I am going to say something very controversial for some...

[kentuck]

...but I do not want to see Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee in 2020. They have all had wonderful political careers but it is time for the Party to go with newer and younger faces, in my opinion.

We should respect what Joe, Hillary, and Bernie have done for the Party but it is time for them to step aside and give way to new leadership.

This is just my opinion.

[Demsrule86]

1. I completely agree...time for new blood.

[brush]

39. YES! YES! YES!

[Demsrule86]

201. We need to move into the future. We are progressive or liberal...

not a bad word! We are of the future...not the past like the Pukes who still cling to Reagan as their God.

[Demsrule86]

204. I think Sherrod Brown could help us in the rust belt and with maybe Rep. Joseph Kennedy III,

Rep. Castro or Rep. or Rep Becerra would be unstoppable.

[brush]

212. I like all of those you mentioned, and Newsom of California.

Also Gillibrand from New York.

We have plenty of younger potential candidates who will be more appealing than trump or Pence.

It's time.

[PatrickforO]

66. How about Julian or Joaquin Castro? Either of them would be

very good. Our base would sure come out and vote for one of them. I sure would.

[kentuck]

84. Only one sitting Congressman has ever been elected President.

As I recall, James Garfield?

[Warren DeMontague]

139. Do they actually have any positions on any issues?

I haven't seen any compelling reason to support either of them.

[PatrickforO]

157. Does Trump?

Seriously, here's Joaquin's link: https://castro.house.gov/issues

Julian is a little light...http://www.ontheissues.org/Julian_Castro.htm

But here's the thing: Even though Clinton won the popular vote, Trump is sitting in the WH. We also have Republicans in control of the US Congress, the Judiciary as well as 32 governorships, 33 state legislatures and God knows how many county and municipal governments, and school boards. So something's REALLY wrong.

Yeah, I know voter suppression has something to do with that, but it does us no good to merely sit in the corner and lament that. Or the fact our base doesn't come out. A good friend and big Dem in my city told me that we know our base will volunteer, be engaged and turn out for a minority male, because that's what we all did for Obama. He is the one who suggested the Castro brothers. Tactically, that makes sense, but I do agree with you that both are young and a bit light on issue stances.

Maybe there's another solution, and that is to learn to talk about kitchen table issues in language that hits home with people and causes them to get out and vote. I just addressed a group of young Dems who aspire to public office on this very issue.

For example, we just had the dreamhome of a young family explode in my state because there was an uncapped leaky natural gas line and the developer built over it, not knowing it was there. The home exploded, killing the entire family, yet the very next week Republicans in our state legislature overturned a bill that would have required gas companies to map these pipes.

In justifying this decision, Republicans spoke of 'job-killing regulations.' How many times, Warren, have you heard Republicans say these words. Never just 'regulations,' but always 'job killing regulations.' What if we begin speaking of life-saving guidelines?

And how did the GOP, which cannot defend ANY of its positions morally or intellectually, take the moral high ground? We have to take that back.

I was excited today, though, because this is a county Dem party office holding a class for young Dems aspiring to hold public office. The class was billed as 'things you need to know before entering office.' That is outstanding. I'm going to try and get something like this going in my own county because God knows, we need more bench strength.

[Warren DeMontague]

159. I agree that we ought to get better, and fast, at linguistic framing.

But I'm not sure the Castro gents bring a whole ton to the table.

If we're looking at Demographics and motivation from your point, I think someone like Cory Booker might be an excellent choice. I know some people have issues with the guy, but he's sharp as a tack and he's funny and photogenic AND as a bonus he has his head on straight vis a vis marijuana legalization, which is an issue our party can no longer afford to ignore at the national level.

[PatrickforO]

162. OK, Booker sounds pretty good.

I agree. Perhaps later on the Castros, as they grow in maturity.

Booker would be fine with me. Would that he were in the White House NOW instead of Trump!

[Paka]

187. Booker is corporate.

n/t

[Demsrule86]

202. No he is not...and quit calling Democrats names.

[Demsrule86]

200. I like both of them very much. I was hoping Hillary would choose one or the other

for her running mate...although I like Tim Kaine...fresh blood.

[Demsrule86]

237. I like both of them.

[bettyellen]

2. Totally agree and they should all say so- especially Biden and Sanders...

I don't want voters to hold out crazy hopes for years

[Bluepinky]

129. And Hillary should say she's not running either.

Both Hillary and Bernie are too controversial.

[bettyellen]

131. I thought she already did. Isn't that why people were going after her daughter?

I don't want any of those three running.

[Bluepinky]

177. She may have, I'm not sure.

I would like to see some new people run for office as well.

[Demsrule86]

203. She already did...and I hope Sen. Sanders understands the time has come and gone...

and if he runs, he helps Trump. I say the same thing about Biden...we need new people.

[loyalsister]

138. Exactly

They should do what they should have been doing for years- mentor younger candidates. The old guard has not been very responsible about retiring and looking to ensure democrats win future elections.

[virtualobserver]

3. It is time for someone who can not only win, but who has coattails

It remains to be seen if there are younger faces up to the task.

[RDANGELO]

4. I don't think age is that important.

The population has become very distrustful of the establishment. It needs to be someone who can run against the establishment.

[Demsrule86]

83. No running against the establishment!!!!! I am sick of the anti-establishment bull shit ...

No ant-establishment candidate has ever won an election...the last one didn't even make it out of the primary...Run on traditional Democratic policy ideas...health care, $`15.00 minimum, protect social security and medicare and medicaid, college tuition help etc.

[RDANGELO]

101. Trump was the anti establishment candidate. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

113. And look what it got us. How anyone can think putting a non-politician in the WH was a good

idea is beyond me.

I mean, would they want a goat herder to do your open-heart surgery??

[RDANGELO]

114. It doesn't have to be a non politician.

It could be a governor.

[BlueCaliDem]

125. Generally, that's been the case up until Barack Obama, who proved Senators can get'r done, too. eom

[crazycatlady]

236. Actually a governor is a good idea

If we really don't want to sacrifice a seat, look for one facing term limits.

[Tribalceltic]

117. And he did not win

The Election was hacked!

