If "safe" is your main concern, forget about Biden. The safest bet to beat Trump would be Klobuchar,

[mtnsnake]

followed by Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, and right on down the line of about 5 more candidates who could all beat Trump, but none of them quite as safe as Amy Klobuchar. Biden would be the least safe of the top 10 contenders and one of our only top tier candidates who could possibly lose to Trump despite what the media would love to have you believe.

Any Klobuchar is experienced, she's a proven winner in the Midwest, and she wins by big margins. With her centrist background she would appeal to just as broad an array of voters as Joe Biden, only without any of the baggage that Biden has.

She has a great personality, she is funny, witty, smart, quick, and passionate about turning things around. Her plans all make sense. Plus, she will not pander. She won't make promises she can't keep, and she has been clear about that in all her town halls and interviews. She is one of the most believable of all the candidates, and that's one of the reasons why she's so popular among her constituents.

When it comes to dealing with the enemy, Klobuchar knows how to pick the enemy apart in expert fashion, just like when she dismembered that asshole, Brett Kavanaugh, during his Supreme Court hearings. The best thing is that she did it so calmly. Just imagine what she would do to Trump.

I like Joe Biden alright. He's got a good sense of humor, he's a cool looking candidate, looks physically fit for someone his age, rolled up sleeves, dark shades and all, very sharp guy, and he looks like he could kick the shit of out of Trump in a schoolyard brawl, but he's a walking gaffe machine, and he makes promises he could never keep. He's a dreamer, and anyone who thinks he's the safest bet to win in 2020 is dreaming.

You want safe? You want someone who knows how to win? You want someone who will not only will make a fine president but be one of the safest choices we have to beat Trump? I think Amy Klobuchar would be that person.

[Tiggeroshii]

1. A recipe for anpther Walter Mondale.

...

[mtnsnake]

2. Yup, and Mondale was 20 years younger than Biden when he ran.

[LanternWaste]

39. Glad you brought up age... as no one else did.

And I'm almost certainly you'll rationalize it as somehow relevant.

[Fresh_Start]

3. sadly no woman would be the safest bet

because of rampant misogyny

Pete is brilliant but clearly the people love stupid (see Trump) and Pete's not a pussy grabber so also not the safest bet.


The hispanics, blacks, and asians are also not the safest bet because of racism.

So that leaves us with white men (surprising how that works out).

Get rid the socialist and the gun grabbers and Biden looks like the best of the remaining bunch.

[cwydro]

15. Remember President Obama?

Have you forgotten already?

[Fresh_Start]

29. I have not forgotten

but he can't run again

[cwydro]

51. So why cant a woman?

No doubt you felt the same about a black man.

[Fresh_Start]

53. no doubt you don't know me

and are largely ignoring how the country has changed since Obama was elected

[cwydro]

55. I may not know you, but I sure can see you.

Smh.

[Fresh_Start]

58. you are willingly blind

I, like you, am Team Warren.

I have donated to Warren.
However I am not foolish enough to believe that Warren is a safe bet.

[dsp3000]

68. Do we have any women candidates as charismatic as obama?

nope.

[MrsCoffee]

34. Gun grabbers?

All tired, lame used up excuses.



Psssst: A woman won the last election by millions of votes. It took treason to keep her out of office.

[Fresh_Start]

36. A women had more votes but she didn't win

which is why we have the current nightmare

and there is no denying that we have millions of men and women who won't vote for a women as president. And that includes Democrats as well as Republicans.

[MrsCoffee]

38. It takes treason to beat a woman.

We’ve already proven that people will vote for a woman for president.

Tired lame excuses.

[CTyankee]

64. which is why the Dem Party must have a strategy built around the Electoral College.

As we have seen, winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College gets us a repuke president. We have to have a winning strategy that addresses that problem.

[cwydro]

50. Yeah, I kinda wondered at that too.

Things that make you go hmm.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. As one of Klobuchar's constituents, I have to disagree.

IMO, her problem isn't that she's a centrist, it's that as a senator she has pretty consistently avoided conflict and has rarely taken a strong stand on controversial issues. She tries to please everybody by tending to back away from offering definitive opinions. I agree that she's smart, and that she performed well as a questioner during the senate hearings, but after having paid close attention to her as one of her constituents, I'm not convinced that she really has enough spine to take a strong stand against the likes of Mitch McConnell.

[BlueJac]

5. Not so fast

[ecstatic]

6. I think when people say safe, they're referring to a return to something

we've had before. In other words, either a straight married white guy or a straight married black guy.

But I agree with you, Amy K is a strong and skilled politician/candidate.

[brush]

8. A straignt, married black guy, safe? Not in this country.

[ecstatic]

9. Yes. Pres Obama broke that ceiling and normalized the idea of a

black family in the White House (and it had already been normalized in shows/movies as well). So I'd say so.

[comradebillyboy]

7. I like Klobuchar much more than Biden but Biden

would fare a lot better against Trump in my opinion.

[Karadeniz]

10. I think our extra crispy planet is issue #1.

[BlueTsunami2018]

11. Yeah, the polls totally reflect that.

Does she even have two percent in any of the primary polls?

