Do we want to elect someone who will push the party to the left or someone who will get things done.

[Eko]

I of course would like both but with a divided government it doesn't seem likely to happen. I don't see the republicans working with someone who pushes us to the left but then again they wont work too much with any Democratic President as evidenced with President Obama. If the republicans retain control of the senate then we will need someone who can cross the aisle to get things passed if they can and so far the republicans in the Senate have a slight edge in the 2020 senate race. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-senate-will-be-competitive-again-in-2020-but-republicans-are-favored/ https://www.rollcall.com/video/first_2020_senate_race_ratings_are_here
More than likely the things that could get passed either way would not be sweeping legislation that all of us believe we need. If we could win the Senate then things look better for us even though that is not a guarantee of passing sweeping legislation. The thing is that the time to act on a lot of things is swiftly getting shorter. For me I don't see much of anything important getting done unless there is a Renaissance within our culture. If there is anything to take away from my rambling words I would say that the 2020 Senate run is just as more important if not more so than the Presidency.
Later, Eko.

[democratisphere]

1. The latter of course.

Extremists only appeal to themselves.

[Eko]

4. The right for women to vote

was extreme at one point.

[Sherman A1]

2. Why not both?

No need to limit one’s options.

[Eko]

3. Because we have a divided government.

And like it or not we will more than likely have to work with the republicans to get legislation passed.

[Sherman A1]

6. Not if the Senate

Goes Blue.

[Eko]

9. As of now

our chances of that dont look too good.

[Sherman A1]

11. Perhaps

Perhaps not, time will tell.

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. So Joe Manchin ...I am no fan but one way to make it blue is elect and REELECT any democrat

[Voltaire2]

40. "Work with the Republicans" Lulzd.

Good luck with that.

[watoos]

77. The 2018 blue tsunami

was won because Democrats pushed for leftist issues which are in reality centrist issues.

Makes me laugh, in America we call it leftist extremism, meanwhile the rest of the developed world laughs at our stupidity.

[LanternWaste]

57. How (specifically) does a divided government allow for one or the other, yet not both?

How (specifically) does a 'divided government' allow for one or the other, yet not both? And on what objective measure is that hypothesis predicated upon?

[Gothmog]

12. We need to win in 2020 and I will not risk putting up an unelectable candidate

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. YOu wont, I wont, but many will

[redstatebluegirl]

52. Because lots of people who live on the coasts think the entire country thinks and votes like they do

I have said this before, I wish we were more progressive, but the fact is in a national election if we go hard left, we will lose, hands down.

[Voltaire2]

41. Yeah that sure was a terrible mistake.

[BlueWI]

47. Any candidate than wins the nom is electible.

They become the standard bearer for the most popular of two national parties.

All it takes from there is an inspiring campaign and tireless focus from Democratic grass roots supporters nationwide.

Let the best candidate earn the nom and we'll win this pivotal election. The right mix of policy and personality will emerge from an open and rigorous primary season. Let's dominate the news cycle with the quality and quantity of our candidates and our bold ideas to address pressing problems.

[Gothmog]

48. That is not the case for a couple of the nominees

I will support the party's nominee but there are several candidates running who are not electable in the general election.

[BlueWI]

50. Candidates who can't win in the general

probably won't win the nom, unless there are a dearth of candidates with a viable national profile, as in 1984 and 1988. Since then, every Democratic nominee has had a good chance to win. When was the last time a Democratic nominee even lost the popular vote? Probably 1988.

[Gothmog]

54. I know that I will be busy in the primary as to a couple of current candidates

BTW, I personally consider Senator Warren to be viable and I like her as a candidate.

[BlueWI]

55. Thanks!

My current preferences in order are Warren, Inslee, Brown, and Harris. It may shift. I am hosting a couple of local events for City council races this month and looking forward to contributing to winning the presidency and the Senate in 2020 for Democrats! Good luck to you and all of us!

[Gothmog]

56. I like Beto, Biden, Harris, Brown, Booker, Klobuchar and Warren

Senator Warren used to be a member of the Texas bar and was at University of Houston Law School.

I was at the Texas Democratic Party fundraiser last year where the party made Booker a honorary Texan. Booker gives a great speech

[Gothmog]

67. BTW, I sat three rows behind Senator Warren at the National Convention

The Massachusetts delegation was seated immediately in front of the Texas delegation. I got to shake hands with Barney Frank.

[BlueWI]

83. Excellent!

[WheelWalker]

5. The latter. Even more, we need someone who can corral the broadest public support.

To win is just the beginning. The MAGATs and Deplorables must be marginalized by an overwhelming, crushing renunciation and defeat. 2020 is an existential contest for the U.S.

[Kahuna7]

85. We need someone who can Defend the Obama Admin record that trump

is dismantling and lying about.

[denverbill]

7. As you said yourself Obama tried.

Remember how that worked out? You want Republicans just ignoring his Supreme Court nominations and other appointments and suffering no repercussions? We play nice, while they play dirty? You want more of the same?

You think maybe incrementalism will bring Republicans on-board? Like maybe allowing a few more people to buy into Medicare instead of going Medicare for All? Sorry, but not ONE Republican will support it anyway. The same goes with increasing taxes on the rich, raising Social Security benefits and any other left-leaning priority. There are no moderate Republicans. None.

[Eko]

13. Do you think that moving further left

will bring more republicans on board?

[denverbill]

17. No, nothing, NOTHING will bring more Republicans on board.

But fighting hard for things that can make a REAL difference in people's lives might bring more independents on board.

You throw Obamacare out there, and sure, it's an improvement of sorts. But you know, paying $6000/year for a policy with a $6000 deductible isn't exactly most people's idea of a great government program.

A DU'er posted this weekend about 'socialist' healthcare in Singapore (iirc) where a non-citizen went to the ER with no insurance of any kind, and paid a grand total of $80 for his visit.

You can't make a case for government by advocating half-assed solutions to real-life problems. Social Security would have been killed 50 years ago if it was a buy in to privately run annuities.

[Eko]

18. So, how do we get things passed?

[denverbill]

34. Nominate people that have bold visions and push your friends to vote for them.

We can never get anything done, big or small, unless we get more true progressives in power. People who care more about outcomes than campaign contributions. People who actually look at an issue from a completely neutral perspective and come up with the best solutions, regardless of profits or ideology.

[crazycatlady]

36. we did that and Mitch McConnell blocked as much of his agenda as possible

[denverbill]

42. Mitch McConnell, or any other Republican, will always do the same.

We had a 60-vote majority in 2009 and Joe Lieberman wouldn't vote with the Democrats to pass a public option for Obama-care. That wasn't the Republicans fault. It was the Democrats for voting for a 'moderate' Democrat who cared more about insurance company and drug company profits than the welfare of all Americans.

[BlueWI]

49. Hear hear

No substitute for standing boldly and clearly with bold ideas.

Even when Scott Walker won in WI, the centerpiece was a pledge to create 250,000 private sector jobs. A failed promise that was basically hogwash, but what I took from that example was the power of clear priorities to motivate voters. Democratic candidates who promote themselves as centrists instead of advocates for clear priorities are losing an opportunity to promote their policies in a way that benefits the party brand.

[Eko]

68. Joe Lieberman was an independent.

And that makes my point perfectly. The best legislation is nothing unless it can pass.

[Perrenial Voter]

44. Minor point, but it was Taiwan. Singapore's health

plan is a mandatory personal health savings account.

[Kahuna7]

86. Duh? Nailed it! nt

[CrossingTheRubicon]

8. I want to elect someone who will fight for liberalism. Not someone who will push our party away from

our traditions as a liberal party and towards the socialist left.

So someone who will get things done and who has liberal values.

[Gothmog]

10. I want someone is clearly electable

I want the most electable candidate. Right now I like Biden with Harris as VP

[marylandblue]

14. "Getting things done" is not a function of left vs. center.

In the current atmosphere, and assuming we don't win back the Senate, it's going to be a matter of personal style. I want someone who will be all sharp elbows and sucker punches. Obama was too nice.

[Eko]

15. I never said anything about the center.

[marylandblue]

19. Well you said "Push the party to the left" or "cross the aisle."

I assumed by "cross the aisle" you mean someone who is not going to push the party to the left, which pretty much leaves someone closer to the center. But in any event, left, center or upside down doesn't matter. What matters is that they will make THEM cross the aisle for once.

[Eko]

20. How will we do that?

[Eko]

16. Can you give some real world examples of

how sharp elbows and sucker punches will get anything done?

[marylandblue]

24. Well, there are some ways I can think of, but I can't promise they will work

You also might not like these ideas, or think they won't work, or will get somebody angry, but I want someone who doesn't care about any of that, and will be thinking along similar lines, all in the name of getting things done, of course.

1) Use military bases - States love them, they contribute to the economy. There is Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and Ellsworth in South Dakota. 4 red state Senators. What if the President said he was going to expand one and shrink the other, or if it makes sense, shrink them both...? Unless there was some good reason not to...

2) Rural development (This is something I favor anyway). Red states are hurting for jobs and cash. So lets put some of that Green New Deal money making solar panels in West Virginia. Unless it makes more sense to put it in Kentucky.

3) Bring back earmarks. Insist on it. Stick goodies for blue states in the budget, and make the red states pay if they want some too. This is how deals used to be done. It was messy, but it worked.

4) We still don't have a place to put our high level nuclear waste. It's being stored in "temporary" storage all over the country. It was supposed to go to Nevada, but Harry Reid fought tooth and nail to keep it out. I wouldn't do this publicly, but I'd ask Ted Cruz and John Cornyn if they'd like it in West Texas instead. Probably they don't want to have that fight for the next 20 years, like Harry Reid had.

5) Threaten to become a really, really, really hard hammer regulator. And when you do it, rich donors complain to Congress. So I'd promise to ease off and be more sensible, but only for a price. I still wouldn't be easy, just as a matter of principle, but I wouldn't make it quite so miserable.

[Eko]

28. SMH.

1) Use military bases - States love them, they contribute to the economy. There is Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and Ellsworth in South Dakota. 4 red state Senators. What if the President said he was going to expand one and shrink the other, or if it makes sense, shrink them both...? Unless there was some good reason not to...+
Congress does that.

2) Rural development (This is something I favor anyway). Red states are hurting for jobs and cash. So lets put some of that Green New Deal money making solar panels in West Virginia. Unless it makes more sense to put it in Kentucky.
Congress does that.

3) Bring back earmarks. Insist on it. Stick goodies for blue states in the budget, and make the red states pay if they want some too. This is how deals used to be done. It was messy, but it worked.
Congress does that.

4) We still don't have a place to put our high level nuclear waste. It's being stored in "temporary" storage all over the country. It was supposed to go to Nevada, but Harry Reid fought tooth and nail to keep it out. I wouldn't do this publicly, but I'd ask Ted Cruz and John Cornyn if they'd like it in West Texas instead. Probably they don't want to have that fight for the next 20 years, like Harry Reid had.

Congress does that.
5) Threaten to become a really, really, really hard hammer regulator. And when you do it, rich donors complain to Congress. So I'd promise to ease off and be more sensible, but only for a price. I still wouldn't be easy, just as a matter of principle, but I wouldn't make it quite so miserable.
Congress does that.

[marylandblue]

35. Congress DOES NOT do all those things, and when they do do it

They don't do it alone.

Take the nuclear waste disposal issue. Energy Department does planning. It does not require congressional approval to make a plan. It doesn't even require a real plan to make something a major controversy for years. Like a wall.

Take regulatory hammers. Entirely in control of the Executive branch. EPA has some really stiff penalties in the law. Deliberately written to make big companies cry. But it's discretionary. They don't have to impose maximum fines every single time, and they often don't. But they can.

On edit: The Green New Deal does require Congress, but where the money goes is a matter of negotiation. Which Senator is not going to fight for jobs in their state?

And so on.

[Eko]

69. Uh,

"Take the nuclear waste disposal issue. Energy Department does planning. It does not require congressional approval to make a plan."
Yes it does,
"Early in 2002 the Secretary of Energy recommended approval of Yucca Mountain for development of a repository based on the multiple factors as required in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987 and after review President Bush submitted the recommendation to Congress for its approval. Nevada exercised its state veto in April 2002 but the veto was overridden by both houses of Congress by mid-July 2002".

And so on,,,,
1. Congress does that.
2. Congress does that.
3. Congress does that.
4. Congress does that.
5. Congress makes the laws for the EPA and the President can decide how to enforce them to a point.

[marylandblue]

75. When you find the law that says the President can't create a thing called "a plan"

that might upset a Senator, let me know.

[doompatrol39]

21. "Getting things done" is the most useless phrase.....

Just as people want to ask "How will we pay for that?", when I hear anyone say they will "Get things done" or that they want to vote for someone who will "Get things done!" we need to ask.....how? How are you proposing to put this useless platitude into action? By "reaching across the aisle"? By seeking "bipartisan solutions"? With who? With which "reasonable Republicans"?

Nobody is going to get fuck all done with the anything close to the current makeup of what we have in Washington. And that doesn't just mean because the insanely evil and obstructionist Republicans will never allow any Democrat (even someone like Biden) to accomplish anything. It means because too many Democrats will have short memories, or will all continue to buy into Republican framing of issues. The deficit will suddenly matter. "responsible spending" will suddenly matter. Executive orders will again become a bad thing, and it will be Democrats who are just as much the ones pushing for that as anyone.

Obama "reached across the aisle" until he was blue in the fucking face and it didn't mean shit.

[Eko]

22. "Nobody is going to get fuck all done

with the anything close to the current makeup of what we have in Washington."
Yup.
Its a succinct observation. Unfortunately its what we have and to not plan for that is wrong in my opinion. But that's just my opinion.

[WeekiWater]

23. Just about every one of our candidates would do both.

They would all have an opportunity to pack courts, return transparency, threaten to veto for different reasons, use Ice, the Justice Dept, and every other dept in a different way, slow or stop Federal involvement in MJ prosecutions, etc. These are all things that can get done.

The party as a whole has moved to the left. It’s a good thing. Our arguments are winning the day and public perception is changing. Our form of governance always lags behind.

As for the Senate, it’s importance can’t be understated. The Republicans are the party of no and are good at it. They will cast everyone from Sanders to Biden as socialists. Doesn’t matter.

What we can’t have is a executive who is rooted in the need for purity. Someone who has show a complete lack of ability to lead. Someone with a career as a politician and little to show for it because coalitions are something that bewilders them. That would be Sanders.

What we can’t have is an economic conservative who would give up way too much. A guaranteed one-termer forcing us to go at it again in four years with non-incumbent status. We cannot choose someone that is on the far right end of our party’s economic positions. That would be Biden.

Let’s try something new. Let’s go with a solid progressive who has shown the ability to accomplish things. We have a number of them running.

To add to the first paragraph, I do see us being able to pass comprehensive immigration reform. It will be a hard fight but it’s one we must push. It can cement electoral victories for us for the next decade, help to end one of the most oppressive parts of society in this country today, and is simply what we must aggressively act on.

[Eko]

25. I dont see anyone getting an environmental bill

to pass that will save us from global warming unless there is a massive change in American opinion. Beyond that, nothing else matters.