[Lotusflower70]

126. Well actually

He wasn't the anti-establishment candidate, he just gave the appearance of being an anti-establishment candidate. He perpetuated the myth of being the outsider that was going to change Washington and some people bought it.

[we can do it]

5. Fully agree.

[samnsara]

6. same here... i love hillary and joe and their wisdom is so important.. but...

..I'm 67 and I want a president younger than me!

[Stonepounder]

59. Absolutely!

I've got you beat by a year or two, but I certainly want someone younger than me. There are lots of really, really good Democrats out there, Mayors, Governors, Congressmen who need to be groomed and gotten ready for the primaries, so that we can have new faces rather than the old, tired ones.

As much as I love Joe, he's just too damn old for the burden. Look at the before and after pics of Obama. The Presidency (for someone who actually does the job) is a tremendous burden and takes someone with incredible stamina. Something that is old farts just don't have as much of anymore.

[delisen]

153. The belief that presidents age fast in office has no scientific

basis.

[Stonepounder]

156. Maybe no scientific basis,

But they sure appear to age more than 4 or 8 years during their time in office.

[SCantiGOP]

178. If I were going to be President

It would have worked best when I was 22. That was the last time I was certain I knew everything.

[mshasta]

7. New Blood with help of the old wisdom

Has to be young period.

please lets create a new democratic party.

[yardwork]

8. I agree. We need a new and younger voice and vision.

[Old Terp]

9. Agreed

we've had our time. Time to sit back (or stand up and fight) and let the next generation take the lead. There are some really good people out there that could use the exposure.

[MineralMan]

10. I agree with you, and posted a similar OP some time ago

to that effect.

Time for a change of generations in DC. And I say that as a 71 year old geezer.

[Eliot Rosewater]

13. As long as they win, which is harder when certain folks work overtime to divide the

party.

[MineralMan]

16. Well, I'm hopeful that we learned something from 2016.

If we didn't, all is pretty much lost anyhow. Seriously.

[underthematrix]

11. I want a Kennedy

[safeinOhio]

21. Caroline Kennedy

would be fine with me.

[kentuck]

26. Someone like a young governor would be better.

There should be some executive experience if possible.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

48. She's not enough of an extrovert. You need an outgoing personality.

[Demsrule86]

85. I like her but she is an awful candidate... Joe Kennedy in the House...

Robert Kennedy's grandson.

[smirkymonkey]

92. No, she's a lovely woman, but has no charisma and lacks

the demeanor of a head of state. Besides, I don't think she would want it. Her son, on the other hand, is very promising for a run in the future. Perhaps 2028.

[world wide wally]

34. I am hoping for s Joseph Kennedy III and Sherod Brown ticket right now

[Maynar]

108. This.

nt

[annabanana]

135. That sounds really good! . . . .n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

141. We need someone with an actual clue on cannabis legalization.

I'm not supporting anyone who doesn't gel with where this country, particularly those of us out west, are. I don't care what his last name is.

[kentuck]

146. Peripheral issue.

50/50 at best.

Democrats lose on close issues because of corporate media.

[Warren DeMontague]

150. No, see, actually it isn't.

We take it real fucking seriously out here, and there is zero reason to run any more prohibitionists. Period. End of fucking story.

[kentuck]

154. If it is the end of the f'ing story....?

I guess there is no debate?

[Warren DeMontague]

155. Nope, not really.

Although one hopes the red-haired Kennedy kid has updated his position now that the voters of his own state have spoken decisively on the matter.

[underthematrix]

170. BINGO! Joe Kennedy III

Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Bradical79]

74. An actual Kennedy?

Or do you mean someone like JFK?

[Warren DeMontague]

140. why?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

149. "a Kennedy"? Dynasty much? No more dynasties, please. If you can't be specific, please don't bother.

[AngryAmish]

224. Here you go

https://goo.gl/images/XiVPdH

[AtheistCrusader]

245. Pass. No political aristocracies for me, thanks.

[Eliot Rosewater]

12. I wanna see someone who can overcome russian and gop cheating and win

dont care who it is.

did we learn our lesson about "outsider, non government type?"

hope so

[yallerdawg]

14. Someone like a Kennedy...

a Bill Clinton, a Barack Obama.

That young Jimmy Carter.

[SpankMe]

15. I absolutely agree

The Nazi - excuse me - Republican party has filled their ranks with younger types. From the supreme court to Congress, their whole team is 40s and 50s types. Dems are all very old - From the liberal Supremes to U.S. Senators (Feinstein's pushing 80) we are set up to continue losing for still another political generation. We need dynamic, progressive non-oldsters to get in to office. Nothing's more dangerous than a young conservative.

[dalton99a]

17. Love them all, but NO.

[emulatorloo]

18. Hillary's not running. Bernie won't say. Don't know about Biden.

Not sure what Biden's point was the other day that he was a better candidate, as he is the one who chose not to run. (With very good reason). But I doubt he'll run in 2020.

Bernie's being a bit coy about it now, but I trust him and expect he'll think it over and step aside

I think most DU'ers are ready for new candidates so don't worry about being too controversial.

Recommending.

[virtualobserver]

33. you are kidding yourself about Hillary

[emulatorloo]

49. Time will tell I guess.

Everything I've seen from her indicates she's done running for President. She's not going away though totally cuz that is not who she is. Hence the new action committee to get Dems elected. Just like Bernie.

[virtualobserver]

70. It is too early for either of them to say that they are.....

The Republican party will be in such a shambles in a couple of years, so barring any health issues, neither of them will be able to resist.

[bettyellen]

144. I've only seen people who hate her float this idea- same people who were so

Sure she'd "start a war with Russia"-more divisive crap.

[virtualobserver]

147. imagining that Hillary will run for President is not divisive.....

Why wouldn't she?

[bettyellen]

151. I'm saying I've really only seen people who dislike her floating the idea- trying to be divisive ...

They love to have a punching bag. Rile up Dems to argue about it.

Hope that's clearer.

[virtualobserver]

152. It is clearer.

My view is that watching Trump crash and burn in just 4 months had to get her attention.


I don't see anyone else out there for the mainstream slot. Biden had his chance as sitting VP. Former VP does not have the same juice.

I see more than one progressive option, but I doubt that more than one of them will run.

