“A scold”, you say.
With a good economy, a normal incumbent would be hard to beat. Trump isn’t a normal incumbent.
If we could get a democrat to wave a Nazi flag and dress in an SS uniform, we may be able to swing some trump voters.
When I Google “Draft McRaven for President” I get only hits dated 2017 or earlier, and trying to draft him to be Texas Governor. He stepped down from his $1.9 million job as Chancellor of University of Texas. Some opposed his Chancellorship for his progressive views; and Houston Democrats—supporters of Univ. of Houston—were quite upset with his plans for a U.T. data center in Houston. He’s said he has no desire to run for political office.
Other males, like Webb, Kaine, Sanders or O’Malley, are worthless; Biden’s too old. Pocahontas will bring all the racists and misogynists out of the woodwork. Does Kamala ‘the Joyful Warrior’ Harris have enough charisma to pull it off? She’s a gun-grabber??
I’m very doubtful. Pencil DJ Trump in for the next 6 years. 
As I have said many times, I just don’t think Biden is too old. He still has moxie left. If he picked a young VP it would head off any potential concerns about him croaking in office.
I love that even Democrats are apparently now running with the “Pocahontas” nickname. You have to admit, it was ridiculous for her to claim Native ancestry on the basis of “high cheekbones” and the uber-cliched “family legend” of a Cherokee great-grandmother or whatever…the cheekbones bit was particularly absurd. She did hand them the setup on a silver platter. And no, I don’t think it’s a “racist” nickname - it would be very very racist if she were actually a Native American, but in this case it’s calling her a poser.
No point looking at what she actually said, you’re going with the spin, right? That’s okay, so would most voters.
Points for not saying “she lied” and “Fauxcahontas”, at least.
See here’s the thing: If the general election was suddenly announced for Tuesday, August 10, and the Dems had to figure out who they were gonna run between now and then, yes, we’d be fucked. But luckily, getting to a candidate is a long process. One that will likely weed out the dullards and weaklings. For once, I’m actually grateful for the long primary process in presidential politics. We’re gonna have cornucopia of candidates emerge over the next several months, and they’ll be put through the refiners fire of the campaign. I really believe a strong, sharp candidate will be found. It may be one of the big Senators everyone is debating right now, or it may be a dark horse that no one’s looking at yet. Messages will be tweaked, styles will be sharpened, polling will be done on demographics, and someone will emerge ready to fucking throw down. Everyone keeps talking about how dedicated Trump’s 35-40% are. Lest we forget, we outnumber them, and many people are fired up this time, having realized what sitting on your ass or voting third party does, even without a candidate yet.
Webb, Kaine, & O’Malley are fine, Biden is *not *too old.
And calling Warren “Pocahontas” is pandering to Trump and racism.
But yeah, I share your doubts about Harris. She* is* a gun grabber, no doubt.
And note that, after all these years, the “Fauxcahontas” thing is still all they appear to have on her. Which admittedly was pretty funny when Trump trotted it out in front of actual Native Americans (and a picture of Andrew Jackson) but remains a largely substance-free issue.
FTR, it was coined by Howie Carr, the stinkiest turd in the toilet bowl of Boston talk radio.
Plus, you know, she’s a “scold”. Can’t have a “scold” for President.
I hope you’re right, but among the Final Four in 2016, white-haired Bernie Quixote was the only one with even an ounce charisma.
I just watched Kamala Harris on YouTube and I didn’t see charisma. Maybe if she had a Boston accent or something* she’d seem like another Senator Kennedy.
(* - I may seem peculiarly stupid to ask for a candidate “with an accent” but remember that most American voters are even stupider than me. Does Harris have any pizazz at all?)
She’s probably “shrill”, too.
She is not particularly charismatic. She is fairly good looking, young, black, female, and very progressive. These are the reasons she is talked about for President.
That’s because nobody had the balls to take on Hillary. Everyone just rolled over and said “Ay-yup! She’s our winner!”
This time, everyone from the center of the party on over to the far left with an ounce of ambition and/or sense that they can help drive the narrative will run.
Even if Landrieu or Garcetti don’t win, they will bring something to the table. Booker will bring something to the table. McRaven or another retired general/admiral would bring something to the table. Bernie/Warren will bring something to the table. Gillibrand will bring something to the table. Inslee, Hickenlooper, Bullock will bring something to the table. Mayors, governors, military, business leaders, Senators, Congresspeople: They’ll all bring something to the table. Having a variety of ethnicities, ages, home states, ideologies, genders, sexual orientations, pet issues, political paths, etc. will help showcase what the Dems can offer the nation, and will help the outraged masses figure out who the strongest messenger will be…and hopefully create a shit-ton of buy-in from all corners of the left.
As of right now, I’m really looking forward to this.
Being good-looking can have a charisma all its own, actually.
I haven’t wanted to broach this topic because it’s hard to talk about it without sounding sexist, but the fact is, sexism exists, and judging people on their appearances is a thing. I think a female candidate is more likely to win the election if she’s attractive, frankly. A lot of people, male and female alike, hold female beauty to a higher standard than male beauty - or maybe it’s more accurate to say, they cut a guy more slack in the looks department if he can make up for it with charisma (Bill Clinton, anyone?) whereas this seems less likely to be the case for women.
As much as I hate the idea of an election being a ‘beauty contest’, let’s remember that JFK did beat Nixon at least, in part, because he was a lot better looking. People who heard their debate on the radio reported feeling that Nixon was the winner, whereas those who watched it on television saw Kennedy as the winner. If this was true for two male candidates, it would be doubly true for a male candidate (especially one as hard on the eyes as Donald Trump) versus an attractive woman.
I realize I’m getting into touchy territory here. Nevertheless I think there’s something to be said for it.
If Hillary Clinton, even with all her baggage, looked like Gal Godot, would she still have lost to Trump? I doubt it. (I know her age makes that impossible, but let’s just go with the hypothetical here.)
Edit: I guess a lot of people would then claim that “she was just coasting by on her looks”, so maybe that would be a weakness, not a strength. I’m not really sure. Depends on a lot of other factors, probably.
:smack: Maybe this is my problem with Harris — I found her rather average on the female pulchritude scale. Maybe I’ve been spoiled by gorgeous women! 
ETA: Will I be called racist if I admit to not being attracted to black women in general? To my credit 
I cheerfully admit that Michelle Obama was the hottest First Lady in history, hands down
I said “fairly good looking”- maybe I should have added - For a Senator. I would give her a 5 or a 6.
There’s “hot,” then there’s “public servant hot.”