2020 Democratic Nominee

[David Dennison 19439]

PILF

[bad_teammate 13479]

8 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

She's writing just enough unsolicited editorials to give me hope. 

I think a lot of people who weren't thinking of it are now thinking of it.

[burntorangebongos 10809]

Governor of Montana and not a fossil....mmm .

Also, a ginger Kennedy? Is he from Bobby's branch of the tree? That ginger hair and freckles on a Kennedy dude is just wrong.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

Warren as Pocohontas is so fucking rage-making. Pretty near every single Southern Trump supporter claims descent from some "Cherokee princess" or some shit, but they choose to mock her. Believe me, I've heard it in many bar-room. Some of them will throw in a Choctaw twist, but every goddamn one of these Scots-Irish rednecks thinks they are part Injun and somehow that make them better patruts than yew. 

[bad_teammate 13479]

The Pocahontas thing is a litmus test. Anyone who buys into that as a valid criticism is literally unreachable and if we run from Warren because we think with can win the "lul Pocahontas" crowd with some other Dem we deserve the oblivion that is enveloping us.

[Satchel 6982]

Y'all are still sleeping on a savvy politician from the South with a bunch of political gifts and graces and a requisite amount of gravitas. Keep your eye on Mitch Landrieu.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

Just now, Satchel said:

Y'all are still sleeping on a savvy politician from the South with a bunch of political gifts and graces and a requisite amount of gravitas. Keep your eye on Mitch Landrieu.

He is the Dem Jindal. He is not even popular in New Orleans. Took down the statues, made some pretty speeches, even while gentrifying the fuck out of the city via Airbnb. 

[bad_teammate 13479]

[Satchel 6982]

11 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

He is the Dem Jindal. He is not even popular in New Orleans. Took down the statues, made some pretty speeches, even while gentrifying the fuck out of the city via Airbnb. 

Democrats will have to be smart and yet pragmatic when selecting the ticket that will go up against Trump. It must be wary of the corporate sensibilities of traditional Democratic politicians, hold them accountable and supplement a platform with enough congressional Democrats who will support it. Landrieu -Harris is a combo that could appeal multi ethnically and generationally. 

There are others. Democrats will need to figure this out. Worrying about Republicans raising qualifications as an issue should be off the board since they gave us the most unqualified president in the last 100 years.

[SpiralOut 1954]

4 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

 

Imagine a world where Donald Trump is on the ballot, and you think the OTHER guy is the one with #metoo issues.

 

Why not both?

And remember, the people voting for Trump don't give a flying fuck about #MeToo.  He got caught saying "Grab 'em by the pussy" and still won.

Meanwhile, the left has basically made #MeToo into their religion.  So I'm guessing Biden would have a few more problems there as opposed to Trump.

[Chuckie Finster 22978]

Why not both?
And remember, the people voting for Trump don't give a flying fuck about #MeToo.  He got caught saying "Grab 'em by the pussy" and still won.
Meanwhile, the left has basically made #MeToo into their religion.  So I'm guessing Biden would have a few more problems there as opposed to Trump.

Anyone who is making #metoo their primary voting criteria is not going to vote Republican under any circumstance, although you may get tens of voters in California to stay home. The Dem voters who would equate awkward photo ops with admitted sexual assault would be greatly outnumbered by Biden’s appeal in the Midwest and African American communities.

Biden’s problem will be his age, not this.

[RDCanecutter 26851]

12 hours ago, 6th Street said:

I like that Doug Jones dude who destroyed Roy Moore

I see him as a good Veep. President would be a bit of a jump with his lack of charisma (I like him, voted for him, but he ain't exactly a riveting speaker.) It's not likely he'll win the Senator job again unless the Alabama Rs shoot their toes off twice. So OK, maybe he will win the Senator job again.

[Message Board User 12405]

I'd love to see Mitch Landrieu at the top of the ticket but he has very little chance.

[RDCanecutter 26851]

13 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Warren as Pocohontas is so fucking rage-making. Pretty near every single Southern Trump supporter claims descent from some "Cherokee princess" or some shit, but they choose to mock her. Believe me, I've heard it in many bar-room. Some of them will throw in a Choctaw twist, but every goddamn one of these Scots-Irish rednecks thinks they are part Injun and somehow that make them better patruts than yew. 