[AtheistCrusader]

246. She said she wouldn't on April 6th.

Reported planet-wide.

[virtualobserver]

247. she said that she didn't think she would....she has said that in previous years as well

it wasn't definitive.

[stevenleser]

219. Yep, they are not fooling anyone. nt

[Demsrule86]

89. I think based on his actions, Sen. Sanders does plan to run...and I don't think he can do it as a

Democrat...we just can't have it...to important to win this race. My guess is he would be out quickly anyway. There is a general feeling that we need a fresh face.

[NightWatcher]

19. Let's pick a fresh face who doesn't already have a ton of enemies

Just a crazy suggestion but it worked for us in 2008.

[FarPoint]

20. Me too.

Let us say thank you and evolve...I actually had discussed this a few days ago with my daughter...I love them but we need a leader to emerge from this tRump enema flush.

[Dem_4_Life]

22. Completely agree

It's time to start fresh with the new generation of Democratic leaders.

[safeinOhio]

23. Fresh face would be ok, but

Repeal the 22nd Amendment. I know of a proven leader.

[LakeArenal]

24. There are many worthy possibilities..

More everyday. Schiff, Castro Brothers, Warren, Yates, Franken, lots. But I don't want any declarations now.. Just makes people a target for the right. They start digging on not just a candidate but whole families.. Whip up fake news and scandals... Lies that keep being repeated as headlines.. Before you know it... BENGAHZI EMAILS HUMAN TRAFFICING PIZZA...

So let them keep going after Bernie, Clintons and Biden... It's all old news.

[bucolic_frolic]

44. They like the 'ZZZ' sounds in their scandal labels

Benghazi, emails, pizza

[Heartstrings]

194. Agree 100%

Need to focus, but not be too concentrated on the "possibles" yet...would love to see a Franken/Joe Kennedy or Schiff ticket, but it's way too early to make them targets....

[Yavin4]

25. If we don't re-take the congress in 2018, there won't be a 2020 election

This is how the right wing wins and consolidates power. They focus on EVERY election, not just the presidency.

[LakeArenal]

27. True that.

[demmiblue]

30. +1

[NoMoreRepugs]

71. Spot on Yavin4 -

it's a herculean effort to overcome voter suppression, voting machines and Rethug controlled voter counts but the fate of the Republic relies on it IMO.

[uponit7771]

88. +1

[Jake Stern]

132. They will run candidates for low profile offices like Director of Sanitation

They will put up a candidate for every open seat on the School Board.

This is how they are able to shape policy. All it takes is for say 3 slots on a 5 member board to be filled by Republicans for them to push vouchers, attempt curriculum changes and launch efforts to bounce teachers and admins that are "too liberal".

[DFW]

28. Hardly controversial, and not even new. Your opipnion is shared, and not just by anonymous bloggers

Howard Dean has been saying this (as in to me, in person) ever since the inauguration of Barack Obama. He only got behind Hillary last time because no new young and exciting star (like Obama, for example) showed up to take the reins. I don't think the field will be so barren next time. Unless the Republicans come up with someone a little more inspiring (Ted Cruz ain't it, and neither will Trump be), the next President will be a Democrat, so expect the next Democratic primary to be spirited (that's polite speak for "bloody&quot .

Howard said that if it were up to him, he'd exclude candidates over the age of 50. He also knows it's not up to him, but some people still listen to what he has to say.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

100. I'm a little worried we're going to have our very own clown car

Even if Hillary were to run again, she would be paid no deference this time, those who sat out 2016 to avoid a repeat of Spring 2008 wouldn't do so again. So right off the bat we're probably going to have half a dozen serious candidates. But I suspect we're also going to suffer just as many militant single-issue fringe candidates that are unlikely to be helpful to anyone other than Fox News. So basically instead of one Bernie we might very well have five or six of them.

[DFW]

109. It wouldn't be the first time we blew a sure thing

However, if the last two elections are any indication, the other side might try for a hat trick in that respect. Enough of the same morons are certainly around to make for a hilarious comedy re-run.

It would be unfortunate if we imitated them, but never underestimate the power of an ego combined with a little charisma. Hillary won't be part of it. I believe her when she says she's had enough.

If, as you speculate, we have not one Bernie but five or six, we will indeed be the clown car and deserve (again) our fate. For that matter, one was more than enough last time.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

181. I don't think we have learned anything from the past election, or we learned the wrong things

We are going to be re-fighting the 2016 campaign for a generation whether we like it or not. Urbane centrism vs. Racially charged populism.

The resistance to any introspection what-so-ever is unsettling, finding comfort in a conspiracy theory is naturally cathartic but it isn't going to lead to the right candidate running the right campaign. The "if not for those dastardly Russians" reasoning seems to have vindicated a candidate and campaign that just weren't nationally competitive.

I had an interesting conversation with my father shortly before the election. My dad doesn't like the Clintons in general (he calls them the "The Trailer Park Hill-Billy Bears&quot but believed none the less that Hillary would win. The thing that distressed him about Trump was that Trump had rehabilitated a strategy the Republicans had been too polite to use for decades. So even if Trump went down to a crushing defeat Trumpism would be back attached to an affable southern governor, possibly female, who might not be as easily defeated as Trump should have been.

[demmiblue]

29. I don't think there is any way Clinton would put her hat in after losing to Trump.

And, yes, it is time for all of them to step aside in terms of Presidential aspirations.

[shadowmayor]

31. Keep your eyes on California

Gavin Newsom will be 54 in 2021.

[nbsmom]

35. Kamala Harris OR Gavin Newsom

Or anyone under 50 who's from somewhere other than NY or D.C.

[flibbitygiblets]

169. Yes! Gavin! Gavin! Gavin!

He is smart, young, has zero scandals, and don't underestimate the power of good looks. People love that.

[mchill]

61. Hard to avert one's eyes

Ok, seriously, the fact that he is extremely good looking does not hurt (many Americans ARE superficial), but he would also make a great leader.

[StevieM]

184. I can't see Newsom turning around and running for president right after winning election

as California's governor.

