Dems must run a woman

[cilla4progress]

And/or POC on Pres ticket in ‘20.

[StevieM]

1. How about Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto as our vice-presidential nominee? (eom)

[BigmanPigman]

2. How are you going to eliminate misogyny

in the US in two years?

[CTyankee]

4. I wish some of the suffragists could speak to us now.

I think they would answer "well, we didn't worry about that. We just went out and got it done!"

Take heart. We won't eliminate misogyny.....but we can elect a woman president.

[adigal]

8. I don't think so. We will lose...again. If we need a few good white guys untiil we are ready, I'm OK

with that.
Cause I would much rather have had Bernie or Joe Biden than Trump!

[CTyankee]

13. I'm OK with it too. My husband was an eager supporter of Hillary Clinton.

I know many men who voted for her. Our real problem (as I see it) is the goddamn Electoral College. But the way things are going for the voters, men and women, who voted for Trump, I think we'll get many of these back. The hard care deplorables will always be there. But Trump is doing our work for us with all his crazy warmongering and trying to cut their health care. His supporter base is shrinking fast and he's only in less than a year...

[bdamomma]

142. the electoral college must go

when is this ever going to be done, weren't the states voting on this to eliminate. Geez, so much stupid red tape.

[cwydro]

87. I can only imagine if someone had posted this in reference to Obama.

Lordy me.

“We need a few good white guys until we are ready.”

OK.

[adigal]

116. I'm sorry you don't like the facts, but if the most competent person to run in the last 20 years

couldn't win and part of that was that she was a woman....then too bad. Those are the facts. We are still a deeply sexist country.

I deal in facts. Not fantasies that Americans are suddenly going to be so enlightened that not only will they vote in a woman, but a woman of color, like Kamala Harris. I would love if we did, but that isn't in the immediate future.

[cwydro]

135. I disagree. nt

[lunamagica]

36. After what happened the last year, I don't see a woman winning any time soon

And we need to win

[delisen]

60. We're not going to eliminate it by running men.

Germany and other countries have been able to make good use of female talent. Merkel is a no bs, low key.low glamour, equalitarian genius.

I don't think the voting public defeated Hillary Clinton. I think defeat came at the hands of Putin. He's going to want American male candidates who will do his bidding.

I think survival is going to require making the cosmic leap to full equality.

At this point running more male candidates is just digging the hole deeper.

I've grown tired of being the other, the distaff, Adam's rib.

If we don't succeed now, its only going to become less possible as time goes on and our children are the ones who will suffer.

[CTyankee]

79. Of course, there are women leaders all over the world. We just lag behind.

We should be actively encouraging our up and coming female leaders, not sitting around moping and saying how terrible it is. Why do we allow misogyny to win by throwing our hands up and saying "It's no use!"

Good lord, women...

[bdamomma]

145. we are really lagging behind.

don't you feel like yelling out, grow the fuck up!!!

[CTyankee]

157. all my life...

[LeftInTX]

125. I believe the difference between Merkel and the US president is how they are elected

Merkel is elected in a manner similar to Speaker of the House.
Like a Prime Minister the party in power is the one who votes for their leader.

Being elected by one's peers makes it all about competence and not about glam and rock star appeal.

[IronLionZion]

169. Islamic countries in South Asia have elected women leaders

and African countries and European and many others that didn't let it stop them.

We didn't eliminate racism before electing Obama. Our party elected a socialist in a wheelchair (FDR) and kept reelecting him to 4 terms.

[loyalsister]

3. Putting demographic ahead of practical considerations is not smart

We need someone who will stand FOR an inclusive platform, is not beholden to corporations, and is not weighed down with a ton of baggage to explain.

[NewJeffCT]

12. we also have to realize

that anybody with a (D) after their name and who has more on his or her "record" than an elementary school detention is going to get ripped with a mega cruise ship full of misinformation, fake news, distortions, slanders and lies that will be repeated ad naseum on Fox News, Limbaugh, One America, Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere.

[loyalsister]

16. I'm talking about situations that are legitimate

They could never make anything stick with Obama because he truly was pretty much squeaky clean.

[NewJeffCT]

27. A lot of it stuck to Obama

with a certain percentage of the Tea Party types. I mean, it wasn't until 2016 that Trump grudgingly gave up on the Birther issue that had propelled him to the lead of the GOP pack in late 2015 and early 2016. And, all the attacks on Obama made it into the news and forced him to play defense much of the time.