Calling a supposed Cherokee "Pocahontas" is like calling Darryl Royal a soccer coach at Aggy.

CSB: When Ancestry.com first came out, I used it to track the Canecutters back through Olde Virginny where I found we descended from the "Red Bollings", an English family so-called because they were the offspring of Pocahontas and her English husband. Well, that was cool, like, 1/216th Tsenacommacah, whoo hoo. But then I noticed that the chain of ancestors from Pocahontas to me included one guy who lived more than 200 years.

Almost as if any math-challenged person could patch similarly-named people together on Ancestry.com with no oversight.

I never revealed this before now. I am proud of Pocahontas, but my shame at one of the family being a vampire overrides it./CSB

Edited July 20, 2018 by RDCanecutter
misspelled my imaginary ancestors' name.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, Message Board User said:

I'd love to see Mitch Landrieu at the top of the ticket but he has very little chance.

Why?  What is appealing about Mitch Landrieu? I'm genuinely curious.  I've got nothing against the guy but I have no idea why so many are pushing for Mitch Landrieu. 

[RayDog 682]

9 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

Calling a supposed Cherokee "Pocahontas" is like calling Darryl Royal a soccer coach at Aggy.

CSB: When Ancestry.com first came out, I used it to track the Canecutters back through Olde Virginny where I found we descended from the "Red Bollings", an English family so-called because they were the offspring of Pocahontas and her English husband. Well, that was cool, like, 1/216th Tsenacommacah, whoo hoo. But then I noticed that the chain of ancestors from Pocahontas to me included one guy who lived more than 200 years.

Almost as if any math-challenged person could patch similarly-named people together on Ancestry.com with no oversight.

I never revealed this before now. I am proud of Pocahontas, but my shame at one of the family being a vampire overrides it./CSB

There is a fake lineage to Mary Bolling and Pocahontas out there for my family.

[washparkhorn 9967]

On 7/19/2018 at 8:50 PM, bad_teammate said:

y'all motherfuckers pretending y'all can forecast need to stop, because you can't

Who do you actually WANT?

That is the essential question - what does the voter want and who promises to deliver it. 

2020 will be difficult to predict this far out. Trump understands if the press hits on a negative story about him, he can simply change the subject with a tweet (and the press gobbles it up in a non-stop feeding frenzy). Trump is story No. 1 -- every damn day. Today's journalists lack the vision to see the forest for the trees. So called experts called on by the Press to comment have no understanding of the world outside the Beltway and what drives solid Trump supporters.

DC is in full time meltdown every day. The town criers keep yelling the end of the world in nigh because of Trump. When the world continues to function despite Trump, the middle of the country stops listening to the single minded media and moves on to their own issues - like how to pay for college and what jobs will be left once automation hits full stride.

The middle of the country knows the press is unreliable and tribalism is safer than voicing an opinion. We do not speak with each other the same way as we did before - especially about politics.

The country has no thirst for war and prefers we take on our own needs rather than wasting lives and money on wars. No one wants a war with Russia, yet we are constantly fed propaganda that Russia is a grave threat to our existence. Russia isn't the Soviet Union. At this point, we better start preparing for a failed Russian state with an arsenal of nukes if the constant drumbeat for war and the sanctions continue to deteriorate Russia's abilities to control its future. The nukes alone are reason enough to try and integrate Russia back into the G-8. 

Democrats need to pound the economic message and come up with solutions that focus on our problems. Democrats need to acknowledge we do not have the resources to take on more poverty when we have enough people in despair already. And Democrats must propose bold action to address the many problems brought on by big government programs, like the war on drugs. The Democrats are becoming the Party of the wealthy and government workers. That leaves many in the dust.

The Republicans have been dealt a hand with an unsuited trump card with little ideology. They are attempting to hold on to a corporate electorate that wants nothing to do with Republicans regardless of Trump. Corporations enjoy the status quo; millions of Americans want real change to level the playing field for all, not just the politically connected. The Republicans have a base of Americans who believe upward mobility is an important component of the American Dream. As the wealth gap continues to widen between the .01% and the 99.99%, Republicans and Democrats both need to address the reality for most Americans - our children will face a tougher future than we and our parents experienced.