[spanone]

32. K&R...Agreed.

[bucolic_frolic]

36. We have a thin bench

but it will expand after 2018

[crazycatlady]

239. It needs to expand at the local level

If you want a younger bench, donate to the organization Run for Something, which trains Democrats under 35 to run for office (at the local level).

If you want to get more women elected, donate to an organization like Emily's List. Some states have an equivalent (NY has an organization called Eleanor's Legacy that is essentially the same thing, but at the state and local level in NY).

[Generic Brad]

37. I don't consider that controversial at all

I agree with you completely.

[kimbutgar]

38. I agree we need new blood and voices to speak for the Democratic Party in 2020

Hillary has lost twice now, Bernie and Biden are too old. Out with the old and into the new.

[Turbineguy]

40. They need to find somebody

and keep them under wraps so that the right-wing-hate-machine does not have sufficient time to invent scandals.

[kentuck]

45. Very important point.

[dalton99a]

52. I believe this person will throw things back in their face - hard

[manicraven]

41. Agree! Thinking of France and Canada... We need new and younger, too, but with intelligence.

tRump was new to politics (though he meddled), but he lacks intelligence, knowledge, decency, ethics, morals, values, empathy, an attention span, etc., and is mentally ill (IMHO). I appreciate HRC, Biden, Sanders, but it's time for someone else.

[Mrs. Overall]

42. I respect all three of them, but you are absolutely correct--we need someone younger

with innovative ideas.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

43. Not controversial at all.

All those who keep on gushing why we should run one of them again are deluding themselves.

We absolutely need new, young people. Someone who has a track record in politics. So no Caroline Kennedy, who did so very badly in her one aborted attempt to run for office that I'm pretty sure she'll never consider running again. Or any other public figure, like Michelle Obama who has made it quite clear she has zero interest in running for anything.

We should really not look at anyone who will be at least 60 in 2020.

I'm 68, and while I'm a lot healthier and have more stamina than most people my age, I'm still 68. We all slow down as we get older, and we all lose mental sharpness. The modern Presidency is not a job for a senior citizen.

By continuing to put forth only older Democrats for consideration, the party is in the process of becoming somewhat like a third world dictatorship, where one man runs the country for forty years, and when he dies there's no one to step in with any competence to run things.

I am NOT comparing any of the above named with any third world dictatorship, only pointing out the very real danger in locking younger people out of the power chain.

[delisen]

91. Haven't seen anyone in danger of being locked out. Candidates

put themselves forth in modern times. Nobody is stopping them.

Maybe FDR should not have run for that third term especially since his health was failing-I don't know

Personally I hope Angela Merkel wins her third term.

[DonViejo]

46. To paraphrase a Democratic President...

it's time to pass the torch to a new generation.

[Eyeball_Kid]

47. I shocked a good friend yesterday by saying the near-identical thing.

We need young, resilient folks with mental AND physical stamina. There are plenty who have good leadership skills right here, among us. We have younger, seasoned politicians who are capable. The guard needs to change.

[Ken Burch]

50. That's what I've been trying to say.

I don't think Bernie should run and doubt HRC would, but there are some who take at statement even close to the idea that she shouldn't run as an attack on her.


We need a different generation and a clear break from the existing way the party does things...because November proves that way doesn't work.

We need renewal from below and, for the first time in years, a real effort to actually try to rejuvenate the Democratic party on the state and local level.

We need, I think, a program that combines the antiracist positions the Clinton campaign emphasized(and the Sanders campaign shared but didn't communicate about well) with the economic justice emphasis and the critique of the corporate role in politics the Sanders campaign brought to the discussion.

And obviously, we also need a less toxic way of discussing all of the above then was managed in 2016.

[ewagner]

51. Not controversial at all...

at least in my opinion....

We need new leadership...period

[nini]

53. That's not controversial..it's reality

What we are going through now will give the opportunity for those 'newbies' to rise to the top. I like Franken and Schiff myself, but will get behind any worthy candidate.

[Lisa0825]

54. ITA. nt

[Kablooie]

55. Yes! Time to look forwards, not backwards.

[ginnyinWI]

56. let the older ones have key cabinet posts.

Like Joe Biden for Sec-State.

I have no idea who I'd like to see run for Prez. Obama popped up; maybe someone else as good will.

[PufPuf23]

57. Completely agree. Time to move on. nt.

[Honeycombe8]

58. I agree. Fresh blood. Someone younger, fresh outlook. A change.

And no one with baggage.

[mountain grammy]

60. Completely agree and the grass roots are sprouting.

from DU earlier today:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029093411

[bitterross]

62. Given the last election I'm not sure how anyone can disagree

Really, it only makes sense to put someone new out there. How else can we even begin to appeal to the "drain the swamp" and "ALL the establishment politicians are the same" arguments?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

63. It needs to be someone likeable with personality. It goes without saying that they will be knowled-

-geable and intelligent if they are Dem. They have to be able to appeal to dumbasses, let's face it. If they act "too smart" and come off as an elitist - heaven forbid. Sad to say but you can't sound "too intellectual."

[Bucky]

134. Jimmy Kimmel for president

[MurrayDelph]

64. My preferences among the politicians I've seen

would be (in no particular order):


Jeff Merkley
Sherrod Brown
Sheldon Whitehouse
Adam Schiff


If only Ted Lieu had been born in this country, he'd be on my list as well.

[Rebl2]

165. Like

your list. Especially like Adam Schiff.

[proud patriot]

65. I agree

[47of74]

67. Regardless of age

We damn well need some hard, pipe hitting liberals. The milquetoast set in the Democratic party that thought the Christofacists could be reasoned with or calmly rebutted with facts is why we got the Orange Fornicate Face and the GOP in power now. We need people who aren't going to genuflect in front of Republicans or get mad when other people refuse to do that either. We need people who are going to stand up to the GOP and the Christofacists. We need people who are going to realize that guys like Sean Hannity and Bill-O-the-Clown are going to call them names no matter what so they might as well give those assholes real reasons to despise them.

[Dustlawyer]

68. I will vote for the candidate that best represents my interests!

[Demsrule86]

205. Really? I always vote for the Democrat.

If you are a progressive ...they are the only ones who can enable a progressive agenda...among Democrats, I also consider if a candidate can win...no matter how much I like a candidate if he/she can't win, I won't vote for him/her.

