Regardless of who wins the primary

[Gman]

Winning the general election is only HALF the job. If the Democrat in the WH has a GOP congress, all that prez can do is veto bad GOP legislation. He/She MUST have a Democratic Congress AND 60 votes in the SENATE. None of the of these are optional if you want to change things.

It's not as easy as electing a prez, then whining for the next 8 years that nothing has changed.

Considering the GOP gerrymandering in the House and voter disenfranchisement in GOP states, the odds are highly prohibitive of Democrats winning BOTH the House and Senate, much less 60 votes in the Senate.

Why 60 votes on the Senate? Because a SCOTUS nominee needs 60 to overcome a filibuster according to Senate rules.

But it can be done. Now go to work.

[Scootaloo]

1. So, our nominee needs ot be one who will pull voters who favor strong liberalism to the polls

Because while they're in the voting booth, they will be filling out hte rest of their ballot, too - not just hte presidential section.

[Gman]

2. Everyone loses in that case

Narrow focus does not win elections. Never has.

[Scootaloo]

3. Energizing the base is what wins elections.

And in the case of the democratic party, the base are liberals.

The more energized these people are, the more come out to vote. and hte more likelihood that the House and Senate shift towards the left.

[jwirr]

4. And that is something everyone on this board should be able to agree on.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. Control of the Senate gives Democrats an edge, even if we don't have 60 votes.

We need to win control.

What we need is to elect Governors. The next census in 2020 will determine who decides the districts in states.