Yes, BUT- to balance the white male, the Veep should be a minority and/or a woman. Harris comes to mind, as well as many others.
I like Beto, Biden (sure he’s old but with a young veep that’s OK) and a couple others. Not Sanders, not Warren, not Harris.
He is popular because the GOP did not smear him like they have done to Clinton or any other front runner. In fact the GOP helped Bernie in the primary. The GOp still would love him to run again.
He won caucuses in those states, not voter elections. Caucuses show hard core support, not broad support.
Hillary won Virginia. She came close in North Carolina.
Bill Clinton won Georgia, Tenn, West Va, Ark and LA.
No, it’s not. Yes, the radical “take my gun from my cold dead hands vote” is gone. But the people who own a couple guns for hunting or a handgun for home defense are not gone, and in fact voted for Bill.
“Sensible gun control” will just lose us those votes. Look, the anti-gunners ain’t gonna vote GOP, are they? “independent suburbanites” are often the ones who do own a gun for home defense.
Sure, put some mild gun controls on the platform- ban bump stocks, maybe “gun show loophole” and such- **but you will lose if you are seen as a “gun grabber”. **
Make absolutely sure that Joe Hunter and Jane handgun-in-the-home are not scared off thinking their guns will be taken.
While imperfect, the primary system is pretty good at giving a sense of how good a candidate is. The main issue is that usually not very many candidates run. If the only options are Sanders or Clinton, then the choosin’ ain’t too good.
Get a good variety in there and see what shakes loose. Until we see them all in action, I don’t think we can say anything at all about how winnable anyone is. I like Bullock, for example, but I have no idea how strong a campaigner he is. Looking good on paper isn’t sufficient.
Though I do think that if you can get Republicans (e.g. Meghan McCain, Jeff Flake, Joe Scarborough, etc.) to all back and endorse a candidate, then that should make you sit up in your seat. It would make sense for the current roster of candidates to go and start flirting. And if they can’t do that, then the DNC might want to let them fund themselves.
Neither Michigan nor Wisconsin had caucuses. (Minnesota did have a caucus, and Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary).
Why? Just tossing-in a minority/woman reeks of the “binders full of women” meme from the Romney campaign. Both candidates need to have merit beyond appearances. If the best VP candidate happens to be a woman, or a minority, or a veteran, or whatever, fine, but let’s not go down the tokenism route or the “deserves” route. And when I say “best” I mean electable and will help us win the election. Again, do you want to make a point, or do you want to win?
I was just about to post something very similar.
I think you’re dead-on about not nominating anything but white males. I have a feeling (nothing more) that if the Democrats here in Texas had nominated a white male candidate for Governor instead of a gay, Hispanic woman, they’d probably have come a LOT closer than they did in that race. And they did in the rest (all white men on both sides).
I’d also add “not ancient” to the list. Having a vigorous candidate who’s not eligible for Social Security would set up some interesting contrasts with Trump.
So, the Presidential candidate absolutely needs to be a white male, but taking the VP’s race or gender into account would be “tokenism”? Oooookay…
Because balancing the ticket has always helped. Those who want a woman or a minority can take solace in the Veep.
We always hear this claim that the Vice Presidential candidate should balance out the Presidential candidate, but does experience show that it’s true?
2004: John Kerry chooses John Edwards, on theory that Edwards’ youth, charisma, and southernness will balance out Kerry’s stiffness and air of old northeast elitism. They lose.
2008: Jon McCain chooses Sarah Palin, on theory that Palin being young, female, and insane will balance out McCain being old, male, stodgy, and boring. They lose.
etc…
I’m just not seeing any evidence that balancing works. Many winning tickets actual seem kind of similar:
1992/1996: Bill Clinton and Al Gore, both rich, southern, middle-aged white men.
2000/2004: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, both white men from Texas with ties to the oil industry.
2016 Insane Multi-millionaire with little religious background, from NYC. Middle class religious zealot from the rust belt.
2008- Middle class black man from the rust belt. Wealthy Catholic from Delaware.
2000/2004: low IQ grinning gladhander/ brilliant, nefarious and machiavellian man from Nebraska.
Balanced tickets. 
There’s a lot less time in the 2020 for things to shake loose.
California moved it’s primary up to Super Tuesday, March 3rd for the next cycle. That’s a big chunk of delegates moved to a day that was already difficult for challengers. The traditional slow start where someone can find their electorate in IA and NH, along with finding money, to build a nationwide organization is harder than before. Early fundraising and name recognition is more important in that schedule.
Someone who can, like Bentsen did to Quayle, look Trump in the face and basically say, “Donald, you’re an idiot.” And then turn to the cameras and say, “I’m talking to all of you viewers over 60, or who have a mom or dad over 60. The Republicans want to take away your Social Security and Medicare. Is that something you really want?”
Doesn’t sound all that difficult…
By my count, there’s something like 700 days between now and the next election?
Damn, that was impressive! OK, now I’m a big fan of Maloney. And Tucker Carlson is a dick.
A lot of people were turned off by the Kavanaugh hearings. Democrats misplayed their hand.
How about Biden and Klobuchar?
Voters in last Tuesday’s elections disapproved of Kavanaugh’s confirmation by 47-43%. Democrats won the (larger) group of opponents by a greater margin than Republicans won the (smaller) group of supporters. How was it the Democrats misplayed again?
I only watched about 2/3rds, but I wasn’t super impressed. It wouldn’t have been very hard to walk through how a warrant ends up being filed and what sort of evidence has to go behind that. Or even just to say, “The law is blind to who you are. If you’ve committed a crime, the FBI agrees that you’ve committed a crime, a Federal judge agrees that you’ve committed a crime, and a Trump appointee agrees that you’ve committed a crime, then yeah I’m completely comfortable with a warrant being executed on you just as much as I’m comfortable with a warrant being executed on anyone who has created sufficient evidence of criminal activity to convince that many people that they need to get in there.”
Cause that propelled Dukakis and Bentsen to the White House! :rolleyes: