Maybe. There is no shortage of candidates running as Democrats who I feel would be very good Presidents. The problem is the big names in the race will be very easily depicted as either crazy, gun-grabbing, baby murdering West Coast liberals or Socialist, gun-grabbing, baby murdering East Coast elitist liberals. As much as we may regard Trump as a buffoon he knows how to effectively play the name calling game. And it usually works for him.
The continuing focus on Florida, not to mention fantasies about TX, GA, NC, and AZ illustrate how many of my fellow Democrats either can’t do math or won’t face reality. The Democrats MUST win all the states Hillary got AND win MI, WI and PA. OH would also be nice but isn’t essential. If the 2020 nominee wins FL but loses those four states, Trump still wins 277 to 261. Hillary wasted time, energy and money in Florida and it got her nothing other than having the voters who helped Obama win twice and who live in MI, WI and PA either stay home or go reluctantly for Trump. Any Democrat who doesn’t get that is guaranteed to lose in 2020.
I picked Brown when it was him against Harris in those voting threads. But that was only because Biden didn’t make the final rundown.
Biden’s my choice–although I’m not 100% behind him until I see how he does in a townhall or rally or other ‘requires energy’ environment. If he’s got the pepper, I’m with him. He’s sharp and I think waaay too much has been made of his gaffes, especially now that we know what a real “gaffe-prone” moron-as-president is.
I don’t agree with him on everything, certainly. I’m much further left than he is. But I see his intelligence, passion, humanity, awareness of history, and empathy as the qualities we need most right now. And again, if he’s energetic and on-the-ball, the age thing will hopefully not be an issue (as long as he picks a good VP).
Trump’s saying “Oh I hope it’s Biden, I’d love to run against Biden” is one more reason. I don’t believe a thing that shithead says.
All this said? I’ll vote for Elmo if he runs against Trump. There’s literally not a single Democrat currently in the race (or even not in the race!) whom I wouldn’t choose over the walking clusterfuck we have now.
I’ll certainly end up supporting whoever wins the nomination, but I think there’s a major drop-off between Biden and the rest of the pack. I don’t mean that Biden is that much more electable than the rest of the field - he’s not, IMO. But in terms of knowing the job and having the ability to navigate this political environment, he has the right experience.
Point taken. Maybe AZ isn’t such an impossible state to win. But I still stand by the idea that the nominee’s focus should be on recapturing the Upper Midwest states over wasting time in Florida, Texas or Georgia.
Future elections, yes. Just not 2020. Getting this crop of crooks out of power should be the focus in the next election. Wasting resources and time if Florida will not accomplish that.
I agree with you generally on that. I’d say PA, MI, WI, and even IA are all more winnable than FL.*
However, I think Ohio’s basically out of reach in a close race. It might be the 330th EV for a Dem candidate, but it won’t be the 270th or even the 300th. I remember when Missouri was a bellwether; now it’s firmly Republican. Ohio seems to be following the same track, just trailing MO by maybe 15 years.
*ETA: And as I said earlier, FL is more winnable than GA or TX.
Sanders is the best candidate to maximize youth turnout including Latinos who are disproportionately younger.
And your economic views are to the right of Nelson Rockefeller and probably Dick Nixon as well. The problem isn’t Trump’s protectionist and economic nationalist instincts which to a degree are healthy, especially with regards to China but that he’s going about implementing trade policy in the worst possible way .
Your stance is a reasonable one to take: ignore the states beyond the “tipping point”, which will just be gravy in a blowout. But although I recognize the power of that argument, I am slightly more persuaded by the other view. Not a “fifty state strategy”, which I would agree is stupid, but something in between. The reason is threefold:
(1) It can help in Senate and other races, now and in the near future.
(2) Something might go wrong in one of the “Northern Path” states, in which case we’ll need a backup plan.
(3) Perhaps most important: even if we don’t actually win Texas, Arizona, Georgia, or Florida, running hard there forces the other side to dedicate time and resources to defending them, leaving them less time and resources for those Northern Path states. It’s a chess game, and there are definitely compelling arguments on both sides, but that’s where I land–for now, at least.