[WeekiWater]

31. Neither do I but I'm glad your brought it up.

One more area where any one of our candidates winning the Presidency would move us to the left. As Trump has shown, the executive branch can do many things to either role back or expand environmental issues. We need more than can be done by the executive branch alone but it’s importance is big. Again, another shift to the left no matter which one of our candidates we elect.

Lots else matters.

[Cha]

29. Get Good Things DONE.

I want a Democratic Candidate who can intelligently talk about what they're going to do for our World. Who doesn't have to tear others down to build themselves up.

[LakeArenal]

30. Biden is the best qualified with the most experience in national and global diplomacy.

[Kahuna7]

87. Yuuup! And also to defend the Obama record that trump lies about constantly. nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

32. If you want to get something done make sure not to elect someone who

has spent most of their adult life in office with little to nothing to show for it.

[wasupaloopa]

33. It is not a binary decision. We don't decide our platform

based on what Repubs will do.

We make a platform including the our ideals and beliefs.

Then we work hard to overcome what obstacles are in our way.

It takes years to get to some of the places we would like to be.

The right would never give up on their far right thinking because we control the House.

Think long term!

Getting things done by crossing the isle is a worthless idea if those things compromise our core values.

A compromise is taking one step forward and one step back getting us no where. Then the right takes over and puts us further back.

The right does not compromise with us.

Take a lesson from them.

[Eko]

70. I dont think we have a long term.

I think we have a very short one in regards to global warming and that is more important than anything.

[forklift]

37. We want to elect someone who is honest and has integrity

like someone who releases his/her tax returns

[Freddie]

38. A candidate who can WIN

Which means some compromises. We still have to deal with the reality of the EC. If we can get back that small # of voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, we got this.

[watrwefitinfor]

66. For my post #1,312 since joining DU in 2004, one word: INSLEE

I've been away for awhile. Drawn back by the primaries, like some other old-timers I see.

I'm with Freddie (and a growing number of others). I've watched Inslee twice now, on The View and on The Rachel Maddow Show. Before that I barely knew his name. He convinced me that quickly.

And he is NOT a one-issue candidate but a progressive in apparently all ways. And he ties it all in under the umbrella of our country tackling Climate Change - the one issue we HAVE to face head on. Finally.

Listen to him in that interview with Rachel:

Then find The View snippet in Videos Forum and watch him deal with Megan McLain. Quicker on his feet than any others I've seen, and no beating around the bush. Essentially called her a liar right in her mid-sentence, then turned his charming back on her and her shrill motor mouth.

Listening to him I feel like I can take a breath again, and am no longer drowning in whatever it is we have become in this country. What's the word? Oh, yeah. I have HOPE listening to Jay Inslee. All he needs is the right VP running mate. Sherrod Brown? Stacey Abrams? Two of my favorites. Midwesterner strong on labor issues, and southern woman of color strong on all the progressive issues. Both of them great campaigners. There are others as well. I love Bernie and Elizabeth. But we need young blood.

Inslee, as I see it so very strongly right now, is the one I've been waiting/watching for.

With apologies in advance, I may not be back to reply to any responses, though I will try. Medical issues.


Wat

[ancianita]

74. Totally with you! Without a candidate squarely and knowledgeably behind climate change, any

other debate issue is short term, meaningless and futile.

It would be the height of party self defeat if, in the primaries, the very people who've always looked at and compared the records of their party's candidates, just threw that effort out the window with the most accomplished candidate, simply over optics and name recognition. Because they want their traditional standby.

Such a primary vote would spell the end of voter credibility. It would also feed the moneyed forces that try to divide parties, suppress and totally eliminate voter rights at state levels.

I push for Inslee because I want people to fact check me, challenge me and actually think about why I would back him over all the others. Then we can talk.

They would see that, because of his scalable state and national accomplishments and how-to knowledge ...

Inslee is UNASSAILABLE. Oppo research can't touch him.

