thank you for thinking my post may be in some way correct,but now i must correct my prediction. due to the stupidity of the democrats i must revise my first opinion. the house remains red with 219 congresspeople,and the senate upticks to 54 republicans. the liberals really do need to learn how to function in a society that is ruled by old white folks. yes i know that sux but you have to play the hand you are dealt. remember obama was a dog against hillary, and then a dog against mccain, but he knew what folks wanted to hear. HOPE AND CHANGE. he said it best when he said "ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES". "WE WON, YOU LOST, GET OVER IT." GOT TO GIVE HIS PROPS FOR THAT ONE. NOW ALL THE DEMS NEED IS SOMEONE WIT HIS FLAIR FOR WORDS. this was sent from my desktop

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1047561653582274560

**** offffffff

meet trumps mike dukakis. he won 1 state maybe kerry could carry 2.

That's wrong by a factor of 10, but why should we expect anything else?

Thankfully I can't imagine Kerry gaining any steam in the primaries, he's such a wet noodle that no one wants. I think it is pretty much Harris's nomination to lose, as long as she can handle a bigger stage.

She means Mondale '84 obv.

When all you have is a Nazi, everything looks like an '88

Solid, very solid.

Thoughts on Eric Holder? I could support him but they’d beat him to death over Fast and Furious

Just read in her wikipedia page that Kamala Harris dated Willie Brown, when she was 29 and he was 59. Yuck!

He'd be pressed on no one going to jail for the recession and for hoping right back to his corporate job.

Pretty surprised Bernie is so low.

If I had to pick off this list, I guess I’d say Warren would be my favorite.

Biden 33% - Best thing about him would be that he wouldn't pull any punches against Trump. Don't really want though.
Sanders 13% - Would rather him play kingmaker here.
Harris 9% - Could maybe be convinced this is a good idea.
Warren 8% - Would like to see her give it a shot.
Booker 5% - No.
Kerry 5% - Dear God no.
Bloomberg 4% - Somehow even worse than Kerry.
O’Rourke 4% - OMFG yes.
Holder 3% - Ugh, why?
Garcetti 2% - Don't know enough about him honestly.
Avenatti 1% - No. Stick to the sidelines.
Gillibrand 1% - Don't know why she's so low. Has she given signs that she isn't running?
Klobuchar 1% - Don't know why she's even on the radar.
Patrick 1% - Meh.
Bullock <1% - Don't know too much about him. This feels like a bland pick to appease centrists, but I'm at least willing to listen.
Delaney <1% - Who the **** is Delaney?

**** Gillibrand. If she runs I’ll do everything to help ensure she leaves early in the primary.

Aside from the fact that her name gets floated a ton and thus has certainly improved her name recognition, I'm not sure why Gillibrand would be a lot higher. I guess I may have expected to see her at 3% on name recognition alone, but I'm not sure what the constituency is that deems her their first choice.

I guess I just thought that she was at least middle of the pack at worst. (Most of this is just because her name gets floated a lot. I didn't expect her to be 20% or anything, but I'm pretty shocked she's behind Kerry, Bloomberg, and especially Holder.

Yeah, I used to thing Biden as being sort of a "safe" pick, like if it looks like a generic D wins the general then sure Biden whatever.

But I'm starting to think that Biden would lose (or at least really struggle). Biden has name recognition but he lines up all wrong on the D's actual opportunity set. A Biden vs. Trump campaign will be a dog fight over a few hundred thousand white male union members. In other words, a "successful" Biden campaign means that instead of that group going overwhelmingly for the Rs maybe they split more evenly for the Ds and Rs. Meanwhile, the millions upon millions or women and non-white men that naturally and obviously should be mobilized against Trump are going to be ignored by Biden. That is not his constituency. The Ds desperately need to stop fighting their battles on the toughest possible ground, but they can't seem to get over the idea that their strategy should be to reach out to people that vote R instead of simply mobilizing the relatively gigantic group of disenfranchised people that are desperate for their help. It's so frustrating.

Isn't it really the fault of the "disenfranchised" themselves if they can't figure out that any D would be better for them than Trump? Are they really going to see Biden as another old white guy, so they're equally as bad? Especially when one was the VP of the first black president?

Yeah, seems like a Biden campaign has the same problem as a Hillary campaign, which is that black people in Milwaukee are like "welp, looks like another candidate that doesn't give a **** about us"

If you have candidate A who energizes a certain group to go vote and candidate B who doesn't, it seems odd to blame candidate B's loss on...the group who wasn't energized.

"It's not our fault if the population is too stupid to not vote for us" is the Hillary model. This is not a good idea.

It's not A or B. It's A or B or not bother voting. The Ds have a popular message. They need to focus on getting people to vote, not worrying about people that might vote for Trump.

Black primary voters went heavily for HRC and she crushed in the black belt. They then later failed to turn out in areas where it mattered during the general. Left us with a turd and then forgot to flush it to victory.

That doesn't explain why the vote couldn't be gotten out for Biden as well as for a more nontraditional choice. Especially if it was with the understanding that he would serve one term to take down the beast, then pass the reins to a new generation populist VP.

Sanders did better with black voters in the north than in the south (HRC still won them but by a smaller margin), which is worth noting given that none of the black belt states will ever vote D in the general.

Trump was candidate A and HRC was candidate B in 2016, but this forum overwhelmingly blames the group who wasn't energized for HRC's loss. It's good to see the forum coming around to my view when you replace the candidates with placeholders and are able to analyze the scenario logically though. I'll also remind everyone that the main point of my argument for abstaining is that it shows there is a pool of voters who will show up for a good candidate but sit when neither candidate has done enough to earn their vote. That position was derided barely a year ago but now we've got people saying "Hmmm maybe instead of electing Biden we should aim higher?" so you're welcome for that.