I Have One Qualification For Me To Consider Your Democratic Nomination Candidacy

[Stare Decisis]

You MUST be a Democrat.

Now for an eval from a guy who has been around a few campaigns-

Kamala Harris is the favorite. She is unlikely to win. In fact let me make this easy-no progressive is likely to win. Because there are so many of them running, unless a few drop out, the moderate candidate who can consolidate that wing is in the strongest position.

So who is that? In no particular order, Biden, Landrieu, (if he runs) McAuliffe, Castro, Klobuchar, and Amy can certainly win because of this group, she can most appeal to both wings. In fact I think she is extremely talented and capable, just the kind of person the country needs, who happens to be a woman, but my concern is that one of these above will suck the air out of the room. So who would that be?

Castro. If the young Mayor/HUD Director/wunderkind were a basketball player, he would be a 3 and D guy. A versatile fellow who can play multiple positions, he might be the Kawhi Leonard of this group. A sure All-Star. He is the one most looking forward to the debates in my opinion, because he has impressive oratorical skills, along with Mayor Landrieu. But my guess is he is the one most likely to be annointed by the media as Obama-like and get the moderates momentum. This is important because as an undefined politician, he isn't NOT progressive, he just is not stuck in that corner.

I like Kamala, and I especially feel that the right is most fearful of her-an unapologetic female with an edge that they are already trying to undermine with her base. But her issue is that with Warren, Sanders, and Booker, her shares in key states are likely to be diluted. This changes dramatically if Warren drops, which I doubt she does do early on, because Native controversy or not, she has no reason not to ride this thing out at least to see how N.H. goes. Kamala won't win Iowa. That goes to Liz or Bernie. She can't win N.H.-I give Bernie the edge there. She needs S.C. but Booker and Warren need to have dropped by then, otherwise it goes to one of the moderates, maybe Joe, probably Terry. In fact I think we head to Super Tuesday still wide open, which is both fun and scary. The scenario I see is that Castro pushes Liz in Iowa. He does a solid 2nd place in both N.H. and S.C.

He wins TX, and does well in the S.W. and even though Kamala wins CA and a good portion of the coastal pie, his ability to straddle both wings wear her down. Equally important is the electability factor-to the media monsters, Julian will be cast as more electable-you can argue with me, but you would be wrong (how he is cast, not whether or not he is.)

I think unless Beto gets in, Castro wins. I think Castro wins the Presidency. I think this is a good result, much similar in tone to Obama which will satisfy some and aggravate others.

The one caveat is not Beto winning, but Beto splitting Castro's support, allowing for Amy to take Warren's mantle, then consolidate the moderates, and slicing off enough progressive pie to push Harris out after Super Tuesday.

In order as it stands-

1. Castro
2. Klobuchar
3. McAuliffe
4. Harris

This is not a critique of Senator Harris. There is a path to victory for her, but oddly, it is through the midwest, not the coast, and I can explain that later. Any of these other three could potentially win, even Terry, who has a wealth of ties to the fundraising machine needed for the long haul. The one other thing is if Landrieu gets in, he wins Iowa, places in N.H., he walks over S.C. and sweeps all but California Super Tuesday. This guy is the real deal. Talent for days, Clintonesque charisma without the baggage, a tremendous appeal to bridge divides and someone with the teeth to take Trump, or anyone, on head to head.

If he runs, he wins it all. It doesn't matter that you heard it here first, just that you heard it. Yes I know that sounds crazy. For that matter, peanut farmers rarely win the White House. This is a 1976 election. But we have to get it right, because we don't want to follow it up with a 1980 one.

And if I am completely wrong, so what? I figure the more the merrier, debate is healthy, and the more attention our party gets the better. So clean that microwave, it is going to be filled with popcorn.

And there are no bad choices, so let's treat this as what we like best, not what we are settling for.

[bearsfootball516]

1. Castro could win, but he has a really, really long way to go to get there.

He's polling well under almost everybody, not because of his policies but just because he's an unknown. Not to say he can't emerge once debates begin, but the odds are really stacked against him compared to candidates like Harris, Biden, Warren and Booker that have a lot more name recognition.

[marylandblue]

2. I have a different criteria - you must be able to turn negative attacks around.

Klobuchar did a good job right away on the staffer issue. Warren fumbled on Indian heritage. Sanders has a lot of vulnerabilities that can and will be exploited this time. Harris has not been tested yet.

[Stare Decisis]

3. I really like Amy

and I think anyone that underestimates her is making a huge error. Most importantly I love her potential to be a terrific President.

[kelly1mm]

4. I have one other, so two. You cannot have called for Sen Franken to resign. Doing so

shows you lack the judgement to be President. Alas that does not leave me many choices .......

[ooky]

5. I have two.

1. Your health care proposal must alleviate the financial struggle and suffering for all chronically ill people who are unable to afford the needed medical treatment for their illnesses while Insurance Executives live like Egyptian princes. ALL OF THEM, not just "over 50". Anything that doesn't prioritize this need doesn't meet the definition of "health care as a human right".

2. You will be fired up to lead the fight to repeal the tax scam and force the recipients of that legislative theft to return our money.