[kentuck]

208. "Are you for more taxcuts for the wealthy...?"

...is a good question.

[Demsrule86]

234. I always vote for the Dem...and reason we are in this mess has much to do with purity tests and a

lack of party loyalty...you can have a minority of the most perfect Democrats ever seen...why they could be Roosevelt clones and it matters not if you are in the minority...all those folks opining about 'corporate' Democrats and not voting for the only Democrat who could stop Trump (Clinton) will live with consequences that will last for decades with the courts taking a rightward swing...and now people want to take our chances of winning back the house and /or the senate...and instead of an all out effort ...they waste time and money primarying sitting Democrats? This helps Trump. It means we will never get single payer, tuition reform and a $15.00 Minimum...never.

[Dustlawyer]

213. In a Primary they are usually all Democrats considering Republicans do not represent my

interests. Therefore i vote for the one that best represents my interests. In the General I vote for the Democrat because they are the only one left who represents my interests.

[Demsrule86]

233. If a seat is democratically held...I do not vote for a primary challenger unless

the sitting Dem was accused of wrongdoing and it it very likely true, The Dem is anti-choice in an area where a pro-choice candidate could win and the sitting Dem has less of a change to win then the primary challenger...winning is the only thing that allows a progressive agenda to move forward...I do not support primarying Democrats for purity reasons...I would never call for a primary even against a anti-choice Democrat unless said Democrat voted against choice...as Stupak did and the guy in Virginia Perriello did... Surprisingly Perriello was endorsed by both Sen Sanders and Sen. Warren...so go figure...when the anti - Democratic organizations primary Democrats in California and say Massachusetts or even West Virginia....I block them and never send them a dime...they cause harm to our chances of winning and thus to our chances of getting a Democratic agenda passed.

[Demsrule86]

235. And this is why Democrats cant' have nice things...like single payer.

You go for the incumbent...incumbents almost always win..and winning is what we need...and to primary Manchin or Pelosi is foolish. I don't care how much a candidate 'represents your issues' if he/she loses...the Republican who wins will hurt you way more than the sitting Democrat who had a much better chance of winning. Primarying sitting Democrats is a waste of money unless there is criminality or for some other really good reason.

[Dustlawyer]

242. No, I think it's because the DNC knows they can count on

Many to blindly adhere to whatever the Party wants to push instead of haveing to be responsive to what we want and need! That is why they can protect Wall Street and allow them to continue to defraud Americans because BOTH Party's have their back.

Blind allegiance never get's what you want, it gets what they want. In your view the tail should wag the dog, not the other way around. They are OUR REPRESENTATIVES so we must later email know what we want and they should act accordingly. Currently they don'the because they don-think have to.

What good is winning if you still lose?

[Demsrule86]

243. I wish...if that were the case we would have won in 2000, 2004, 2010 and 2012 and the

the worst of them all...2016...where we through our chance at a Democratic majority Supreme court under the bus...We would have single payer by now or would have at lease reduced the age in Medicare...and millions of Americans would not be a risk from Trumpcare...they will die if bill similar to this goes through. Until the Democrats discover party loyalty, the GOP will continue to advance their agenda and we will watch as they dismantle all we have achieved...Democrat are the only means of advancing a progressive agenda...Green's like Stein...are born to help us lose. They should change their name-green they are not...Stein threw the environment under the bus in 16 as well as healthcare and the courts.

[Greybnk48]

69. I agree 100%!

We need a fresh face, like Obama was. Smart, vibrant, exciting.

[hlthe2b]

72. I honestly don't think that will even be an issue... n/t

[TNNurse]

73. I agree

I am nearly 68. I do not think Warren would or should run. I would love to see a fresh exciting face.

Having said that I would not be against Al Franken who was born 2 years after me, he has wisdom and energy.

[SergeStorms]

75. I love them all dearly.....

and being about the same age as all of them, I have to agree with you 100%. It's time for the torch to be passed to a new generation of Democrats, but they MUST BE DEMOCRATS, not some perverted hybrid leaning more to the right for "the sake of convenience".


If I could hand-pick someone.......Al Franken. Not MUCH younger than the others, but enough to have some fresh ideas.

[Mountain Mule]

76. Affirmative!

Let us go forward with younger leaders with inspiration from the best of the old(er).

[OldRedneck]

77. Amen.

Same thing going on here in Virginia.

Democrats will nominate a candidate for governor -- primary election June 13, general election November 7.

Our choices are:

-- Ralph Northam. State senator; now Lt Governor. He has paid his dues, come up through the party, and for a long time was the anointed candidate.

-- Tom Perriello. Knocked off a long-time hardcore conservative in a rural Congressional district. Then, when he voted for the ACA, he was swept out in the 2010 Tea Party victory. Younger that Northam, has not "paid his dues" -- but he's leading in the polls.

I've already voted absentee and I voted for the young guy. It's time to shake things up.

[crazycatlady]

240. NJ is the same way

We have four candidates for governor.

Phil Murphy-- Obama ambassador to Germany. Before that a Goldman Sachs guy. Been endorsed by all 21 county parties (means more in NJ than most states). Current frontrunner and by far raised the most money (and self-funded).

Jim Johnson--- former federal prosecutor known for going after white-collar crime. Also spent his legal career doing things like protecting the right to vote and social justice issues.

John Wisniewski-- Current assemblyman, former NJ Dems chair. Chair of the transportation committee so made a name for himself during Bridgegate. Only 'establishment' politician to endorse Bernie in the primary last yer and running on that. (FTR Bernie's son Levi has been campaigning with Phil Murphy). Running on taking back NJ for the middle class.

Ray Lesniak. Current state senator. (36 year career in Trenton in both houses of the legislature). Socially progressive but will support business tax breaks.


I've already voted. As I said before, Murphy is currently the frontrunner, but I'm skeptical of his Goldman Sachs ties because our last Goldman Sachs governor wasn't that good. But I can live with all of them.

AS far as their age goes-- all 50s-60s.

[Blue Ridge Virginia]

78. Trudeau and Macron set a good example

but when I look for a Democrat in the 35-45 range the only promising face seems to be the latest Kennedy

[crazycatlady]

241. There's two more I can think of

However, they're both in too red a state to really advance their careers.

