Exhume the corpse of Joseph McCarthy, have it identify as a black woman and convert to Islam, then sneak it across the border. Perfect candidate for today's Democratic party. Anyone who opposes is a racist, sexist, Islamophobic, homophobic, anti-immigrant, necrophobic Russian spy.

(08-10-2018 08:35 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  Exhume the corpse of Joseph McCarthy, have it identify as a black woman and convert to Islam, then sneak it across the border. Perfect candidate for today's Democratic party. Anyone who opposes is a racist, Islamophobic, homophobic, anti-immigrant, necrophobic Russian spy.

Addams Family Values (1993)... solid

Looks like it might be.....Michael Avenatti!

Trump has made them all think they can do it.

(08-10-2018 12:58 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 12:46 PM)Momus Wrote:  Kamala Harris, Deval Patrick, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Andrew Cuomo, Joe Biden

Everybody you just listed has some issues to say the least.

Unelectable: Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Pocahontas
Too old: Joe Biden
No name ID: Deval Patrick

Booker Cuomo and Gillibrand. Why not throw in Chuck Schumer to complete the set of New York based party hacks? While those three aren't toxic I also don't feel or see any groundswell beneath them from the left. Cuomo and Booker have machines behind them ... but they've also tried and failed to become major national political figures before.

Let me make my skepticism of those three live a bit more for you. While you may not be able to put your finger on one specific item that disqualifies them, they certainly aren't fresh blood either. Those three would be like a Republican saying if Trump weren't around, "How about Jeb or Huckabee or Santorum?" They don't have solutions. They don't bring new ideas. They don't bring in new people. They are the same wishy washy unprincipled hacks we've been tossing around for a decade. I don't see that moving the needle. I don't see that repairing the exodus of white working class voters in the midwest from the Democratic Party.

Makes sense to me. Though as someone who will almost certainly not vote Democrat in 2020, I can also see Oprah, Howard Schultz, and Rahm Emmanuel toss their hat into the ring as well. All of them have issues as candidates.

I think if this were ten years ago then Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper would make sense (my sister is a Republican living in Denver and she doesn't mind him), but there's no name recognition with him and he's not nearly left enough to win the nomination in this day and age.

The Democrats problem is that while they're united in opposing Trump now, how are the candidates going to try differentiating themselves from each other? I feel like experience will be seen as a negative since it'll be associated with establishment Democrats and the 2016 loss. They're basically going to have to tout themselves as more progressive than the others, more moderate (which won't gain any traction), or throw the book out the window and become the left's version of Trump to stand out.

I'm kinda wary. The last time democrats didn't have anybody, they found Bill Clinton. Though I have to admit, I'd take 1992-2000 Bill Clinton over any democrat I see on the horizon, and many republicans for that matter. Bill was the last democrat that I saw do anything to move his party back toward the center. Unfortunately, he seems to have forgotten that, or maybe just gotten run over by the party's hard charge to the left.

Biden as President and Doug Jones as VP...

(08-10-2018 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Neither party reflects what America wants right now, so we elected a populist who could at least express some of the frustrations. That's what happens when people are totally frustrated]

we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

The empty bench of sane, non-socialist Democrats is yet another gift for which the Republicans can thank President Obama.

By jamming ObamaCare through the 2009-2010 Congress, all Democratic Party senators were obliged to obediently sing along -- even those few who were smart enough to understand how awful and unAmerican was this quasi-nationalization of the health insurance industry.

Joe Manchin (W. Va.) and Mark Warner (Va.) are two that I am sure voted against their conscience and intellect. As a result, they are now are sidelined from acting on whatever ambitions they may have had for higher office. Joe Manchin may not even be in office after this coming November.

It would have just taken one Democrat to stand up to the Obama administration. Unfortunately for them, there was not a single backbone to be found among any of them.

(08-11-2018 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Neither party reflects what America wants right now, so we elected a populist who could at least express some of the frustrations. That's what happens when people are totally frustrated]

we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

Wrong. The electoral college did nothing but carry out the instructions of those who elected them.

Oh, I know, 230 years ago the founders said, “Someday a woman will run for president. How do we keep her from beoinh elected? I have a great idea. Let’s do an electoral college.”

(08-11-2018 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

https://twitter.com/oldstyle81/status/10...7405194240

CALAMITY JANE

(08-11-2018 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Neither party reflects what America wants right now, so we elected a populist who could at least express some of the frustrations. That's what happens when people are totally frustrated]

we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

Wrong. The electoral college did nothing but carry out the instructions of those who elected them.