I imagine the party that explains how the wealth disparity was created and how we might reestablish upward mobility in our economy, regardless of wealth, will have an advantage in the next few election cycles as we continue our downward spiral. It's easy to blame multinationals - because they own most of the blame for the decay we and our kids experience more and more often. We will lose multinational corporations, regardless of the fixes proposed as they move on to more fertile ground to continue accumulating Idle wealth for "investors", which puts no one to work.

Regardless of party, the tax burden on the .01% will need to rise. Money on the sidelines when the nation, as whole, needs it out there growing our economy and creating opportunities for upward mobility is devastating to our economy. 

Any candidate out there calling for war against Russia or China should and will be shunned by voters who understand the burden of war hits the poor, not the wealthy. 

We are in a populist period in our history, which is not necessarily a bad thing in a nation where the elites don't listen to the middle and the working classes. Those stuck in the cycle of poverty are beginning to understand voting Democrat has not lifted many out of poverty. They will all begin to demand a more responsive government to our immediate needs. If they find a shared message, the 99.9% can regain control of the nation from the .01%. Media will have no choice but to air their grievances.

As we see today, populism is fragile. Class goals shatter when identities are effectively pitted against one another. That's how the game is played: If the classes band together for a fairer deal, the elites drive wedge issues to separate people into tribes and then encourage them to battle with each other. That game preserves the status quo - the ideal outcome for the .01%. 

Both the right and left are energized, which is dangerous for the status quo. Trump is the major wedge issue today. The Democrats are very worried about losing the working class to Trump and the Republicans. But the elites of both parties want nothing to do with the deplorable working class. The elites understand the middle class is on its death bed as economic conditions from globalism have decimated their ranks. Strong voting blocks for one party or the other are beginning to understand they have been used by the status quo and the blocks are beginning to shatter. 

My guess is we will continue to see wedge issues rising that keep the middle and working classes artificially separated. But there is a line of thought in the more ideologically oriented critics of the status quo that these groups might join together (as they did in 2016 to a limited extent) to bring on effective and fair changes to the status quo. I am not holding my breath for that to happen. Tribalism has effectively neutralized any real change in how this nation functions. Obama quickly moved to the status quo once he secured the nomination. And, with Trump, you are either for him or against him - regardless of any proposal he might suggest that would benefit us all (see, normalization of relations with Russia and North Korea). 

As long as we are kept separate, the status quo has nothing to fear. When there is nothing left to pillage in the US, they will move on to Africa - where populations are expected to boom for the foreseeable future. They love cheap labor and urbanization will create opportunities to strip everything earned by those attempting to rise from extreme poverty. 

Neoliberal Capitalism is not the capitalism of Adam Smith. Adam Smith knew taxation of wealth, not income, was the key mechanism to control what we see today. Adam Smith would ask why we didn't read the entire book rather than just cherry picking passages that suited the wealthy. It's a little like the religious who pick and choose what religious passage to follow when the essential message is God's love.

Adam Smith understood concentration of wealth in the few was a plague that had to be prevented or we would end up with an oligarchy devouring more and more, as the poor got poorer.

Adam Smith, today, would encourage you to grab a pitchfork . . .  

 

[Pancho 46046]

 

[JBJ 3780]

Bob Casey

From the midwest(ish), Jesuit Catholic, purple state

Edited August 6, 2018 by JBJ

[bad_teammate 13479]

Generic Dem +13 on Trump

Biden +7 on Trump

lol Dems are gonna do it like the fucking morons they are

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I’m pulling for Elizabeth Warren until I see a better candidate emerge. 

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

I would vote for Elizabeth Warren, no question. 

But 2020 is not the year to run another female candidate. There's only so many ways Trump can win in 2020, and going up against a woman is one of them. 

 

[Chuckie Finster 22978]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Generic Dem +13 on Trump

Biden +7 on Trump

lol Dems are gonna do it like the fucking morons they are

Do they have the numbers on any other candidates?  I understand the point you are trying to make, but unless you show me data saying otherwise, I'd suspect *any* specific candidate would poll worse than "generic Democrat."