However, Obama was a charismatic speaker and had a good team of rapid response people behind him so managed to endure the attacks. The same with Bill Clinton back in the 1990s - he was also attacked mercilessly, but because he was a great speaker and had a good team of rapid response people, he was able to weather the storms. Hillary Clinton may have been eminently qualified to be president, but she does not speak with the same effortless charm and charisma that her husband did and Obama does.

However, the attacks also stuck enough to both Obama and Bill Clinton that Republican turnout was inspired in the midterms and Democrats lost an historic amount of seats in 1994 and 2010 and 2014.

[loyalsister]

32. Not enough for a single serious investigation

.

[delisen]

51. Both B Clinton and B Obama had a hard time getting things done.

I don't think either they or their team were prepared for what was going to happen to them

[loyalsister]

54. Only one was mercilessly investigated

Only one could be. Lessons from the past.

[bdamomma]

144. hard time getting things done

especially President Obama because of that stupid Repig obstructionist namely McConnell.

[GaryCnf]

83. Because Bill Clinton was a good speaker and . . .

and

and

and

he had a right wing independent funneling off:

12% of the GOP vote in Louisiana
13% of the GOP vote in Georgia
10% of the GOP vote in Tennessee
21% of the GOP vote in Missouri
13% of the GOP vote in Kentucky
15% of the GOP vote in West Virginia
18% of the GOP vote in Iowa
23% of the GOP vote in Minnesota
21% of the GOP vote in Wisconsin
19% of the GOP vote in Michigan
20% of the GOP vote in Ohio
. . .

(Aside: It is somewhat ironic that Jill Stein's 2% takes the blame for our 2016 loss instead of the abject failure of the "play to the middle" strategy to EVER pull majorities in key battleground states, whereas Perot's 1000% better performance is not even given an asterisk in our 1992 victory.)

Bill Clinton is hailed as a master politician and his play to the middle campaign has been called the secret to victory.

The FACT is that he won ONLY because the GOP could not keep Ross Perot in the fold AND the "play to the middle" strategy has put us in the pit we are in now.

Obviously I am glad that Perot gave us those elections, BUT to credit a campaign that would have failed if not for Perot as an example of "political genius" is going just a bit too far.

[cilla4progress]

21. The implication here is that

The bench is not deep.

It is deep.

[SharonClark]

103. Who is on the deep bench?

[cilla4progress]

143. Try a google search

Cf. 11/7/17 baby!!

[Bradshaw3]

152. You made the claim

You were simply asked to back it up. Who is on the bench? Who should be on the ticket that can win in 2020?

[cilla4progress]

156. Ok I'll play, to start,

Harris, Warren, Booker, Castrox2, Ellison, Gabbard, Holder, Patrick.

More?

[Bradshaw3]

163. All good people

But I haven't seen any talk of Holder running, Gabbard and Ellison don't have a realistic chance and I would say only Warren is one who would head the ticket. The others could be excellent choices for the No. 2 spot.

[cilla4progress]

164. Yep!

I am sure there are more...maybe even some who won yesterday (for example, Ravi Bhalla, a Sikh man, who was elected mayor of Hoboken, NJ!).

[lagomorph777]

25. Exactly! Policy and genuine heart ahead of demographics.

Would it be great to get all of the above? Absolutely. But at this point, whoever can cause the most damage to the RePutin party will be my candidate.

[kcr]

42. Oh, well. Guess you're right then. Women are out /sarcasm

[loyalsister]

57. I'm just saying the issues and character should come first

Candidates should be vetted and they should have well defined platforms. A person of any demographic with those qualities is welcome in my book.

[kcr]

138. But why even say that?

What is so scary about wanting a woman candidate that brings that out? Do you honestly think that there aren't any women who would qualify? If not, then you should have no problem with women candidates. Seriously, ask yourself what drives you to counter the desire for women candidates with this argument. The only reason we've only had male Presidents isn't due to a lack of qualified women. If there is no push to move women candidates forward, the status quo continues. Resist the urge to fight it simply because we've always had men.

[cilla4progress]

146. A-yup

👍

[loyalsister]

161. I did not say that I don't want a woman candidate

I would love to have a woman president. But, I would rather have a male candidate whose personal history does not invite legitimate concerns and has a record of supporting progressive policies in favor of woman candidate who has a history of white collar crime and or supporting anti choice policies.
I hope a woman steps up. And one who has a strong record of living up to high ethical standards on things that really matter and a long record of supporting liberal policies. I'm just saying that my priority is to have a candidate whose history indicates that they can win and will govern in a way that supports my political preferences and values.