Jason Kander
Mayor Pete (I can't spell or say his last name). The young guy from IN who ran for DNC chair).

[RKP5637]

79. Agree!!! n/t

[Bradical79]

80. Age matters

I'd rather not elect a candidate who may die of old age during their second term, if not their first.

Biden and Sanders would be in their 80s during their first term, and while Clinton is a few years younger than the other two, she's still pretty up there. I also don't think an older Clinton will do much to inspire the greater turnout we'd like.

[luvMIdog]

81. I agree 100 %

[Amaryllis]

82. Schiff, Swalwell, Yates

[Warpy]

86. I don't want a gerontocracy, either

In fact, I see it as a liability after the doddering Dolt.

Just let him or her be representative of party values.

[sellitman]

87. Al Franken / Joe Kennedy

[Lifelong Protester]

90. I agree, and I'm an 'oldster'.

We need a fresh face, someone not in my generation.

[smirkymonkey]

93. I agree. I admire all of them for the service they have given this country, but

we need new talent. The republicans have spent too many years tarnishing their legacies (mostly lies and propaganda) and we need someone to take them by surprise.

[marlakay]

94. You are not the only one I fully agree

have been saying the same thing and I am big Bernie person.

I want young fresh fighting for the people's best interests person male or female. To me its more about who can win while still holding the most amount of integrity.

[L. Coyote]

95. You forgot the YUUUGE caveat, unless

one of them is President then!

[stevil]

96. Tim Ryan

So obviously I agree.

[WinkyDink]

97. Works for me!

[TheFrenchRazor]

98. right, because we want to attract those superficial, emotion-based voters... not. nt

[Lil Missy]

99. I'll vote for the most qualified, regardless of who wins the personality contest.

[NurseJackie]

106. The cult of personality can be intoxicating for many...

... and so much so that more qualified candidates are overrun and/or ignored.

-----
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

[bronxiteforever]

102. Agree wholeheartedly.

[aquamarina]

103. I totally agree.

Time for new blood.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

104. I don't know how we take the nation's temperature in the age of alt facts.

They openly promote alt facts, news, and promote a new civil war. It's going to take a great candidate to reach across and expose as well as inspire. Age shouldn't matter.

[Dorn]

105. This title is click bait: not controversial at all. Not contra at all, simply sensible.

[GeorgeGist]

107. This boomer agrees.

[underpants]

110. Although I knew Hillary was going to be tha nominee I always thought O'Malley was an easier sell

Mayor Governor and a very impressive guy.

[WestSeattle2]

119. Likewise. I was surprised he didn't do better. If I recall correctly, even

Bill Clinton identified him as a serious threat to Hillary's aspirations, back in the late 1990's.

[classykaren]

111. Van Jones

[ananda]

112. Agree

Franken and Warren look very good to me!

[riversedge]

115. Hillary already said no to future runs. She has turned over her campaign voter lists to the DNC.

[tarheelsunc]

116. Hmm. Thought Democrats were above ageism. Guess not.

Any of those three would be a great nominee and a great president. If you would reject them all solely because of their age, then that's a shame.

[WestSeattle2]

121. There is evidence indicating Ronald Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer's

in his second term. That is what put the age issue on the radar screens of many American voters, across the political spectrum.

[disambiguation]

124. Nope, guess not.

I'm a boomer (white guy) who supported Bernie but I would also like to have some Democratic candidates under 50 running for president this time. And I'm not above sexism either. In the primary, all things being equal and if I liked both candidates equally, I'd vote for the woman. It's time for the right woman to be president. In the primaries, I vote for the candidate I want representing the party. In the general election, I vote for the party I want running the country so I was happy to vote for Hillary in the general.

[Hortensis]

218. Hear, hear. Welcome to DU, Disambiguation.

[Hortensis]

196. Well, when upset, a lot of people reject the old and look for

something new, anything new, and these are upsetting times.

As for considering age, let's face it, those three ARE getting worrisomely old for a real killer of a job with a long contract.

That said, people as qualified as Hillary made herself are extremely rare. I believe we should set our standard high, and one thing she did for us in 2016, and certainly Obama before, is set proper standards for character and ability.

And a real advantage for us with people who have run for president before is that their campaigns and protracted exposure give the nation important insights into their character and ability.

[WestSeattle2]

118. Here, Here! I could not possibly agree more. I remember when I

was younger, and got so impatient for the WW II generation of pols to move on. I was absolutely pumped when Bill Clinton won. FINALLY, someone I could relate to. I have no doubt that most Americans in their 20's, 30's and 40's feel the same way I did.

As for current pols "of a certain age", it's always best to leave the game at the peak of your performance. Leave them wanting more. Make way for the next generation leaders! Pass the baton.

[jb5150]

120. Why has no one mentioned ...

Elizabeth Warren

[kentuck]

122. Pocahontas?

[Blue_true]

161. Let Trump try that with her as his opponent, she will take it to him.

Warren is the only older Democrat that I think has the energy and stamina for an Obama style campaign. I don't want to see someone who spends lots of time off the campaign trail.

[seta1950]

123. Yes

How about congressman Schiff,former federal prosecutor smart , levelheaded, knows the law.

[Lotusflower70]

127. That's not controversial

It has been said before and I agree. Glad it is being said again. I would love it if my Senator Franken would run. I would also love it if Joe Kennedy III ran. It's going to be interesting to see who runs.

[femmocrat]

128. I agree with you.

We need someone new. Someone like Obama! LOL

[Mercurian]

130. Agreed

I don't want to see Hillary as this century's William Jennings Bryan. And as much as I like Sen. Sanders, I have serious doubts about his ability to govern. Let them both go.

[Bucky]

133. If we don't nominate Walter Mondale in 2020, I refuse to vote

[dalton99a]

190. Dukakis is the man.

[doodsaq]

136. Agree

Should have been done in 2016.

[Warren DeMontague]

137. No Joe, No Hillary, No Bernie. 100% Agreement. No re-hash.

If we absolutely must re-hash or give "second chances", I want Al Gore.

[Warren DeMontague]

142. Newsom. Warren. Booker. Harris. Buttigeig. Franken. Inslee.

to name a few.