[Orca of Peace 109]

10 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I would vote for Elizabeth Warren, no question. 

But 2020 is not the year to run another female candidate. There's only so many ways Trump can win in 2020, and going up against a woman is one of them. 

 

HRC #2 . I'd rather run Lebron James, take OH and FL easy and CA is in the bag. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

25 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m pulling for Elizabeth Warren until I see a better candidate emerge. 

I'd be OK with Warren, but as of right now I've got Jay Inslee, John Delaney and Deval Patrick at the top of my list, with Warren, Bullock and Harris just a tier down for me. 

Obviously this is not who I think will be a frontrunner or win. This is who I would prefer as of this moment. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[FondrenRoad 4378]

20 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m pulling for Elizabeth Warren until I see a better candidate emerge. 

Isn't Warren still officially "declined to run?"  Its still unclear who will actually be running when the time comes.  Hillary's lengthy campaign run was an outlier, and ultimately played a part in doing her in.  Obama declared in early 2007.  I don't expect Warren to run at all.  Its grueling, and she doesn't seem the type who really wants to deal with that shit at her age.  So far, we've been mostly talking about septuagenarians.  In the end, I think Bernie is the only Dem septuagenarian who will actually run.  I think the winner will ultimately be someone younger who hasn't been mentioned much yet thus far.

[Js1 86924]

16 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Do they have the numbers on any other candidates?  I understand the point you are trying to make, but unless you show me data saying otherwise, I'd suspect *any* specific candidate would poll worse than "generic Democrat."

Every Democrat is generic until they're suddenly the socialist LGBT loving devil child of Marx and Hillary Clinton

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

17 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I would vote for Elizabeth Warren, no question. 

But 2020 is not the year to run another female candidate. There's only so many ways Trump can win in 2020, and going up against a woman is one of them. 

 

The best candidate should run regardless of gender, age, or race.

The best candidate is the one with the better ideas that people can trust.

 The nitpicking calculations and playing to the center will only backfire like it always does.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Isn't Warren still officially "declined to run?"

Everyone is uncommitted to run until after the midterms but you can read the tea leaves and see Warren, Harris, and Bernie are most certainly in for a 2020 run

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Everyone is uncommitted to run until after the midterms but you can read the tea leaves and see Warren, Harris, and Bernie are most certainly in for a 2020 run

The other two are officially uncommitted which is the typical stance this far out.  Warren has explicitly said she isn't running.  I'm not saying she won't run, but I wouldn't bet on it.  Most of the push to get her to run doesn't seem to be coming directly from her.

[RDCanecutter 26851]

20 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Every Democrat is generic until they're suddenly the socialist LGBT loving devil child of Marx and Hillary Clinton

Eww, Hillary...

[Biff Tannen 46060]

42 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I would vote for Elizabeth Warren, no question. 

But 2020 is not the year to run another female candidate. There's only so many ways Trump can win in 2020, and going up against a woman is one of them. 

 

This this and more this.  Warren is one of the few people who could lose to dotus, assuming he's the nominee and not in prison, fled the country, or at the bottom of the ocean somewhere.  Purely because she is a woman.  She would be viewed as Hillary 2.0.  Our country has proven it is not ready for a female and the Dems shouldn't push it yet.  It's not fair, but that's how it is.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

27 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This this and more this.  Warren is one of the few people who could lose to dotus, assuming he's the nominee and not in prison, fled the country, or at the bottom of the ocean somewhere.  Purely because she is a woman.  She would be viewed as Hillary 2.0.  Our country has proven it is not ready for a female and the Dems shouldn't push it yet.  It's not fair, but that's how it is.

I disagree when it comes to a female candidate generally.  I agree when it comes to Warren, but not because she is female.  She already suffers from the same attack fatigue that Hillary suffered from.  Obama won because he came out of nowhere and the GOP attack machine hadn't spent years attacking him while wearing out his name with the public.  He was already elected by the time birther and church nonsense got to the point that it fatigued the public and started to wear down his reputation.  An unexpected female candidate can win in much the same way.  Gillibrand, for example.  Even Harris would have a shot even though she is more well known since Warren has been taking the brunt of the attacks.