People of Washington know it. It's time that we seriously support the most squeaky clean, experienced and accomplished presidential candidate I've seen in my lifetime.

[walkingman]

81. The most important consideration for me in the upcoming election is transforming our nation and

hopefully the world to a more sustainable way of living. For me tackling Climate change represents our best hope for economic success as well as quality of life issues. Other things pale in comparison in the long run. As a baby boomer I remember when our lakes and oceans were not polluted cesspools. When our air was clean. When there we no so many people. We have to do something or else deal with a future that is chaotic.

[Progressive dog]

39. We need someone who will get things done

and to do that, the someone will need knowledge and experience.

[Starry Messenger]

43. I'm worried about the rightward lurch to fascism making this question moot

In CA, the virtual elimination of the GOP as a force in the state has created room for a leftward movement. With the election of Trump, we've been forced to devote resources to fending off the attacks on our state and its progressive values. With a Democrat in the White House, we could do actual progressive policy.

If Trump gets another four years, that's nearly a decade of playing defense. I'm not willing to risk that shit. I'd vote for Rahm Emmanuel to get Trump out of office, and a search of my old posts will tell you how fun I'd find that prospect.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

62. The CA GOP is nearly dead, but we are electing great liberal Democrats to office not leftists.

Competence, maturity, commitment to social justice and minority rights are winning issues here in CA.

Class-warfare is not.

That's how we became such a successful party in the most populous state in the nation.

[Perrenial Voter]

45. These aren't mutually exclusive. Progressive

candidates can get things done and can compromise, when necessary. But they should not start the negotiations by offering to give up half of what they want, as Obama did with his healthcare program. The reality is, though, that there are plenty of politicians in both parties who will make grand promises to get elected and then offer some watered down program that has minimal impact because they don't want to challenge the interests of corporations or oligarchs and/or because they have internalized the myth that you can make significant changes that benefit ordinary people. As a party--really, as a nation--we need leaders who will stand up for common interests, something the party used to do a lot better. Of course they won't win every battle, but we need people who will fight on principle, even when its an uphill fight.

So...the dilemna for this primary is figuring out which candidates are principled fighters and which candidates are acting the part. And the best evidence their records.

[Awsi Dooger]

46. Electability should be the sole concern

Trump has a much greater chance of winning than almost anybody here is willing to accept. Incumbency dominates every other variable. This is one of the few articles that gets it right, focusing on incumbency beyond anything else. The article also correctly spotlights charisma as the key component of a Democratic nominee who could spoil matters for Trump:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-should-have-a-70-percent-chance-of-winning-in-2020

[TygrBright]

51. I don't believe it's either/or, even with a divided government. n/t

[duforsure]

53. Its up to the American people

If they want to be more progressive or not, and be more moderate. Me, I want us to be more progressive and I'm in my late 60's. I think that's growing too. I see it with our Health care , environment, and our social issues , and immigration, and other issues the country is heading that way, and not back to the early 1900's.

[KPN]

58. Both. And we have plenty of candidates who can do this already ... Harris, Booker, Warren, Sanders,

Brown.

Why settle for less? So, I agree with your view re: the Senate being really important in 2020. Let's get it done!

[zipplewrath]

59. Get what done?

It's kinda important.

[Perrenial Voter]

61. Exactly. Trump has gotten things done, but what gets

done matters. I'm just tired of the notion that it is a binary choice between offering milquetoast policies and getting nothing done at all It could be true some of the time, but we'll never know if no one tries to accomplish great things.

[Eyeball_Kid]

60. Those big, nasty "leftist" ideas...

already have the support of mainstream citizens. Labeling them as leftist is a propaganda tactic. Frame all policies as leftist means that nothing will be seen as credible by the very people who will benefit from them.

[Eko]

71. I never said leftist at all.

[get the red out]

63. We want to elect someone

Period.