Oh, I know, 230 years ago the founders said, “Someday a woman will run for president. How do we keep her from beoinh elected? I have a great idea. Let’s do an electoral college.”

I'm in absolute and total shock...we don't agree...how could this possibly be since we've agreed on so much over the years?[/sarcasm]

I'm glad you now see that I'm 100% correct that 'we' elected Clinton President by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college elected Trump.

I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon.

(08-11-2018 02:47 PM)green Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

https://twitter.com/oldstyle81/status/10...7405194240

CALAMITY JANE

that's like saying without 'without Michael Jordan the Bulls wouldn't have all those titles'

it's a moot point because they had Michael Jordan...just like California is still a State so that point is moot.

(08-11-2018 05:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Neither party reflects what America wants right now, so we elected a populist who could at least express some of the frustrations. That's what happens when people are totally frustrated]

we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

Wrong. The electoral college did nothing but carry out the instructions of those who elected them.

Oh, I know, 230 years ago the founders said, “Someday a woman will run for president. How do we keep her from beoinh elected? I have a great idea. Let’s do an electoral college.”

I'm in absolute and total shock...we don't agree...how could this possibly be since we've agreed on so much over the years?[/sarcasm]

I'm glad you now see that I'm 100% correct that 'we' elected Clinton President by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college elected Trump.

I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon.

Still not a popular election. It’s 50 individual state elections, which does its job and doesn’t give a small group of states the entire power.

(08-11-2018 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

we the people created the electoral college just as much as we created the presidency itself. One does not exist without the other.

(08-11-2018 05:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon.

Stay on that train forever if you like, but it will never reach its destination. The United States has conducted 58 presidential elections and the Electoral College was there for every single one of them. Not changing anytime soon.

(08-11-2018 05:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Neither party reflects what America wants right now, so we elected a populist who could at least express some of the frustrations. That's what happens when people are totally frustrated]

we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

Wrong. The electoral college did nothing but carry out the instructions of those who elected them.

Oh, I know, 230 years ago the founders said, “Someday a woman will run for president. How do we keep her from beoinh elected? I have a great idea. Let’s do an electoral college.”

I'm in absolute and total shock...we don't agree...how could this possibly be since we've agreed on so much over the years?[/sarcasm]

I'm glad you now see that I'm 100% correct that 'we' elected Clinton President by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college elected Trump.

I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon.

Technically, the electoral college elected everyone including bill clinton. The 2.8 million votes thing doesnt mean anything.

(08-11-2018 05:12 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 05:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Neither party reflects what America wants right now, so we elected a populist who could at least express some of the frustrations. That's what happens when people are totally frustrated]

we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

Wrong. The electoral college did nothing but carry out the instructions of those who elected them.

Oh, I know, 230 years ago the founders said, “Someday a woman will run for president. How do we keep her from beoinh elected? I have a great idea. Let’s do an electoral college.”

I'm in absolute and total shock...we don't agree...how could this possibly be since we've agreed on so much over the years?[/sarcasm]

I'm glad you now see that I'm 100% correct that 'we' elected Clinton President by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college elected Trump.

I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon.

Still not a popular election. It’s 50 individual state elections, which does its job and doesn’t give a small group of states the entire power.

This exactly!! In fact, without this agreement during the founding, there wouldn't be any United States as we know it because those less populous states in the 1780s would never have ratified.

(08-11-2018 05:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 02:47 PM)green Wrote:  

that's like saying without 'without Michael Jordan the Bulls wouldn't have all those titles'

it's a moot point because they had Michael Jordan...just like California is still a State so that point is moot.

Correct. But the corollary is also true: your comments about the popular vote are also moot, because we do have the Electoral College.

(08-11-2018 11:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm kinda wary. The last time democrats didn't have anybody, they found Bill Clinton. Though I have to admit, I'd take 1992-2000 Bill Clinton over any democrat I see on the horizon, and many republicans for that matter. Bill was the last democrat that I saw do anything to move his party back toward the center. Unfortunately, he seems to have forgotten that, or maybe just gotten run over by the party's hard charge to the left.

I agree Owl. Im betting on the Democrats heading for a centrist sitting Governor that can communicate a simple message effectively. NONE of the currently mentioned clowns has a chance against Trump. They are all too polarizing. The Democrats need to throw out a "Kasichlike" candidate that will attract independents and GOP voters that are not happy with Trump. Putting any polarizing candidate up against him is a instant defeat. That plays directly into his hand.