people. For the Democrats, it needs to be able to connect with Middle America. Best to not have someone from the Northeast.
I think the Dems might do well with another Barack Obama type candidate. Someone who is a person of color and whose persona and political leanings will naturally stir interest in metropolitan areas. But at the same time, this person has to be able to go into farm communities and feel comfortable shaking hands with farmers and looking them in the eye.
We’ll just go to the Obama tree, that grows once in a generation political talents. Easy as pie! 
I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it until people beg me to stop. Biden/Booker or Booker/Biden 2020 is the golden ticket.
ETA: I’m also on record around here somewhere saying that Booker makes Obama look like Urkel…
I’m not in love with Booker but he’s fine. It pains me to say this because I like him and thought he’d be great, but Biden will be 77 at the time of the next election and that’s a little old.
I like Elizabeth Warren, but I feel Trump would take her apart.
in addition to my previously posted opinion… the first candidate to smoke a spliff on tv and declare ‘i will legalize weed at the federal level.’ will win in a landslide. in CO, more people voted to legalize weed than voted for Obama.
Yet, Biden still hardly misses a chance to march in a parade and sometimes breaks into a run!
Trump would be on the golf cart if he cared enough to attend such things.
And FDR would have been in his car, what’s your point?
That Biden is more fit for office in every conceivable way than the guy who’s there now and who he would be running against?
Not sure why the OP thinks that centrism is the way to go after four centrist Senators went down last night and a fifth barely hung on.
I’m with Bernie. He’s the most popular politician in the country. He won the primaries in those Rust Belt States that Clinton lost, so we know he appeals to voters in those States.
Economic populism is the way forward for the Democrats.
But given the diversity within the Democratic Party. we need balance on the ticket. That was IMO one of Clinton’s biggest blunders; after a divisive primary battle, she didn’t choose a running mate who could reach out to progressives, but went the “moderate Southern white guy” route, and look how well that worked out. I think for Sanders, Tammy Duckworth offers ideological, geographic, generational, racial and gender balance.
For me the lessons of last night are that rural white States are just lost to us and it’s a waste of time trying to appeal to them.
I think that’s a smart approach. Looking at the Dems who won in Midwestern swing States last night (I would add Sherrod Brown in OH and Amy Klobuchar in MN to that list), they’re a diverse group. Some (Baldwin, Brown) are quite progressive while others (Klobuchar, Casey) are more moderate. The one thing it seems safe to conclude is that we don’t need to be scared of nominating women.
Actually it’s the opposite. Urban areas are more heavily Democratic than rural areas are Republican. And it’s still more about what swing voters think than turnout. Turnout seems to cancel things out. Democrats turned out huge last night. Republicans turned out huge in response. And in the end, it was still about swing groups, like Latino men giving Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis the win in Florida.
Didn’t Nixon have a philosophy of “run to the right, govern from the center”, or something like that? I wonder if that would work again.
Find a personable conservative to moderate southern Dem, someone that seems to just pop out of the woodwork. Team him up with a more moderate to left leaning VP candidate to satisfy the party base. Worry more about his positions once you get the WH back. And you will, with at least 39 states and 449 electoral votes.
BTW, I don’t want a Democrat in the White house. And I certainly don’t expect anyone here to embrace this advice.
I agree that based on her performance last night, those who would like a moderate Presidential candidate should be looking very hard at Amy Klobuchar.
Yes, PA, WI, and MI all had both Senatorial and Gubenatorial elections and the Democrat won all six of those races. As pointed out above you can add Klobuchar in MN.
My only point is that it would likely be a mistake for Democrats to assume that they need to swing big for a young charismatic candidate like O’Rourke, go hard-left progressive, or go heavy for FL, NC, OH, GA, or (God-forbid) TX. They need solid, likable, midwestern faces like the six candidates that won in those races last night.
One of Clinton’s biggest mistakes was spending any time outside of the “blue wall” of PA/MI/WI in 2016. Hold those and she is President Clinton right now. Remember all three were lost by a total of 80k votes (less than 1% in each).
I haven’t seen data, or really looked yet, on how the union household broke in those states. Clinton took a bath with union household voters in those states; she still won but by a much narrower than traditional marrgin. Trump won the union household vote in Ohio which is another possible pickup if the Democratic candidate can get the vote back to more traditional splits.
Those voters helped Sanders in those states. They aren’t what we’d think of as progressive though. They like trade protectionism. Based on my experience living among and working with them, there’s a fair amount of labor market protectionism that shows up in anti-immigrant stances. They also tend to like guns; we’re 8 days away from hundreds of thousands of Michiganders, both urban and rural, heading to the woods to hunt. Many of them fall right of me, as a centrist Republican, on what commonly get labeled as social issues. Obama’s comment about clinging to god and guns described a lot of lifelong (until 2016) Democrats in the Midwest.
Sanders closely mirrored Trump’s stances on NAFTA and TPP. Sanders also had a history of support for comprehensive reforms that included both a path to citizenship for those already here and changes to the current immigration policy. Additionally, he wanted to reduce H1B visas with rhetoric that played to the union protectionist inclinations even if it was for educated workers. Sanders record in VT made him one of the more gun-friendly Democrats. While Sanders wasn’t much different than Clinton on a lot of the identity politics issues, his campaign rhetoric focused more on the economics portions of his platform.
A lot of the anti-Trump rhetoric has been attacking the interests of electorally important Midwest Democrats. That’s a big challenge for 2020. How do you win the nomination against that backdrop and still win in the midwest? It will be interesting to see if those union voters started to come back. If so that might provide some clues to the answer to that question in 2020.
My dream ticket is still AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka/Sen. Tammy Duckworth. Charismatic big beefy progressive Pennsylvanian mine worker labor leader who artfully turns everything into a speech on middle class economics and can connect with blue collar men PLUS a Midwestern moderate disabled army vet person-of-color who is also a working suburban mom. Unbeatable.
Pluck as many of those traits as possible and assemble them into a ticket, with “white male” at the top.
A few years ago I thought Cory Booker would be unbeatable. I met him a few times. I’ve heard him speak in public. I have never seen someone be as eloquent, likable and charismatic speaking in front of that many people. No prepared speech. No notes. No TelePrompTer. Tall and handsome don’t hurt either. But now it appears like he thinks he needs to fight fire with fire. He got all yelly at the Kavanaugh hearings. That’s not playing to his strengths. I’m not sure it’s going to do well for him.
That’s the Bill Clinton recipe, but it’s not 1992 anymore. We don’t need to nominate a white male, because everybody who would only vote for a white male is in the other party now. Here in Illinois, a lily-white suburban district that voted for Trump just elected a black woman to Congress. Democrats elected a Native American lesbian to congress in KANSAS. Any race that’s winnable for us is winnable with a good candidate of any demographic.
Likewise, although a Midwestern candidate would make good sense, there’s no sense nominating a Southerner (unless we really feel strongly they’re the best candidate, of course), because we’re not going to win the South no matter what.
The pro-gun vote is also lost to us beyond redemption. We need to double down on the sensible gun control policies that mobilize our base and appeal to independent suburbanites.