I spend considerable amounts of time decoding what should be relatively straightforward business related emails. Way too many people cannot put simple thoughts into writing, often resulting in multiple follow-up emails just to make sure there are no misunderstandings.

Never mind good creative writing.

What attributes would the hypothetical winning candidate be looking to capture other than Rice's policy positions?

You are describing a widely-shared experience.

That's easy, we just need to find a moderate Republican that holds fewer Republican views but that would still somehow get 1/3 of Republican votes.

Why are you people so stupid?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/10/polit...ent/index.html

Good news for the Democrats if true.

Care to explain why it's good news?

Because Warren would make it a top priority to reduce income inequality, that's not something the Democratic party really wants. Bad news for progressives, but yeah, good news for Democrats.

Mainly because I don't think she can win. (Full disclosure -- I don't think any progressive candidate can win the general, but I don't think a progressive candidate can win even the primary unless the progressive vote is consolidated behind a single candidate.) I also expect that a general election between EW and Orange would be even more of an insult contest that any election involving Orange is bound to be.

FWIW, I'm not a Warren hater. I think she is plenty smart and well-intentioned. But I think there is a lot of visceral hatred out there for her that cannot be eradicated, much of it for the wrong reasons..

If you don't think she can win the primary why would it matter that she's not running?

Where did I say she couldn't win the primary? I definitely think she could win the primary, especially if the progressive vote is not split. But I don't like her chances in a general election.

The US is not ready for a female president. If Hillary was male, she would have beat Trump bigly believe me.

Rice as a Dem? She has no charisma. She was wrong on Iraq and a lot of issues. Why would Dems picj her? She has the George W. stain all over her.

I'm on the record as wanting a policy candidate. But, they also have to have a little charisma. I'm sticking with Joe Kennedy.

.

See bolded.

A progressive would have a better chance in the general than in the dem primaries.

The balls to crush 17 other candidates + Hilary... without which all you have is roadkill like Jeb Bush.

That's Rice's main selling point as a candidate? Her huge brass balls? OK.

i don't see how it takes "balls" to pander to racist white people in the usa. those are the ones who own most of the guns and who end up committing most of the murders/terrorism. it would be brave to stand up to the terrorists. hillary has balls.

Yes. If you completely ignore the part where I said "unless the progressive vote is consolidated behind a single candidate."

Do I really need to spell out what I am saying? OK.

If no progressive candidate makes a serious attempt to win the primary, then it goes without saying that a conventional Democratic candidate will win the primary. If multiple progressive candidates make a serious attempt to win the primary, then I believe that a conventional Democratic candidate is highly likely to win the primary. If progressives rally early around a single candidate, then I believe a progressive candidate very well could win the primary.

If a progressive Democratic candidate comes out of the primary, I believe that candidate could defeat Trump, but very likely will lose to Trump, especially if that candidate is Elizabeth Warren.

If a more conventional Democrat comes out of the primary, I believe that candidate very likely will defeat Trump in the general, but could lose.

I readily concede that (i) all this depends on who the "conventional" Democratic candidate is, and (ii) the line between conventional and progressive is blurry.

I think that a lot of people are wrongly assuming that because a very conventional Democratic candidate to Trump, a progressive candidate is a better choice to beat Trump.

It looks like you're missing a few words in that sentence, but if you're trying to paint Hilary as a "very conventional Democratic Candidate", you're way off.

She was the first woman major party candidate for president. That alone takes her out of conventional territory. She may have espoused conventional policies, but she was definitely not a conventional candidate.

What are your thoughts on Garcetti? I'm guessing he is way too Clinton-wing of the party for your taste.

As far as I can tell he's cool. The biggest fault of the Clinton wing is being warhawks and I guess that doesn't come up much as a mayor, so who knows about that. You mentioned his "failures" on the homeless, but that's not just an LA issue. Have you been to Portland or Santa Cruz lately? And, as you noted, LA structurally has a weak mayor.

Does he seem like a disingenuous suit mouthing popular platforms while making sure that they don't actually become policy? Hard to tell, but my impression (not based on a lot) is probably not.

There's some misperception about my policy positions. That's partly because people think having one extreme position (say 'open borders') means having all extreme positions and partly because I argue a lot with certain posters about their Third Way kind of positions. That's partly out of my distaste for it, but partly because that's about all that's available to actually disagree with around here.

I left out the word "lost". My mistake.

Except for being a woman, HRC struck me as a very conventional Democratic candidate -- famous last name, a bit wonkish, long history in government, no important policy departures from the previous Democratic administration, etc.

Let Garcetti run and be elected Governor of Calif. Until he does, he's a nonentity. If he can't beat Gavin Newsome, he's a nonentity. Newsome's so charismatic that he couldn't even convince his wife to share his views.

I agree with all of that, it's just that the being a woman thing was highly unconventional, and quite likely the difference maker.