She’s not making it to Iowa, let alone winning the general. Can we be realistic?

[mtnsnake]

21. The only poll I believe in is the one I fish with.

Sorry about my spelling.

[Celerity]

40. if you are male (your profile says you are) I am so glad you did not go somewhere else with that

unless...........................................

[mtnsnake]

43. LOL. Yes, I'm male and I'm talking about bass, walleyes, northern pike, etc

and not whatever it is you're thinking about, Celerity, but I can only imagine!

[Celerity]

45. lol

[mtnsnake]

47. back atya

[Honeycombe8]

12. I'd vote for Klobuchar in a heartbeat. But she won't make it. She'd be a great VP, though.

Her numbers are what they are because she doesn't have the charisma that natural leaders have. She doesn't grab people. That quality is one of the most important to have, and what all winners of Presidential elections have.

I don't necessarily need that. I just like her for some reason. But she won't be the nominee. She WOULD be a great VP, though.

[mtnsnake]

19. She might not win it, although I think she would still be the safest bet to beat Trump, but

I agree she'd make a great VP. Hopefully, she'll get considered for that spot if she doesn't win the nomination.

I agree with you that she isn't the most charismatic, but neither are some of our other top candidates either. When I think about who our charismatic candidates are, the first one that pops into my head is Michael Bennett.

[NYMinute]

13. Another hilarious and futile tutorial

about why Biden would be unelectable.

[Peacetrain]

14. Nope! Biden is the cure for this particular political fungus that has infested OUR

White House..No arguments against anyone else..but when the fungus is among-us.. get what works best the first time..

[mtnsnake]

20. If he wins it, which I doubt, I hope you're right that he's the cure, Peacetrain,

because we can't take any chances this time. There's too much at stake.

[Peacetrain]

25. Oh mtnsnake.. so much at stake..

with that you and I are completely one in agreement..

[Demsrule86]

16. She has no support...down around 1%. No thanks I will take Biden especially after I saw the polls

on Whether people would vote for a woman for president...very disheartening. We need to win.

[mtnsnake]

17. That doesn't mean she isn't the safest bet to beat Trump. It just means she isn't as popular as

many of the others this early on, but that could all change once the general public gets to hear more of her soon.

I also have great confidence that Warren, Buttigieg, Harris, O'Rourke, Swalwell, or Booker would easily beat Trump. Nominating Biden or Gillibrand, though, would be a serious mistake.

[Demsrule86]

18. If she can't win a primary,she won't beat Trump.

[mtnsnake]

23. haha, that is very true, but this race is still in its infancy.

[Demsrule86]

56. I don't think so. I believe thete is a good chance Biden will win so let's try not

to hurt his chances with foolish attacks ( not talking about you).

[Demsrule86]

57. More than 20% of folks in a recent poll. said they would not want a woman president.

When you asked them about how others felt...it was higher...too much sexism in this country which we can't address if Trump wins again.

[question everything]

22. Bravo!

[mtnsnake]

24. Thank you!

[BeyondGeography]

26. She's a snooze

I see turnout issues with her.

Agree on Biden though. Hopefully, we avoid that route.

[quickesst]

28. Sorry mt......

..... but the main thing missing in your OP argument is logic.

[awesomerwb1]

30. Ok sure

[Politicub]

31. I agree. Klobuchar will be the sleeper candidate, I predict.

She’s great and her calm pragmatism is an antidote to the toxic environment Trump has created. And she’s no shrinking violet; she pushes back and holds her own.

I’m looking forward to seeing her in the debate. She did a great job connecting with the audience in the CNN Town Hall.

[MineralMan]

32. I like Amy Klobuchar very much. I've met and talked with her.

She's one of my Senators. However, if she were going to make a splash in this primary campaign, we'd be seeing some sign of that already. No sign; no chance of being the nominee.

In many areas, she's very progressive, but she will not be seen as a progressive by lots of Democrats. Always eager to communicate with her Republican colleagues in the Senate, she manages to get things done through cooperation, but that will be seen as a flaw by many Democrats.

She's a wonderful person, an excellent Senator for Minnesota, but is very, very unlikely to inspire broad national support strong enough to make her the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party.

As a nominee, she would be safe enough for Trump to win for name recognition reasons, I'm afraid.

[mtnsnake]

42. That is cool that you met her. However, don't your arguments against her hold truer for Biden than

they do for Klobuchar?

MineralMan: "In many areas, she's very progressive, but she will not be seen as a progressive by lots of Democrats. Always eager to communicate with her Republican colleagues in the Senate, she manages to get things done through cooperation, but that will be seen as a flaw by many Democrats."

Well isn't one of Biden's flaws, as seen by the same Democrats you're talking about, the fact that he isn't seen as progressive enough? And the fact that Amy gets things done in the Senate through cooperation with Republicans, isn't that a strength of hers? I would say it surely is a major strength of hers.

MineralMan: "She's one of my Senators. However, if she were going to make a splash in this primary campaign, we'd be seeing some sign of that already. No sign; no chance of being the nominee."

