Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:22 PM Apr 2017

Democratic Dream Team Needed

In 2020 we need to put our dream team on the roster. We need to go ALL-IN on our best and greatest.

President - Hillary Clinton
Vice President Al Gore

Then make a pact with the American people that if we win the senate, Bernie Sanders be placed as Senate President
If we win the house - Chelsey CLinton will be House Majority leader (she'll need to run of course, but she would win)

Finally - Promise that the next two supreme court justices will be Barack Obama, followed by Merrick Garland. If get a third opening (John Kerry)

This would be the greatest roster since the founding fathers, would correct at least 3 wrongs, and put one future great leader in play, and keep our greatest leader in play for the rest of his life.

This, my friends, is doable, and out would the death knell on the Republican party for a generation.

92 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Democratic Dream Team Needed (Original Post) fescuerescue Apr 2017 OP
I doubt there will be 2 SCOTUS seats to fill. secondwind Apr 2017 #1
Kennedy and RBG onecaliberal Apr 2017 #2
That's the variability part fescuerescue Apr 2017 #4
It's a nice idea, but I think we need new blood. We have a lot of upcoming stars! femmocrat Apr 2017 #3
exactly! renate Apr 2017 #71
Add ELIZABETH WARREN to the list. Tammy Duckworth and Al Frankin too. trueblue2007 Apr 2017 #5
I would be on board with any of those three! Still In Wisconsin Apr 2017 #8
No thanks. Still In Wisconsin Apr 2017 #6
Hillary again would be the biggest mistake possible. HopeAgain Apr 2017 #7
I guarantee you... LenaBaby61 Apr 2017 #20
I didn't read past: demmiblue Apr 2017 #25
Lol... he would have wiped the floor with him. LenaBaby61 Apr 2017 #32
I'm guessing someone is going to rise to the top by leading the charge against trump nini Apr 2017 #9
Hillary will be too old, Jack-o-Lantern Apr 2017 #10
Respectfully I believe that is a bit sexist fescuerescue Apr 2017 #39
They suggested Warren instead of Clinton and you called it sexist? hughee99 Apr 2017 #43
Well Clinton is being dissed for her age only because she is female fescuerescue Apr 2017 #46
Warren is less than two years younger than Clinton, and the poster has no problem with her age. hughee99 Apr 2017 #48
Well I don't think we should be discriminating because of age fescuerescue Apr 2017 #54
If you're using Trump as the standard of what's acceptable or a good idea, I question your judgement hughee99 Apr 2017 #63
There are tons of studies that show women lose a huge percentage of popular suppport the moment they bettyellen Apr 2017 #72
If the poster had suggested a man instead of Elizabeth Warren as an alternative to Clinton hughee99 Apr 2017 #73
A lot of people don't realize how much their opinions change about women- bettyellen Apr 2017 #75
Would you agree that if a person suggests one woman hughee99 Apr 2017 #76
No, I don't think most people are aware of their inherent bias if they have one.. bettyellen Apr 2017 #77
You seem to be talking to me like I've made some sort of argument that I don't believe I have. hughee99 Apr 2017 #78
It's not comparing women with men- it's comparing women not running for bettyellen Apr 2017 #79
So it sounds like you're suggesting that the negatives Clinton currently has would also affect hughee99 Apr 2017 #80
Historically women see a huge drop in likability/ trustworthiness once they declare they are bettyellen Apr 2017 #81
I agree with all of this, but I still don't have an answer to my question. hughee99 Apr 2017 #85
As much as people want to believe they would still feel the same about Warren when she's bettyellen Apr 2017 #86
The poster pointed out two issues they had with Clinton when expressing a preference for Warren. hughee99 Apr 2017 #87
My point still stands- the "she is toxic" narrative arose of the sexism ... bettyellen Apr 2017 #88
I agree with you. My concern was that we basically had one poster suggest another poster hughee99 Apr 2017 #89
Gotcha - I appreciate your patience and interest in sorting this crap out.... bettyellen Apr 2017 #92
What is the precise age that makes one "too old"? LanternWaste Apr 2017 #62
Warren is a year younger than Hillary Motley13 Apr 2017 #82
Franken, Schiff, Waters, Warren, Bharara, Yates Sculpin Beauregard Apr 2017 #11
It's time for Gen-X to take the reins. EL34x4 Apr 2017 #12
No more also rans on the top of the ticket crazycatlady Apr 2017 #13
Good lawd... so much fail. demmiblue Apr 2017 #14
excuse me? fescuerescue Apr 2017 #19
An impressive amount of delusion packed into a single post. Nt hughee99 Apr 2017 #15
Glad somebody said it. n/t bathroommonkey76 Apr 2017 #24
We thought people were dilusionion in thinking Trump would be elected fescuerescue Apr 2017 #34
I supported and still support her jimlup Apr 2017 #16
3rd most successful campaign in world history. fescuerescue Apr 2017 #35
depends on how you define success jimlup Apr 2017 #42
??? opiate69 Apr 2017 #17
I don't think Hillary should or will run again. smirkymonkey Apr 2017 #18
We really need to get some leadership from the West Coast, in my estimation. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #22
I'm pretty much open to that. I would just like to see something than the smirkymonkey Apr 2017 #27
I agree, I want vigorous debate and a big expansion of our leadership bench. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #33
I think she would if she had a wonder team behind her. fescuerescue Apr 2017 #36
Who's "Chelsey Clinton"? Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #21
Wasn't she dating Chareth Cutestory? opiate69 Apr 2017 #30
I had to look that up, you fiend! Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #41
"You're...... a...... opiate69 Apr 2017 #68
Daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton fescuerescue Apr 2017 #38
Oh. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #40
Ah yes. Thanks for locating the typo'ed character in my message fescuerescue Apr 2017 #47
Chelsea Clinton is not likely to be the speaker of the house any time soon. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #50
Well they are the same person fescuerescue Apr 2017 #52
Well, I doubt that either one could be elected MichMary Apr 2017 #56
YOU LEFT OUT WALTER MONDALE Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #23
MONDALE/DUKAKIS 2020!!!!! opiate69 Apr 2017 #26
Hey, Jimmy Carter never got his second term, he's eligible!!! LeftInTX Apr 2017 #28
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2017 #29
You forgot George Soros as Fed Chairman. aikoaiko Apr 2017 #31
IT doesn't work that way fescuerescue Apr 2017 #37
My post was a joke. aikoaiko Apr 2017 #61
Not a whole lot of recs on this thread. Vinca Apr 2017 #44
Chelsey? cwydro Apr 2017 #45
Is that the new purity test? fescuerescue Apr 2017 #51
no purity test. cwydro Apr 2017 #58
it's a typo. fescuerescue Apr 2017 #64
The y is nowhere near the a on the keyboard. cwydro Apr 2017 #67
still a typo. Not unheard of when it comes to synonyms. fescuerescue Apr 2017 #69
Good to hear. cwydro Apr 2017 #74
This message was self-deleted by its author fescuerescue Apr 2017 #49
Shake the Clinton addiction get the red out Apr 2017 #53
Sounds like a winning team... Mike Nelson Apr 2017 #55
Promising to make PBO a SC Justice MichMary Apr 2017 #57
I don't believe in totally political SCOTUS appointments. SomethingNew Apr 2017 #59
The new Fossil Party? L. Coyote Apr 2017 #60
The Clinton's have had a nice run over the decades. Time for someone new. jalan48 Apr 2017 #65
2020? try 2018 0rganism Apr 2017 #66
Oh god no. We can't have anyone tied to past administrations in 2020. Initech Apr 2017 #70
A presidential ticket isn't a rock and roll Supergroup or nostalgia act Sen. Walter Sobchak Apr 2017 #83
Chelsea Clinton vs Ivanka Trump Motley13 Apr 2017 #84
I'm going to assume your motives for putting this post up are not all that pure. Stinky The Clown Apr 2017 #90
I fully understand that this is a paranoid place fescuerescue Apr 2017 #91

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)
4. That's the variability part
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:29 PM
Apr 2017

But we will probably get one which Obama or Garland would fill.

(My heart says Garland to correct that wrong, but my head says Obama say we keep him working)

femmocrat

(28,394 posts)
3. It's a nice idea, but I think we need new blood. We have a lot of upcoming stars!
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:27 PM
Apr 2017

Gore has said he isn't interested in running for office again and as much as we love Hillary, I am afraid her time has passed.

I do like the idea of correcting the wrongs, but.... I don't think this will ever happen, sadly.

Let's give the next generation a chance now.

renate

(13,776 posts)
71. exactly!
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:06 PM
Apr 2017

I'd be thrilled if Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were in charge, but nominating two losers of presidential races is not good optics.

Elizabeth Warren is so super-high-octane energetic, and looks so much younger than her years, that even though she's more of the Gore/Clinton generation than not, she seems like the next generation to me.

 

Still In Wisconsin

(4,450 posts)
8. I would be on board with any of those three!
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:32 PM
Apr 2017

I wanted Warren to run in '16- really hope she will try it in '20.

 

Still In Wisconsin

(4,450 posts)
6. No thanks.
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:31 PM
Apr 2017

They both should have been President. They both would have been good or great presidents. But Gore doesn't want to run again- he has said so- and re-cycling Hillary would be a grave mistake. Her campaign was utterly inept, and while she would be a really good President, she is- trying to put this kindly- not exactly a formidable campaigner.

HopeAgain

(4,407 posts)
7. Hillary again would be the biggest mistake possible.
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:31 PM
Apr 2017

2000 was lost and 2016 was lost. We need someone who won't only win the usual democrats; we need somebody like Obama in '08.

Hillary was a razor thin margin over the worst candidate to ever get a nomination. Why would we do that again?

LenaBaby61

(6,974 posts)
20. I guarantee you...
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 09:48 PM
Apr 2017
"Hillary was a razor thin margin over the worst candidate to ever get a nomination. Why would we do that again?"


IF Pres. Obama had gone up against what Hillary did, he'd have LOST. Bernie would have lost. Anti-Semitism, and a 2 inch dossier that nazibannon allegedly had would have been used against him, and the ruskies would have still done their thing. In fact, several people who were running Pro-Bernie websites and Bernie-related social websites kept trying to get the word out that russian bots, etc. were spanning Bernie's websites, sending out fake/negative news about Hillary and also sewing the seeds of discontent between Bernie/Hillary supporters on Bernie sites. Even Bernie brushed ruskie interference off as late as December of last year. But more recently, he says that the rukies did interfere and may still be meddling. The GOP was voter-suppressing, voter-disenfranchising, voter-crosschecking Dems off of voting roll like crazy. What the ruskies did was horrible, the way they put their thumb, ass, foot all over the scales to elect tRumputin. And if those things weren't bad enough, WikiLeaks, sexism, and the Comey CIA meddling, and the corporate media covering the fake email and fake Clinton Foundation scandal of course didn't help. IF Hillary hadn't have faced those hideous things, she'd have been our 45th president.

Lastly, no matter WHO the Dems run in 2020, they'd better get people out to vote (That's if our votes count and we can vote), and try as best as they can with a tRumputin DOJ and with beaureguard as AG, work on voter suppression tactics on steroids this next time around, because we know the GOP will be getting "help" from a tRumputin DOJ and from AG beauguard who doesn't like it when Dems vote, let alone when minorities vote. WHAT role will the ruskies have in our next two upcoming elections in 2018 and 2020? In front of the Senate Intelligence Committee a few weeks ago, Counter-terrorism expert Clinton Watts said that the ruskies are still meddling, cyber-attacking, and God knows what else--and still making trouble within in the Dem party.

demmiblue

(36,833 posts)
25. I didn't read past:
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:12 PM
Apr 2017
IF Pres. Obama had gone up against what Hillary did, he'd have LOST.


Lol... he would have wiped the floor with him.

Charisma, ability to get his message across, good ground game, addressing the needs of working people, etc. There is a reason why Obama won Michigan by 16 percentage points in 2008.

LenaBaby61

(6,974 posts)
32. Lol... he would have wiped the floor with him.
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:24 AM
Apr 2017

I said IF Pres. Obama had have gone through what Hillary did he'd have LOST. So would Bernie. ANY Dem Would have lost the presidency given the ridiculous amounts of interference that went on during the 2016 GE.

By the way, HOW would charisma have stopped the rethugs from crosschecking, voter-suppressing, voter disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of Dems off the voting rolls in certain swing states that tRumputin needed in order to win the electoral college? Charisma would have stopped the ruskies from interfering into our elections? Charisma would have stopped Comey from putting his thumb on the scale for tRumputin by not? Charisma would have stopped all of those voting machines from being closed down in places like North Carolina where there was at the time a thuglican governor who arranged to shut those voting machines down in Dem areas? By the way, Hillary barely lost NC to the swamp thing.

Slightly off-topic, but the next thing you'll be telling me is that a Dem more charismatic than Al Gore running for the presidency would have stopped Bush from winning Florida in 2000, when we KNOW that a Supreme court leaning RIGHT, hanging Chads & shenanigans courtesy of Jeb Bush/Catherine Harris had a MAJOR hand in Dubya "winning" Florida/the White House. The Dem candidate in 2000, no matter how charismatic, would have stopped the results of the 2000 election. A right-leaning Supreme Court, hanging chads and Jeb Bush/Catherine Harris all helped to give the presidency to the thuglicans. A charismatic candidate won't help the Dems win the White House if there's ruskie interference AGAIN (They've never officially stopped meddling per Clinton Watts) voter suppression ignored or dragged out on purpose by a tRumputin DOJ, with beauguard as AG riding as a racist, sexist civil/voting civil rights HATER like him in 2018 and possibly 2020 if reported to a tRuputin DOJ by the Dem part et al.

"I didn't read past."


Didn't even see where I said IF.

Never mind. Good Grief

nini

(16,672 posts)
9. I'm guessing someone is going to rise to the top by leading the charge against trump
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:33 PM
Apr 2017

Someone like Franken or Schiff.

Someone we an all get behind.

Jack-o-Lantern

(966 posts)
10. Hillary will be too old,
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:35 PM
Apr 2017

and the pukes have convinced the stupid beyond all hope 3rd of the county that she is toxic.
I believe that Elisabeth Warren would be the better choice.

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)
39. Respectfully I believe that is a bit sexist
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:08 AM
Apr 2017

We wouldnt say that about a male candidate.

Heck, She'll only be 3 years older than Trump is now.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
43. They suggested Warren instead of Clinton and you called it sexist?
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 07:44 AM
Apr 2017

It sounds like there may be a bridge somewhere with a vacancy below it.

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)
46. Well Clinton is being dissed for her age only because she is female
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 08:56 AM
Apr 2017

A man wouldn't face that.

If Warren has the same issues (females being called out for age) when she is clintons age too, I would say something.

Besides, I'm discussing Clinton, not Warren.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
48. Warren is less than two years younger than Clinton, and the poster has no problem with her age.
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 09:05 AM
Apr 2017

Al Gore is the same age as Clinton, and personally I think he's too old too. (I actually think Warren and Sanders are as well).

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)
54. Well I don't think we should be discriminating because of age
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 09:13 AM
Apr 2017

But maybe that's because I'm getting up there myself.

Trump is older than any of them, yet someone he managed to sneak in.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
63. If you're using Trump as the standard of what's acceptable or a good idea, I question your judgement
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:42 PM
Apr 2017

but then, I was doing that once you suggested that someone who has never been elected to public office before should be speaker of the house. I'm honestly surprised you didn't suggest Bill Clinton for the supreme court.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
72. There are tons of studies that show women lose a huge percentage of popular suppport the moment they
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:16 PM
Apr 2017

Are running for office. It's actually a huge drop - around 20% that happens when women are going for promotions in the workplace. It's exactly what happened to Hillary every time she ran. Hopefully people will realize how stupid it is but the truth is our culture punishes women for having ambition- and lionizes men for the same thing.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
73. If the poster had suggested a man instead of Elizabeth Warren as an alternative to Clinton
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:32 PM
Apr 2017

the charge of sexism might have more merit to it.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
75. A lot of people don't realize how much their opinions change about women-
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:46 PM
Apr 2017

I'd say that we'd see Warren looked at in a whole new light once she started to get more ambitious. It's the difference between thinking someone should run and seeing them think they should- for about 20% of people it's a new ballgame. Ambitious women are less trusted. The studies on this are interesting, I encourage you to do some research.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
76. Would you agree that if a person suggests one woman
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:52 PM
Apr 2017

Instead of another, the reason for it is likely not rooted in sexism?

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
77. No, I don't think most people are aware of their inherent bias if they have one..
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:04 PM
Apr 2017

As a small example I heard many people cite ambition and wealth as negatives against HRC- used to insinuate corruption without any evidence. Same folks would deny that men running for the same office were at all ambitious. Odd, isn't it?

There's nothing extraordinary about men amassing wealth and power in our society- most see it as completely meaningless (or a positive) in terms of who they are. In women it's been seen as a character flaw. Do your research- a 20% swing in trustworthiness or likability is nothing to discount.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
78. You seem to be talking to me like I've made some sort of argument that I don't believe I have.
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:14 PM
Apr 2017

One poster suggested that Clinton may be too old, and had other negatives, and suggested Warren as an alternative.

Another poster called that "a bit sexist".

I asked why suggesting Warren as a replacement for Clinton is sexist. I think that's a fair question. It would not seem that preferring Warren to Clinton has some sort of gender bias, as far as I can tell.

You keep suggesting that I "do some research" comparing women and men, but I'm not talking about men at all. I'd just like a simple explanation why preferring Warren (a woman) to Clinton (another woman) is "a bit sexist".

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
79. It's not comparing women with men- it's comparing women not running for
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:21 PM
Apr 2017

Office or bucking for a promotion versus those women who do. The same woman will suffer an average of a 20% drop in likability and trustworthiness. So people assume they'd like Warren but a good 20% will see her in a different light. Is that clearer?

The only point about men is, basically they don't lose points for being seen as ambitious- but it bothers a lot of people if it's a woman. Even when it's the same women they thought they liked? 1/5 is not so sure about her anymore.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
80. So it sounds like you're suggesting that the negatives Clinton currently has would also affect
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:23 PM
Apr 2017

Warren if she were to choose to run for office, because of the gender bias. It this accurate?

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
81. Historically women see a huge drop in likability/ trustworthiness once they declare they are
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:31 PM
Apr 2017

"Running" for higher office or a promotion. It happened to Hillary when she ran for senate, and once she was in her numbers climbed back up-but yeah she took a big hit just for running. It sounds odd but the same extends to the workplace. Hopefully these biases will fade. But it's good to be aware of them. This bias is what slowed the press and the Russian bots to have their BS repeated ad infinitum.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
85. I agree with all of this, but I still don't have an answer to my question.
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:39 PM
Apr 2017

Clinton and Warren would both be hampered by the sexism embedded in society. I'm not denying at all that either would have a significant disadvantage over a male candidate, and haven't disagreed with anything you've posted so far.

but my question is: how is expressing a preference for Warren over Clinton "a bit sexist"? That's the part I don't understand.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
86. As much as people want to believe they would still feel the same about Warren when she's
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:44 PM
Apr 2017

Running.... studies have shown a large percentage are going to jump ship- so it's one of those things that's easy to say. Basically twenty percent of those people are going to feel differently. We can't ignore that just because no one wants to admit it is them- we need to air it out so people can examine and perhaps overcome their bias.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
87. The poster pointed out two issues they had with Clinton when expressing a preference for Warren.
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 06:01 PM
Apr 2017

First, Clinton is older (by about two years). While you may call this ageism, it wouldn't seem to be sexism.

Second, that "the pukes have convinced the stupid beyond all hope 3rd of the county that she is toxic". Surely some of this is related to sexism and that will affect Warren as well, but the republicans have been going after Clinton for decades and have demonized her to the extent that they would have a hard time repeating for any candidate over just the next few years. Clinton has problems that go well beyond just the sexism that Warren would face.

You can argue about the extent of it, but these are both things that would seem to give at least some advantage to Warren over Clinton, even assuming that the sexism is equal for both candidates. So why is expressing a preference for Warren "a bit sexist"?

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
88. My point still stands- the "she is toxic" narrative arose of the sexism ...
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 07:22 PM
Apr 2017

And two years is negligible. I'm not pushing for either of them or anyone else to run in 2020- would rather focus on the midterms. I like a lot of Dems. Was just explaining why some of these crappy memes got traction. Raising awareness as it was. Gotta run Nice talking w you!

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
89. I agree with you. My concern was that we basically had one poster suggest another poster
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 07:53 PM
Apr 2017

made a sexist remark. Now, they did it in a polite way, but they did it all the same.

I recognize that because of my background, I have certain biases (as we all do) and frankly, don't always see things the way other people do. I didn't understand why this post was called "a bit sexist" and I wasn't sure if I missed something here.

Have a good evening

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
92. Gotcha - I appreciate your patience and interest in sorting this crap out....
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 10:28 PM
Apr 2017

To be honest a lot of people pretend to want to understand and they just eff with you.... I'm glad that i guessed that that wasn't the case here. My larger point was we should keep the results of such studies in mind while listeneing to the conversations peopelmhave about candidates. Despite being a life long feminist I admit I had some bias myself, and when needed to be confront d with it. And in this election I have to say it was hearing "I just can't listen to her" a few times that made me push back. I couldn't imagine people writing people off without ever listening to them. That shocked me. But people were willing to do it, and willing to repeat all sorts of crap they had no evidence for. The scuttlebutt killed her- and it hurt all of us in the end. We're ducked right now because it was 20% easier to NOT give HRC the benefit of the doubt. I wasn't really fond of her myself until I dissected what was happening and how crazy it got. A real hatchet job.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
62. What is the precise age that makes one "too old"?
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:31 PM
Apr 2017

What is the precise age that makes one "too old," and on what objective measure is that number arrived at? Or is your entire premise predicated wholly on simple bias and guess-work?

 

EL34x4

(2,003 posts)
12. It's time for Gen-X to take the reins.
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:45 PM
Apr 2017

In 2020, do we really want a "dream team" of candidates born during the 1940s? It's time to nurture some younger leaders.

In 2008, we won with a young, energetic, inspiring outsider. Why mess with success? It worked!

And, honestly, what has Chelsea Clinton accomplished that qualifies her to be House Majority Leader?

crazycatlady

(4,492 posts)
13. No more also rans on the top of the ticket
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:47 PM
Apr 2017

I want 2020 to be a fresh start. Preferably some young blood too. It's time for a new generation of leadership.

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)
19. excuse me?
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 08:34 PM
Apr 2017

There's not an ounce of fail in these people.

If they hadn't been robbed all of them would be leading us through prosperity right now.

We shouldn't give up due a couple elections. We should double down and try harder. We really do owe it them.

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)
34. We thought people were dilusionion in thinking Trump would be elected
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:56 AM
Apr 2017

Hope and audacity is what this is.

But it looks like the idea is dead on arrival. Sad to see us writing off our best and brightest in hopes our the junior varsity team will save us.

But that probably is reality.

jimlup

(7,968 posts)
42. depends on how you define success
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 07:00 AM
Apr 2017

she didn't win in the midwest (which is where i live.) She's considered "establishment"

We need fresh faces in 2020

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
18. I don't think Hillary should or will run again.
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 08:31 PM
Apr 2017

I would like to see Seth Moulton (D-MA) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL).

I would like to see Kirsten Gillebrand as Seth's running mate as well, but I don't think two north-easterners are going to work. I love Warren and Franken, but I think they are doing better work where they are. We need people that the right hasn't spent years demonizing. I think we need to surprise them by throwing new blood at them.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
22. We really need to get some leadership from the West Coast, in my estimation.
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 09:53 PM
Apr 2017

I like Gavin Newsom, also Kamala Harris and WA gov. Jay Inslee.

Of course both Oregon's senators, Ron Wyden and the increasingly outspoke Jeff Merkley, are valuable party assets as well.

Unfortunately letting the Eastern half of the country dominate the conversation too often seems to lead to tone-deafness on issues like cannabis legalization and tech questions like strong encryption, etc.

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
27. I'm pretty much open to that. I would just like to see something than the
Sun Apr 23, 2017, 10:29 PM
Apr 2017

same old, same old. You have brought up some great candidates. The democratic party is not hurting for viable candidates, only for people who don't have vision. We need to give these people a chance. Hell, if someone with NO experience like Trump can get elected, then I think we can put up some great inexperienced but highly qualified people who can beat the republicans.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
33. I agree, I want vigorous debate and a big expansion of our leadership bench.
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:34 AM
Apr 2017


I was really impressed with Pete Buttigeig, when he briefly took a crack at the DNC chair post. There's a guy with a funny name, who I'd never heard of before that night, and wham! Very impressed.