Edited August 6, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

This this and more this.  Warren is one of the few people who could lose to dotus, assuming he's the nominee and not in prison, fled the country, or at the bottom of the ocean somewhere.  Purely because she is a woman.  She would be viewed as Hillary 2.0.  Our country has proven it is not ready for a female and the Dems shouldn't push it yet.  It's not fair, but that's how it is.

America is absolutely ready for a female president and Hillary proved it. It took a Russian military operation working with a well known media celebrity to stop her.

and she still won by 2% of the votes

Edited August 6, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Biff Tannen 46060]

53 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I disagree when it comes to a female candidate generally.  I agree when it comes to Warren, but not because she is female.  She already suffers from the same attack fatigue that Hillary suffered from.  Obama won because he came out of nowhere and the GOP attack machine hadn't spent years attacking him while wearing out his name with the public.  He was already elected by the time birther and church nonsense got to the point that it fatigued the public and started to wear down his reputation.  An unexpected female candidate can win in much the same way.  Gillibrand, for example.  Even Harris would have a shot even though she is more well known since Warren has been taking the brunt of the attacks.

 

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

America is absolutely ready for a female president and Hillary proved it. It took a Russian military operation working with a well known media celebrity to stop her.

and she still won by 2% of the votes

Y'all have a lot more faith in the electorate than I do.  If we had 60+% turnout, then maybe, but not with the historically abysmal turnout we usually have.

[tantric superman 4668]

Stanford can use a guy like Cory?

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

 

Y'all have a lot more faith in the electorate than I do.  If we had 60+% turnout, then maybe, but not with the historically abysmal turnout we usually have.

You do realize that Hillary almost won in spite of an attack campaign of historic proportions?  And she would have won anyway had she campaigned in the Midwest.  Nobody else will be carrying Hillary's baggage.  Even Warren has only been attacked for a few years.  Hillary was attacked for nearly 20.

[Biff Tannen 46060]

Yes, I also realize that this president has mobilized the dumbest of the dumb and there are a SHITLOAD more of them than anyone thought.  Midterm turnout will indicate to me what chance the Dems have at all, regardless of candidate.

[Brisketexan 106610]

14 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yes, I also realize that this president has mobilized the dumbest of the dumb and there are a SHITLOAD more of them than anyone thought.  Midterm turnout will indicate to me what chance the Dems have at all, regardless of candidate.

As a kid, my cynical mother told me "the most important demographic is the stupid vote -- win them, and you win the election," and I've never seen her wisdom written so large as it is today.

[Orca of Peace 109]

25 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yes, I also realize that this president has mobilized the dumbest of the dumb and there are a SHITLOAD more of them than anyone thought.  Midterm turnout will indicate to me what chance the Dems have at all, regardless of candidate.

ever watch the old Jay walking segment with Jay Leno? People can't name anything - current vp, who the US colonies fought for independence. Anything really, but know the American Idol judges. This is a stupid ignorant country, very easily exploited. People are lazy and getting worse. 

[RDCanecutter 26851]

19 minutes ago, Orca of Peace said:

ever watch the old Jay walking segment with Jay Leno? People can't name anything - current vp, who the US colonies fought for independence. Anything really, but know the American Idol judges. This is a stupid ignorant country, very easily exploited. People are lazy and getting worse. 

Never heard of it.

[Orca of Peace 109]

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

Never heard of it.

me neither 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KpPKxTMmrY

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by Orca of Peace

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yes, I also realize that this president has mobilized the dumbest of the dumb and there are a SHITLOAD more of them than anyone thought.  Midterm turnout will indicate to me what chance the Dems have at all, regardless of candidate.

The people want a FIGHTER, that’s how populism works.  Trump is a fighter, he’s always attacking but his flaw is he only fights for himself. A fight makes for a great show and people want to be entertained.  It’s really that simple. 

Elizabeth Warren is also a fighter except she is on another cerebral level and fighting for things that could actually benefit people.  

She’s not going to go high when Trump goes low.  She’s going to go right after Trump. She’s going right after the greedy running this country into the ground.  She’s not bought and paid for and she’s not afraid.  Her messaging has been remarkably consistent over the past decade and no one knew who she was 10 years ago.

[Biff Tannen 46060]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The people want a FIGHTER, that’s how populism works.  Trump is a fighter, he’s always attacking but his flaw is he only fights for himself. A fight makes for a great show and people want to be entertained.  It’s really that simple. 

Elizabeth Warren is also a fighter except she is on another cerebral level and fighting for things that could actually benefit people.  

She’s not going to go high when Trump goes low.  She’s going to go right after Trump. She’s going right after the greedy running this country into the ground.  She’s not bought and paid for and she’s not afraid.  Her messaging has been remarkably consistent over the past decade and no one knew who she was 10 years ago.

CNN interviewing small town Ohioans right now about their congressional race.  The ones voting for the trumpkin said they disliked the him less because the Dem has ties to Nancy Pelosi and Dem leadership.  You think that Warren won't get lumped into that in their minds?  They are totally brainwashed.  I don't trust that enough non-brainwashed people will show up to the polls.

[Larry T. Spider 1747]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The people want a FIGHTER, that’s how populism works.  Trump is a fighter, he’s always attacking but his flaw is he only fights for himself. A fight makes for a great show and people want to be entertained.  It’s really that simple. 

Elizabeth Warren is also a fighter except she is on another cerebral level and fighting for things that could actually benefit people.  

She’s not going to go high when Trump goes low.  She’s going to go right after Trump. She’s going right after the greedy running this country into the ground.  She’s not bought and paid for and she’s not afraid.  Her messaging has been remarkably consistent over the past decade and no one knew who she was 10 years ago.

And she will come across to midwestern swing voters as a screeching hag. It’s a completely unfair double standard. But the risk is 4 more years of trump which we absolutely cannot risk as a nation. I like her and would vote for her, but I’m not an 80 IQ Ohioan.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

CNN interviewing small town Ohioans right now about their congressional race.  The ones voting for the trumpkin said they disliked the him less because the Dem has ties to Nancy Pelosi and Dem leadership.  You think that Warren won't get lumped into that in their minds?  They are totally brainwashed.  I don't trust that enough non-brainwashed people will show up to the polls.

Trying to placate the brainwashed Trumpkins is a foolish endeavor, because they’re brainwashed.   The best you can hope for is that some of them will actually listen to Warren’s message because it’s directly targeting them. 

The women in this country are the largest voting block and they are PISSED. See also “me too movement”.

They want nothing more than to see Trump get pummeled by an Elizabeth Warren.  

A woman running against Trump in 2020 is an asset, not a liability. 

[Biff Tannen 46060]

38 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trying to placate the brainwashed Trumpkins is a foolish endeavor, because they’re brainwashed.   The best you can hope for is that some of them will actually listen to Warren’s message because it’s directly targeting them. 

The women in this country are the largest voting block and they are PISSED. See also “me too movement”.

They want nothing more than to see Trump get pummeled by an Elizabeth Warren.  

A woman running against Trump in 2020 is an asset, not a liability. 

We are just going to have to agree to disagree man.  I hope you are right.

[Orca of Peace 109]

you know a super longshot, whom most of you never heard of, is Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings (D). The man talks and looks Presidential, he's not far left and won't scare away the moderates or independents. The man is righteous. 

[Satchel 6982]

On July 20, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Message Board User said:

I'd love to see Mitch Landrieu at the top of the ticket but he has very little chance.

I'd be cool with him anywhere on the ticket. Check this out:

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/turner-podcast-network/the-axe-files-presented-by-the-university-of-chicago-institute/e/50891613?autoplay=true

[lemonlime 5503]

14 hours ago, Larry T. Spider said:

And she will come across to midwestern swing voters as a screeching hag. It’s a completely unfair double standard. But the risk is 4 more years of trump which we absolutely cannot risk as a nation. I like her and would vote for her, but I’m not an 80 IQ Ohioan.

That double standard will be used no matter who the dem nominee is.  See Obama as "The Most Divisive President Evvverrrr", apparently for wearing a tan suit, liking Grey Poupon, and most importantly being black.  It's about motivating the sane people to vote, not worrying about how the party of Trump will demonize the dem nominee.  The so called midwestern swing voters who will think any woman is a screeching hag are not going to be persuadable no matter what.