[cstanleytech]

173. If that means risking a senate seat I would say no. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

191. I doubt we'd need to worry too much about Senate seats in CA or NJ

And I don't think we'd need to worry about the Governor's mansion in CA or WA, either.

[cstanleytech]

195. Ya well alot of people also thought we didnt need to worry about Trump becoming President either. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

198. Sure, but thats not the same thing.

I mean, people said we couldnt go to the moon. People said Jefferson Starship should keep making albums. People say a lot of stuff.

The reality is, the Senate is a logical place to look for candidates for President. Also, a senator's replacement is picked by the state's governor, so what you want is a state with a (D) Governor. This is what would have happened with Kaine's seat.

NJ may have a Democratic Governor by 2020-- and California is definitely not likely to have a Republican Governor next time around.

[Binkie The Clown]

143. I agree. n/t

[Initech]

145. I agree 110%!!!

If we want to take back our country from these traitorous fucking scumbags, we need some fresh talent, and we can't have anyone tying to the previous administrations. We need new and scandal free.

[Lazy Daisy]

148. I agree with you

Although they should stay in the spot light exciting the base, bringing in new voters. They are our foundation.

[SCantiGOP]

158. Not controversial at all

They should all be disqualified by age.
In my state, Supreme Court justices leave office the day they turn 72. I think that is reasonable.
Before I am accused of agism, I will point out that I am 66 years old, and realize that I have neither the endurance or ability to learn new systems and adapt quickly that I did even 20 years ago.

[Rebl2]

166. They need to do

that at the federal level also.

[Blue_true]

160. I agree. You do better with younger Presidential candidates. nt

[riderinthestorm]

163. Yup. +1 nt

[theophilus]

164. Yup, yup. Time to go back to the Future.

I favor, right now, Kennedy/Castro 2020.

Joe III/Either One

[joanbarnes]

167. I like Caroline Kennedy and Elizabeth Warren. (and Bernie)

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

168. I agree!

and I hope the party will have moved to the left in the interim....

[WestCoastDem42]

171. Yup!

Time for some new blood. And there are some good ones stepping up it seems to me.

[cstanleytech]

172. I think its time to find someone a bit younger than those in order to

have the next candidate stand out as different as Trump as possible and hopefully one that can energize the Democratic base and galvanize the moderates to vote for as well.

[ZX86]

174. I vote on issues only!

No artificial qualifiers. New faces don't guarantee universal health care. New blood won't guarantee $15 minimum wage. A new generation doesn't guarantee closing massive tax avoidance schemes for the rich.

I'm not interested political gimmicks, DC beltway conventional wisdom, or any other made up excuse to disqualify any candidate that best represents my interests. I don't care if you're Black or White, male or female, able or disabled, old or young.

I'm not interested in finding pretty faces to "sell" voters on the Democratic Party. I'm interested in solid policy positions that benefit working people and those with less. If you have a quality product you don't need a pretty face to sell it.

This "fresh faces" attitude reminds of another political gimmick. Term limits. Let's get rid of qualified, experienced, and popular representatives for reasons having nothing to do with the quality of their work. We're too lazy or cowardly to face entrenched political dynasties propped up by wealth and privilege so let's make up some arbitrary disqualifier that doesn't address the core problem. Let's just make up a rule that makes the revolving door between legislators and Wall St. spin faster.

We are living in dangerous times. Making up silly reasons to not vote for candidates that best represents our interests is well, silly.

[kentuck]

176. I gave my opinion....

You're entitled to yours.

[NCTraveler]

175. What I do want to see...

Is all three of them working hard for our candidate.

[CBHagman]

179. I've seen this sentiment so often online that I'm tempted to remove my eyes with a melon baller...

...because litmus tests based on birth date, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation or lack thereof aren't the answer to shaping public discourse and moving the United States to a more compassionate, decent society. We can't afford to keep nice long lists of people who don't make the cutoff for one reason or other.

And on top of that, leadership is dependent on so much more than whether candidate X excites one element of the base. You aren't going to get a charismatic Barack Obama or John F. Kennedy every time out, and in fact you shouldn't.

I've heard a lot of denigration lately of leaders whose service to progressive causes is measured not only in years but half centuries, and from people who've neither kept a caucus united or put their lives on the line for voting rights.

In fact all I want to retire is the damn political ice floe people keep threatening to use. What people accomplish with persistence and resilience, including during years of setbacks and outright defeats, matters more than the birth year on their passports.

[Progressive dog]

180. I want to see the best qualified Democrat

run for President in 2020. In the meantime, newer and younger faces can seek offices that will be available.
I won't even think about the Democratic nominee for President until I know who is actually running.

[Mike Nelson]

182. I have no...

...idea what 2020 will look like, from now. Joe Biden has never run well nationally, but there's always hope! Hillary Clinton's career is far from over - while Trump was elected, she won the last contest, and it wasn't close (like Gore/bush). She's a proven vote-getter and winner. Bernie Sanders is also not retiring. He hasn't shown any signs of age! Sadly, he's not a Democrat anymore... and there are a lot of younger Democrats, too! I hope to see several of them run in 2020!

[joanbarnes]

183. Dwayne Johnson

[nini]

189. with Tom Hanks

[Cosmocat]

210. This isn't a joke

America 2017 ...

[StevieM]

185. I am liking Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington. (eom)

[busterbrown]

186. Fuck Yea.. Obvious...We need Young Blood.

Harris, Castro, Kennedy...and more.. Please add to the list.. Lets fucking move forward!

Oh yeah..Warren of course!

[Knicks007]

188. 100% agree

no brainer. But WHO?

[OldSchoolLiberal]

192. I actually think Biden would be good.

We need a pair of safe hands in these times.

[SkyDaddy7]

193. I would like to see...

Gavin Newsome! However, that might be too early for him. I know he said he did not want to be POTUS but they all say that.

We will see.

[BlueJac]

197. Indeed.......

time to move on!

[dlk]

199. Before We Get to 2020

Although it's important to plan ahead, first things first. At the present rate, there may not be a United States of America as we know it by 2020. Save the ageism and dissing the experienced Dems for later.