The campaign is still in its infancy, and it's up to her and the others like her with similar low name recognition to make an impact during the debates and future town halls. Amy is already doing that. People are starting to pay attention to what she has to say, and everyone who gets to "know" her seems to be very impressed. There is a lot of time left in this race for all our candidates to get the attention they deserve.

MineralMan: "She's a wonderful person, an excellent Senator for Minnesota, but is very, very unlikely to inspire broad national support strong enough to make her the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party."

Yes, she is a wonderful person and an excellent senator as you say. Plus, she knows how to relate to people throughout the Midwest as much as anyone. All it will take is some time and name recognition, and her her numbers could rise dramatically. Even if her numbers never rise, I still think she would have been the safest bet of anyone to beat Trump. I would place a couple of my other favorites, such as Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren over Amy in terms of who I'd love to see become President, but I think Amy Klobuchar is the candidate who would beat Trump the easiest in a general election because of her broad appeal to the center and her appeal to working class people.

[BlueWI]

33. I agree.

I think she's by far the best candidate from the moderate wing. Her clear communication and determination are very striking, and she's got the energy to run a stellar campaign. For me, she's close behind my top two (Inslee/Warren); Kloubuchar and Harris are next up.

[pattyloutwo]

35. Yes

She’s effective, she presents well, she can carry the swing states. I love Warren’s policies but I’m on the Klobuchar train for now.

[marybourg]

52. Me too.

[FBaggins]

37. I'm afraid your notion of "safe" is unsupportable

You've listed a bunch of reasons to like her... and even to vote for her... but they don't add up to her being a "safe" candidate (if indeed that's what we're looking for).

Not sure I agree that we should be looking for "safest" when Trump looks so beatable. But if that's what we're looking for than Biden (like Gore before him) is the poster child for "safe". Eight successful years in the White House and two national elections with his name on the ticket. If there were skeletons in his closet you would expect to know about them by now. "Experience" out the wazoo. Unbeatable name recognition.

We could go on and on. In fact, it could be plausibly argued that the whole reason that he's the clear frontrunner at this point is because the party views him as the safe candidate.

[DrToast]

41. She's a much stronger candidate then her polling would indicate

She was my original favorite candidate. I still like her quite a bit, but frustrated she hasn't taken off.

[mtnsnake]

49. She really is

BTW, if I had to rank my favorites right now, your guy, Mayor Pete, would rank #1 with me at this time. He is fucking brilliant and amazing, and I won't be at all surprised if he ends up winning the nomination and going on to be President IF he wins the nomination. I don't know if he would be quite as "safe" as Klobuchar or not, but I would be totally confident that he would be safe enough to carry home the prize.

[Hortensis]

46. There are no "safe" candidates, and imo this is a phony meme

because of that very inaccurate word. The many millions who are putting electability at the top of their lists are looking for the person who'll give us our best shot.

We MUST defeat the Republicans. What is not to understand that losing the power of the vote would be devastating? How about the possibility that someday our own social media records could put us in danger, such as cancellation of the license needed in our work, rejection by colleges, or even a loud knock at the door? That we could all find ourselves timidly avoiding the eyes of authorities out of well justified fear?

Fascism. It NOT a good thing.

[mtnsnake]

48. I won't disagree with that one bit, but since "safe" seems to be the main concern of so many people,

I think that Klobuchar is the "safest" of the lot.

For that matter, I honestly think all our candidates, with the exception of 4 or 5 of them, can "safely" beat Trump because I think Trump in 2020 will be ready for the pickin'. He's been that much of a fucking disaster that unless whoever we nominate makes some huge mistakes, we should be able to mop the floor with him.

BTW, as far as the most unsafe candidates, I honestly think that would be Joe Biden and Kirsten Gillibrand. Biden is a walking gaffe machine, he makes promises he can't keep, and he comes off as that kind of politician from days long gone by that so many voters nowadays are sick and tired of. Just like in 2016, voters in 2020 will be thirsting for a fresh new voice, and we have a nice array of fresh new candidates who are not only capable but way more electable than Joe would be, IMO. In Gillibrand's case, I don't trust and I don't like her. At least with Biden, I do like him personally but not at all as a candidate.

[tiredtoo]

54. She is my second choice

I have liked her ever since i saw her in Kavanaugh hearings.

[BumRushDaShow]

60. "I think Tulsi Gabbard, ridiculed by many here based on nothing (but smear hit pieces)"

How long have you been lurking to see all these supposed "hit pieces"?

[BumRushDaShow]

66. So you've been "lurking" here for "months"

and decided to make an account to post about this? Why not have her as your candidate then?

She is a sitting Congresswoman from Hawai'i and would naturally have some attention but IMHO, not to the degree that you are asserting.

[BumRushDaShow]

69. So you cherry-picked an article

and then have claimed that "DU" has been posting nothing but "hit pieces" against Tulsi and ignore other supposed "hit pieces" against other candidates including your own chosen one?

[bluewater]

62. K&R

[USALiberal]

71. No possible way! Nt