[jalan48]

64. The only thing we seem to work with Republicans on is big Defense Budgets. Interesting eh?

[dogman]

65. Left.

We have to counter the hard right hijacking of the Judicial Branch. It will take decades to over come the damage McConnell has in inflicted on our Country. We've had enough RW Executive Orders, it's time to push back hard.

[Gothmog]

72. This Washington Post piece is interesting

Link to tweet

[jcmaine72]

73. All signs are that the party is naturally shifting towards the left right now.

There may not be that much pushing required.

[mahina]

76. False choice.

[lancelyons]

78. A better question would be

A better question would be Do we want somebody on the left that gets shit done or do we want somebody in the middle that get shit done

[Cha]

79. Gov Jay Inslee is already Left and doesn't have to tear anyone

down to build himself up.

[regnaD kciN]

80. False dichotomy...

...because it presupposes that the two are mutually incompatible.

[58Sunliner]

82. We need to ignore the repukes.

The blue wave happened because we focused on what we wanted to make happen, because we had female candidates, progressive candidates, POC, LGBTQ, who addressed issues that are important. We don't win worrying about what someone else wants. That is why we showed up to vote. Voting against the destruction of our country didn't hurt either.

[Kahuna7]

84. There are two major advantages I see in going with Biden...

1. Trump is always claiming that he "inherited a mess!" Who better than Biden to defend the economy, and everything else trump is lying about. Some of the candidates running, may agree with trump that trump inherited a mess. So there's that.

2. Foreign affairs. Who better than Biden to restore the mess and America's image on the world state?

[Demsrule86]

88. Unless we take back the Senate and hold the house as well as winning the White House,

nothing will get done. I believe a 50 state strategy with a moderate Democratic nominee at the top is the only way to do this. Consider no Senate = no judges. So if we elect a Democratic President and we don't get the Senate...I surely hope in two years we will not be crying about what one guy couldn't get done...and lose the house as well...we absolutely gave the GOP the reins of power in 10 when they took the house and in 14 when many on our side couldn't be bothered to vote for such a 'disappointment' as Pres. Obama...imagine if we had Pres. Obama's back in 10 instead of a 'no single payer hissy fit' what could have been accomplished in the next six years...heartbreaking. And the loss of the senate cost us a SCOTUS judge.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. We want someone who can get elected...

[Gothmog]

90. Charlie Cook-The 2020 Path Democrats Shouldn't Take

I tend to agree with Charlie Cook. We need to run a candidate who can beat trump https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/2020-path-democrats-shouldnt-take

If this election is going to be a referendum on Donald Trump as a person and president, then Democrats ought to have a good shot at winning. But if the election becomes somewhat more complicated, with Democrats embarking on a path that is considerably more ideological than the one that Presidents Clinton and Obama pursued—the former going center-left, the latter further left, but not too far—then that could make for a considerably more competitive general election. The most recent growth area in the Democratic Party has been among college-educated, suburban women, and their movement toward the Democrats is more the product of their aversion to Trump than an embrace of democratic socialism.....

But when these same voters were asked how they felt about voting for someone who was a socialist, 43 percent said “very uncomfortable” and another 29 percent “have some reservations.” Just 4 percent were “enthusiastic” and 21 percent “comfortable.” Among all adults, 6 percent viewed socialism very positively, 12 percent somewhat positively, 27 percent neutrally, 14 percent somewhat negatively and 36 percent very negatively. According to First Read, the morning newsletter published by NBC News’s political unit, just 9 percent of independents and 13 percent of moderates view socialism favorably, a flashing red light for Democrats contemplating embracing that approach.

It is very clear, listening to Trump as well as to GOP strategists, that they are building up democratic socialism as the straw man to knock down in this campaign. Their goal obviously is to make electing a Democratic president an unacceptable alternative to Trump. So it basically comes down to whether Democrats want this election to be about Trump or about embarking on a new and different philosophical direction. One of those paths seems to be very risky.

I want to run a candidate who is electable. Beating trump is the most important thing