[kcr]

167. Do you think that isn't the priority of those who want women candidates?

That's my point. In stating that your priority is high standards, you're implying you can't have both. The truth is there's no reason we can't have both. In fact, we must if we're ever going to break the all-men streak. So, you may not realize it, but effectively that's what you're saying.

[loyalsister]

174. I was responding to the OP

"Dems must run a woman" implies that gender is THE priority.

[brooklynite]

5. With a compelling argument like that, who could disagree?

[phleshdef]

6. I will vote (in the primaries) for whoever gets my heart on the issues.

If its a white male, then that white male gets my vote. If its a woman or a person of color, then that woman or person of color gets my vote. But I'm voting on the issues, not the demographic.

[woodsprite]

7. I'm with you!

That used to make me so mad when my coworker said she owed her vote to the female, even though her beliefs lay more with what the male said. I wanted to slap her silly because that's no better than the people that voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary.

[MurrayDelph]

133. The way I phrased it, when faced with the same argument,

was that the presence (or absence) of a vagina was insufficient reason to vote for (or against) a candidate.

Now, if Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris ran, I'd gladly support either of them.

[elleng]

9. because most/many voters chose their preferred candidate based on

[adigal]

10. I don't think we will win, and I don't vote based on someone's sex

Last edited Tue Nov 7, 2017, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Yes, it would be nice. I am a strong and proud feminist from way back. But if I feel that a white male would be better for the country, or be able to win, I will vote for him over a woman or person of color who I don't feel is as good.

[NCTraveler]

24. You reference the white male in respect to his feelings.

And the woman or POC in respect to your feelings.

"But if a white male feels like he would be better for the country, or be able to win, I will vote for him over a woman or person of color who I don't feel is as good."

[adigal]

44. That was a typo....If I felt a white male would be better for the country. Simple mistake.

Don't try to Freud me. It was nothing more than careless typing.

[NCTraveler]

47. I pointed something out. There was no Freud to it.

Seems I was highlighting careless typing which is what I suspected in the first place. I made no assumptions. A simple thanks would have been ok. Didn't mean to offend.

[delisen]

63. I think for our times-now! we have to

leap past the patriarchal model. it's out of date, it can't meed met our needs-but we are clinging to it.the more we cling, the more miserable our lives will become.

The male savior hero model is dead. It's full equality and democracy now or it's going to be authoritarianism.

[cilla4progress]

70. Yes!

[adigal]

114. Sure, you and I can jump past it, and we will lose again. We can't afford to lose in 2020.

There will be no country left.

I feel it is like triage. We have to go with the safest bet for candidate. It may not be exciting, sexy, or thrilling, but we must win!! We can't put someone forth just to try to get a "first."

[samnsara]

11. yessss!

[DFW]

14. We should look for the BEST person/people

And not start adding or eliminating people based on race or gender.

[Bucky]

17. Thank you

I care about character, not demographics. Person leaning towards Kamala Harris. But not because she's female or of a particular ethnicity (which I can't ever remember anyway)

[OnDoutside]

38. Yes, this.

[CTyankee]

81. But we can groom our best and brightest women and POC's. If we don't do it

you can be sure the repugs won't.

[DFW]

85. Don't our two last candidates for president count (for example)?

I didn't find either one inferior to the candidate from the other side.

If the best we have to offer next time are women or POC or gay (or any combination), by all means, we should choose them. If not, then not. None of that should be the deciding factor.

Just ask Howard Dean. He and Hillary are busy out there trying to recruit bright, capable, dynamic Democrats to run for office. They want to help the smartest and the best. Gender, race, orientation? Don't bother emphasizing any of that, no one cares. How good are you and will you work your ass off to get elected, and then work your ass off once in office? THAT'S what we care about. That's what they care about. That's all anyone should care about, not some form of political affirmative action. If we don't get Democrats elected, there won't be any affirmative action, just negative action. If you ask the Trumpadors to dig up a supporter who's a gay black woman, I'm sure they've got one in cold storage somewhere just waiting to thawed out for the right PC moment.

[CTyankee]

89. We've got the best and the brightest women and POCs in our party already. It is

just a question of "will we Dems back them up." I just voted for a female POC to remain the mayor of New Haven and for a male POC for my alderperson. I wish to hell we had more on the state/federal level. But there are other problems, too. One is the Electoral College. HRC won the popular vote and what we got is the most disastrously unqualified president this country has ever had. I think yes, we need sharper strategies running our campaigns and making sure we are maximizing our chances for EC victory.

[cilla4progress]

95. What

I’m trying to say

[cwydro]

88. I agree.

Completely.

[Roland99]

15. Or both. Donna Brazile.

Ok, too, soon??

[Bucky]

18. You joke, but she could dig into Trump's lunatic base

Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs is a critical Swing Vote now

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

33. At one time, DB could have made a formidable candidate...

not sure about it now, after she's been "thrown under the bus" and run over multiple times.

[mcar]

99. Seems to me she threw herself under the bus

[SharonClark]

104. And no evidence she"d make a formitable candidate.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

109. She sure as hell could hold her own in a debate on issues...

I think that's just one of several reasons, as a strong woman and powerful advocate, she was given the DNC job in the first place. Basically, all I was really tryin to say.

[mythology]

162. Only until the fact checks start

Then she's pretty much up shit creek. The buffoon who claimed she was going to change the duly elected nominee doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on reality.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

168. Sure looks like the wording of the actual agreement checked out.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

106. You may be right, but I'd like to at least first read DB's version of what happened before

reaching a final conclusion. If she truly screwed up, as others here have already concluded, hell, I'll even volunteer to drive the frickin' "bus"!!

[Wwcd]

153. She flat out lied, then retracted the lie. She should be talking to her ghost writers, not Fox news

F'd up.

[Exultant Democracy]

19. We need to win 2018 big b4 anything else

There is no way to do the calculations on a 2020 ticket till then. As a POC I don’t like the idea of a tokenism ticket. Obama wasn’t nominated because he was black but because he was and is an insanely talented politician.

Using any other metric other than talent is insane when climate change is in the balance. We need to win not prove a point.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

111. Can't argue with you there... but, since the OP did raise the subject...

it's fair to speculate.

[ProudLib72]

20. Nope

I'm only voting for a transgender native American who is left handed. Period!

[NCTraveler]

22. I'm sure our primary will have both.

Then the party voters will decide.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. Now THERE'S a concept!! Let's start with dumping (not-so-)super delegates!!

That election system and the Electoral College are antiquated, unfair, and anti-democratic... they both need to go!!

[cilla4progress]

23. It is not tokenism

It is representation of our party and base. It is also representation of historically excluded “demographics.”

[spanone]

26. i suggest we run the best candidate we can offer up...man, woman of any color.

[Bucky]

39. Seriously? Only the two cisgender options?

Better check that priv, spanone!

[spanone]

49. checking into rehab.....now

[bdamomma]

147. true, we need to clean out the swamp!!

we need to rescue ourselves and our country.

[MineralMan]

28. Better start spreading the word to those "Dems," as you call them.

Are you not one of them? Do you have the ear of those "Dems?"

We'll begin to see potential candidates emerge after the 2018 elections. Who will come out on top remains to be seen. Who will even try remains to be seen. I know, though, that my opinion will not have anything to do with it. Will yours?

[Not Ruth]

29. So no Joe?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

40. I think Joe has to be right up there in the first tier of potential 2020 candidates...

along with Bernie, Elizabeth, and Kamala. I think it likely will be one of them who captures the nomination.

Michelle O. also would have to be taken seriously, if she through her hat into the ring, as would Maxine Waters or Tulsi Gabbard, though neither of these amazing women, to my knowledge, has yet to express any interest in running for President in 2020. (Fingers crossed.)

[lunamagica]

62. I don't get it, Joe has ran what, 3 times? Never getting the nomination

he is not a young man either.

But if someone even suggest that Hillary runs again (I know she won't), heads explode.

Why the double standard?

[phleshdef]

64. Biden never ran after having been a widely liked Vice President before.

Clinton had her shot at the general and I don't think she WANTS to go through that again.

[lunamagica]

66. That's not the point. And I also said that Hillaary won't be running again

the point is the reaction both suggestions get.

Joe had his shot three times already. Being a widely liked Vice President doesn't remove all the baggage he has, which was probably the reason he never became the nominee in the first place.

[phleshdef]

71. You need to get your facts straight. He ran twice.

And if you think Biden has even a fraction of the political baggage Hillary Clinton has, then you should probably just stop discussing Democratic party politics, because thats absurd. And I LIKE Hillary Clinton, but truth is truth.

In 1988, Biden wasn't ready. In 2008, there was no beating Obama. In 2020 though, if he runs for the nomination, I will likely support him.

[bettyellen]

177. The way he treated Anita Hill has never been forgotten. That and his banister credit card friends...

Make me laugh when brogressives love him up. Yeah, he penis is a requirement for many.

[phleshdef]

184. Everyone has fucked up.

[RhodeIslandOne]

101. Twice

1988 and 2008. If he runs in 2020 it's number 3.

In theory, he passed on his "right" as the sitting VP to be the presumptive party nominee in 2016.

[delisen]

69. It is the double standard that is defeating us.

Hillary can't be president! she voted for the Iraq War Resolution! Of course, so did Joseph Biden and John Kerry but they are wooed
for the presidency.

they are the familiar- 45 men have held the office-no woman. So there is no equality in the public sphere. Just maybe its time to take a hard look at where suppression of the majority of our population has gotten us.

Misogyny on the Left is defeating us; it was all too easy for the Russian propaganda machine to infiltrate -to push those buttons that don't want women as equals in the public space.

What that does is create a macho atmosphere in our governing And that hurts hurt our children.

[phleshdef]

72. Hillary Clinton is terrible at campaigning. It has nothing to do with being a woman.

I believe she would be excellent at governing. But the campaigning part was never her forte.

[delisen]

75. Terrible is kind of strong.

I think she was an adequate candidate. I think she was targeted by Putin because of her strength and her foreign policy experience. I think the Russian propaganda and spy machine ws successful in using Americans -including the left-prejudices against us.

We are in an undeclared war, and the left has been particularly slow to accept that fact.

They tried to bury the truth in their instant analysis stating the day after election-----but drip drip drip, the truth is emerging.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

105. You're right, "terrible" IS strong & untrue. Its just that there are few like Barrack, Bill & Bernie

( the "Three B's" ) who have "the gift" of bringin' the house down every time when, off the top of their head, they can eloquently relate their vision of the future. Most of those who can't, that doesn't make them a terrible campaigner at all.

In fact, I would say, to Hillary's great credit, she got better and better at it, as the campaign wore on. No doubt, she would start at a considerable advantage in that department should she decide to make a third run ( yes, I know she said she's run her last campaign... just sayin' "IF" ).

[bdamomma]

148. Hillary was targeted by Putin

I guess he has "small man syndrome".

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

98. Can you imagine Elizabeth on the campaign trail?!?! I think she would be excellent at it!!

[bdamomma]

149. I would love to

see McConnell get his just desserts when he shut her up on the floor of Congress, that was horrible.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

158. Typical MCP!!

[bdamomma]

165. I'm horrible

at abbreviations MCP?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

166. I was referring to McConnell as a Male Chauvinist Pig... typical of most Rethugs!!

[bdamomma]

171. thanks for that

just had a little memory slip!

[lunamagica]

80. ICAM. Those are pure facts. It's amazing how some still deny or ignore those facts.

and as long as there are people believing that Hillary beong a woman had nothing with her defeat, we'll keep on losing

[Jake Stern]

180. As for John Kerry in 2004

We were in the midst of a then popular war and running against a guy that still had some really good poll numbers. Most of the Dems I knew, even many who opposed the Iraq War, supported him because they hoped that running a decorated combat veteran would help us win the WH.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

97. Hillary's welcome to run again... Joe hasn't run since being VP (experience being the difference)

Last edited Tue Nov 7, 2017, 08:00 PM - Edit history (1)

[lunamagica]

108. Hillary is welcome to run again? Whenever someoe dares to suggest that

heads explode all over the board

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

110. Not sayin' you're wrong, but that's a ridiculous reaction by those opposed...

I can think of more than a few I would PREFER as the 2020 candidate, but no one MORE than Hillary deserves to try a third time, ESPECIALLY after how the last election was stolen by that "tRumpster fire" currently occupying the White House.

[lunamagica]

113. +1

[mcar]

100. Good question

[adigal]

117. Michelle hates politics. She did her share for the country

Please, can we deal in facts?? Not fantasies, like the GOPer do??

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

121. Yes, go ahead, smear me for daring to suggest Michelle O would make a great Presidential candidate.

Why so rude?! Should I compare YOU to GOPers, like you did me, cause, you know, that's what THEY do, smear?! Gimme a freakin' break!!

No wonder this place is so divided these days. Just keep it up... flame away!!

[a kennedy]

172. Not that Joe, but Joe Kennedy......

Joe Kennedy III and ANY woman mentioned above.

[ollie10]

31. Must? Isn't that a bit strong?

If running a woman was the magic touch, Hillary would live in the White House

[cilla4progress]

34. She won

By 3 million votes

[Bucky]

37. Oh my God, are you implying our 1st woman nominee lost cause she couldn't read a map?

sorry, but that's terribly offensive!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

41. Hmmm... sure sounds like it.

[Bucky]

45. This problem is out of hand! There's only one solution!!

We must immediately form the circular firing squad and launch a witch hunt!!!

And by the way, the hearist saying "sure sounds like it" is highly offencive to deaf Americans.

Quit lording your auditory privilege over the sonically challenged

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

46. hahaha... you got me on that one! (No offense to those without a sense of humor.)

[delisen]

73. As offensive as Comey comments.

[ollie10]

67. I am aware of that.

But she LOST Michigan. She LOST WI. She LOST PA. Three states that were certainly winnable and she LOST them.

[zipplewrath]

68. She "won"... nothing

Moral victories aren't worth much in politics.

[lunamagica]

82. The election was stolen from her

[Bucky]

35. And she must be left handed! No more Righties in the WH!

And no taller than 5'3". I'm tired of this country being ruined by tall people. We must have a short, left handed woman of color, and she can only have A negative blood. O positive people have created all the troubles in this country. Enough is enough!!

[MichMary]

43. We have had eight

left handed presidents, most recently PBO. Out of 45 presidents that means lefties have been disproportionately represented.

But, yeah, I'm 5'3" and I would really like to see more short people in positions of power.

[Squinch]

48. TAMMY DUCKWORTH! She's all of the above, including a great candidate.

[Demsrule86]

173. I love Tammy ...yes please.

[cilla4progress]

50. In order to fully represent an excluded constituency

And demonstrate what we stand for, the Dems must run a woman or POC on its Presidential ticket in’20.

Surely there are the “best people for the job” among potential candidates.

This is the only way oppressed and underrepresented people will truly have access to the operations of power.

[adigal]

115. That is ridiculous, I'm sorry. You are saying only women and POC can open doors for those like them

Don't tell Bobby Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, many others who worked with POC to get rights for all.

They started it. We dropped the ball.

[Baconator]

52. Maybe... maybe not...

Depends what the situation is and who is the best fit...

[SweetieD]

53. We need to run someone who will win. I don't care what it takes to get a win.

There is too much at stake to have a litmus test beyond potential to win.

[delisen]

93. Someone who will win and can't be blocked from

achieving after winning.

[Pope George Ringo II]

55. At this point, I'd vote for a Sequoya if it got the nomination.

I'll still be voting the same way if it's a Biden/Sanders ticket.

[janterry]

56. We should run someone who conveys honesty

strength, and vision.
And they should know how to communicate that across the country.

A woman who can do that would be great, but she OR he must rise to those requirements, first.

[Persondem]

58. No we should run the best candidate possible who can beat the R guy. nt

[bdamomma]

151. but remember

Repigs are notorious for stealing elections, the whole voting process needs a overhaul, and all people have the right to vote.

[Kentonio]

59. Run the best person

If that's a woman or POC then great. If it's a white guy then that's also fine.

[Funtatlaguy]

61. 53% of white women voted for Donald Trump

I don’t know how that fits into this conversation.
But, that number still makes me sick.
I still don’t understand.

[jalan48]

65. Why?

[rainin]

74. Michelle Obama / Elizabeth Warren 2020

Can you even imagine the energy on election day? Lines will be miles long!

[delisen]

92. Warren fell for the "rigged" bs. Fascinated

to learn she was Republican voter right up into the 90s -even after Newt Gingrich's contract with America.

She does speak out against Trump and is able to command attention from media.

[panader0]

76. Sally Yates.

[Luciferous]

77. How about running the best candidate regardless of sex or race?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

123. How about letting democracy work?

[Luciferous]

126. How is it not letting democracy work to have the best candidate? I don't think telling

us we HAVE to "run a woman" is very democratic!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

132. That's my point, exactly! The "best" candidate is the one duly elected...

by the voters through a democratic primary process.