[Chemisse]

206. Totally agree. Time for new blood and a fresh-looking future.

Both Clinton and Sanders are divisive within the Dem Party. I'm not blaming either, but when their names are thrown out, some people see red and lots of angry talk results.

We need some candidates that we can embrace, and that will attract swing voters.

[Miles Archer]

207. I acknowledge that might be controversial for some, but not for me

And yes, not acknowledging the people you have named as a potential candidate is not a show of disrespect for their service.

There's a bitter pill that we need to swallow before 2020.

We KNOW...even if we ONLY use the "Trump Administration" as an example, or the continued tenure of a sub-human, conscience-lacking, self-serving worm or a human being like Paul Ryan...that politics is often about false promises, public image, and telling the "public" whatever it needs to hear to cast their votes.

A book could be written right inside of this thread about what the "Trump Campaign" did to speak directly to the voters that became its "base." We know that many in the "base" are becoming disillusioned (even though, surprisingly, some are still rabid in their support).

We need to identify and develop a candidate who can reach those same voters with something of substance, rather than false promises.

And obviously, we're not going to choose a candidate who's going to promise to build a big, beautiful wall that Mexico will pay for,

The hardcore "base" of Trump voters will just have to cast a second vote for Trump (assuming he defies the odds and is up for re-election in 2020), Pence (God help us all), Ryan (God REALLY help us all), or whatever abomination becomes the 2020 "Republican PResidential Candidate."

WE NEED TO AGGRESSIVELY WIN FAVOR AMONG EVERYONE ELSE. We're not going to win 100% of Trump's "base." They are still going to be white supremacists and "low information voters" (or whatever the appropriate term is for people who get their news exclusively from Fox & Friends).

We need somebody new. Not "new" in the sense that they're not out there right now, holding public office. "New" in the sense that they are going to have to be solution-centric, they are going to have to speak directly to the "disenfranchised" (without, as I said, pandering to the racists and "nut jobs" in the red hats who won't listen anyway).

That's a TALL order. We need a new Barack Obama. I don't mean someone who looks like him, talks like him, thinks like him. We need someone who can connect with the American voter as powerfully as he did when he ran for his first term.

I have no idea who that person might be.

But that's the person we need.

[kentuck]

214. Well said!

And I think we should be able to find a good independent Democrat to run against Paul Ryan.

[Freedomofspeech]

209. You are absolutely right!

[VOX]

211. AGREED. The situation has changed, and so must the candidates.

It's as if last year was 30 years ago. Upgrade!

[linnknee]

215. Agree

We wish them the best especially Hillary who really thought she was fighting to win the presidency and then we find out all the obstacles. I really and truly believe this election was stolen in various ways from her and no matter what candidate we would have put up ASSHOLE WAS ASSISTED AND WOULD HAVE PREVAILED.

[wildeyed]

216. 100% agree.

We need fresh faces.

[Justice]

217. 1000 agree. Hillary has already said that.

[kpete]

220. at 65,

I am tired of my generation's leadership

The 60's had given me so much hope

These, days, I think we should stick to Local Community Service & Organization rather than politics

Give the kids a chance

They certainly cannot do worse

[electron_blue]

221. Agreed! I'm in my mid-50s and am tired of the older generation running/ruining everything

that said, I realize that mid-50s is still 'old' by some standards and am willing to vault ahead to putting some 40year olds in high governmental places. I was excited about Hillary winning, but since she didn't, we now should turn our attention to shoring up the younger generations.

[lunatica]

222. I truly hope to see younger generations govern the US long before I die

We need the energy, the vision and the drive of the newer generations. We need the emphasis put on the future and not continue to be dragged back to a past that never really existed. We need the people who can take on the big issues of saving the planet and new kinds of relationships in the world.

I remember the energy infused into our lives by the election of John Kennedy who is the youngest President to be elected and to see how we actually went to the Moon. Even if that project was pretty much abandoned it brought such a cornucopia of advancement to science which is still going strong. We can never overestimate the impact of science on the last half century. I'm talking about medicine, electronics, nutrition, etc.

I love our modern world of electronics and social media and connectivity and would love to see the surge of energy that would come from people who grew up with it. We will see astonishing and great things and i want to live to see it.

[NCTraveler]

223. Doesn't seem to be as controversial as you thought. Nt

[FairWinds]

225. We need new PROGRESSIVE blood in the Dem Party . .

unless you want to lose the young 'uns.

All they want is for the party to return to the
principles of FDR.

[TheDebbieDee]

226. I agree! It's time to move on and embrace a new group of Dems to lead the party!

[jimlup]

227. I agree except that

I'd be fine with either Joe or Bernie, there might be baggage but not as much. Nothing against Hillary but the non-core democratic voters are too taken by the false narrative the right has perpetrated against her.

Still I agree, a rising younger face of the party would be very welcomed.

[Runningdawg]

228. Agree 100%

Our party needs fresh horses.

[TNNurse]

229. How about Ted Lieu of California

Not that I want to stir up the bigots but I think he could take it.

[kentuck]

230. Born in Taiwan.

But he is an impressive congressman, I agree.

[TNNurse]

231. Did not know. He is doing good work.

[jesskirablue42]

232. Dems ran the wrong woman last time

Hopefully that's a mistake that won't be repeated.

Warren, Gillibrand, or Duckworth would all make excellent candidates. I like Warran because she is big on banking reform and know's her stuff, and the fact that his orange highness sees red when he thinks of her is a plus in my book.

[GoCubsGo]

238. It's a damn shame that Jennifer Granholm was born in Canada.

Although, if it wasn't an issue for Ted Cruz, it shouldn't be for her, either.

I find it hard to believe that the same state who elected her as Governor, have given not one, but two terms to the asshole they have now.

[talldarkhandsome]

244. I think all of them would be far too old for that.

[mnhtnbb]

248. It certainly worked when Obama ran

young, up and coming, fabulous credentials, charismatic, gorgeous family...

[LanternWaste]

249. I think placing a ceiling on age is idiotic

I think placing a ceiling on age is an idiotic and irrational idea, which lacks any objective evidence to support it as a valid premise.

New & Improved only illustrates the depth to which commercial branding has infected us with unsupported woo.

This is just my onion, part deux.