[WoonTars]

78. Nope.

I don't care if they're a polka-doted asexual giant, i hope the Dems find and run the best candidate for the country...

[NurseJackie]

84. Hillary 2020

[lunamagica]

86. I'd be all for that if she wants to run!

[cwydro]

90. I still have my Hillary T-shirt, and the stickers are still on my car!

[leftofcool]

107. I will go for that. Otherwise, I might be writing in a Democrat.

[NurseJackie]

119. I only vote for loyal party-supporting Democrats...

... everyone else can kiss my ass. (And I mean that in the nicest possible way.)

[meadowlander]

91. Sorry, Im a feminist

Which means I’m supporting the best candidate regardless of genitals or skin colour.

[smirkymonkey]

129. I agree. We need someone who can win.

Whatever that takes. I would love to see a female president or another minority president, but we can't limit ourselves. We need a leader and I don't think it can be determined only by certain external criteria.

[tinrobot]

94. Biden / Harris

[bdamomma]

154. hmm....

that would be interesting. We need someone who will talk the talk and walk and walk either a man or woman. And who knows how to talk!!!! and not tweet.

[Awsi Dooger]

96. I'd prefer a strong charismatic white male who is at least 6-2

Many of the swing voters are idiots. No use being smart with them. Limit the automatic biases.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

122. You bein' serious?!... 6-4+ is MUCH preferable.

[CTyankee]

136. Yep, that is exactly what has been used against women candidates for ages...

be quiet, let the white male take the reins...

[SharonClark]

102. Why? What is your reason for stating that?

[X_Digger]

112. How about the best candidate who can win, regardless of optics or identity politics? n/t

[Hortensis]

137. "Identity politics" is used as a big-time slur on Democrats.

For those who have reputations to protect--at very best--it's used to suggest that the extremely broad and diverse coalition of Americans in the Democratic Party is just a bunch of selfish infighting groups.

Replace noble with ignoble. Admirable with far from. Inspiring with dispiriting.

See how it works?

Of course, for the "Make America White Again" crowd it's just plain old racist dog whistle. And, of course, for much of the first group as well.

Probably shouldn't use it here.

[alphafemale]

120. I'm sure a woman and POC will run.

Maybe the person who gets the most support in the Primaries should be nominated.

I that is one of them AWESOME!

[GulfCoast66]

124. How about we run whoever wins our Primary?

Cause that is the way it works.

[cilla4progress]

127. And

Young (under 45)

[NCDem777]

128. I'd love to see Tammi Duckworth

[cilla4progress]

130. Really gratified to see the diversity

In today’s successful candidates!!

[George II]

131. What's your point? The Democrats "must" run the best candidate around, just like they did in 2016.

[Raine]

134. I'm voting for the best person

no matter what sex or color...

[bdamomma]

139. I like Kamala!!

[JustAnotherGen]

140. Nope

We the people - not the 'Party' need to select the best person for the job that 'applies' for it.

[Demsrule86]

141. I am not sure about that...perhaps we run whoever wins the primary.

[kentuck]

150. Too early to say.

We should be cautious and deliberate in our choice of candidate.

[bdamomma]

155. cautious and deliberate

correct and not desperate.

[Orsino]

159. Dems must run MORE women and POC everywhere...

...and make such a presidential ticket more likely.

[cilla4progress]

160. THIS!

[IronLionZion]

170. Our party has plenty of great women and POC and whites and males

Dem voters should choose the best candidate in the primaries/caucuses

[Egnever]

175. Must?

[Historic NY]

176. Harris-Kennedy Kennedy-Harris.

The red head has the fire.

[nini]

178. We need to run the most qualified person we have

Sex, Age, Religion etc. doesn't matter.

Their ability to the job comes first.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

179. How about running a WINNER?!

[JNelson6563]

181. I think the voters will choose.

Cause that's how we do it.

[Ken Burch]

182. Warren would probably be the best, if we're thinking in those terms.

Trusted by Clinton and Sanders supporters-backs economic justice and is solidly anti-social oppression.

A Warren-Harris ticket would be unbeatable.

[Ken Burch]

183. Tammy Baldwin would also be great.

The Upper Midwest would be a lock again, and she'd be both acceptable to everybody and representative of a new generation.