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)
36. I think she would if she had a wonder team behind her.
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:57 AM
Apr 2017

Other possibility would be for her to run for VP, Gore for President, giving her to chance to step in a few years later.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
41. I had to look that up, you fiend!
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:29 AM
Apr 2017


I was gonna say, "you know, I don't read them books about the wizards, mang"

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)
47. Ah yes. Thanks for locating the typo'ed character in my message
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 09:02 AM
Apr 2017

Surprised that it caused so much confusion, but I'm glad that I was able to put you at ease.

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)
52. Well they are the same person
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 09:11 AM
Apr 2017

So let's agree they will be in the same place.

None of this is likely of course. It's starting point for discussion about how to correct past wrongs and put us on the right course.

Looks like the general consensus is that the older folks aren't wanted, so I'll let the matter drop.

Once again, I apologize for my offensive use of the letter "y"

MichMary

(1,714 posts)
56. Well, I doubt that either one could be elected
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 10:23 AM
Apr 2017

They don't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Response to fescuerescue (Original post)

Vinca

(50,246 posts)
44. Not a whole lot of recs on this thread.
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 07:51 AM
Apr 2017
I would love to see candidates who are not on Social Security. We need new blood.

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)
51. Is that the new purity test?
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 09:07 AM
Apr 2017

admittedly I haven't followed her career as closely as I do Hillary's, but on occasion my fingers do fail me.

If so I'll make sure get that into my spell check right away. Would hate to be banned over a letter.

Thank you for your attention to keyboarding quality.

 

cwydro

(51,308 posts)
58. no purity test.
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 10:52 AM
Apr 2017

But if even a Dem is ignorant of the correct spelling of ANY Clinton name, it seems doubtful that she would "win", as you so blithely assert.

 

cwydro

(51,308 posts)
67. The y is nowhere near the a on the keyboard.
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:20 PM
Apr 2017

Edit it already.

No one said you were a bad person lol. You ok?

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)
69. still a typo. Not unheard of when it comes to synonyms.
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:54 PM
Apr 2017

And I have relatives who are named Chelsey, so its an easy mistake for me to make.

Yea I'm ok. I'm down to one eye (literally), but otherwise yes.

Response to fescuerescue (Original post)

get the red out

(13,460 posts)
53. Shake the Clinton addiction
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 09:13 AM
Apr 2017

Please! I really admire her, and agree with her on everything, but it is time to stop obsessing on getting her elected President. Through no fault of her own, she has been demonized for over 20 years non-stop. We can't keep doing this!

Mike Nelson

(9,949 posts)
55. Sounds like a winning team...
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 10:02 AM
Apr 2017

...but it's too far out to pick a favorite. The mood of the country is unpredictable... I'm sure we will have great candidates, though! And, I don't think any of the older politicians mentioned above are "too old" - except for Trump due to his bigoted old ideas, not his chronological age.

SomethingNew

(279 posts)
59. I don't believe in totally political SCOTUS appointments.
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:04 AM
Apr 2017

Appointing Pres. Obama would be exactly that. He was a great leader but I've seen no indication that he is a great legal thinker and jurist on the level of Kagan or RBG. They are different talents with little, if any, overlap. There are plenty of liberal jurists that would be better suited for the role. Furthermore, I doubt he'd want the job.

As to the rest of the OP, others have already expressed my concerns there.

0rganism

(23,933 posts)
66. 2020? try 2018
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:20 PM
Apr 2017

if we don't win BIG in 2018, and that's very much an uphill battle, it won't matter one bit who we nominate in 2020. we need at least one house of congress to slow the destruction down to a rate at which it can be effectively opposed. spoiler: what we're doing now is not working.

Initech

(100,053 posts)
70. Oh god no. We can't have anyone tied to past administrations in 2020.
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:02 PM
Apr 2017

The republicans would kill us and they'd have a permanent majority for the next several decades.

I'd go:

Al Franken - President
Elizabeth Warren - Vice President
Kamala Harris - Senate Majority Leader
Julian Castro - Speaker Of The House

But if we're going to beat the GOP, we need new, scandal free people that they can't use in ads against us. Running the same people again would just ensure more republican victories.

 

Sen. Walter Sobchak

(8,692 posts)
83. A presidential ticket isn't a rock and roll Supergroup or nostalgia act
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:35 PM
Apr 2017

We need to look forward and not keep trying to vindicate past failures.

fescuerescue

(4,448 posts)
91. I fully understand that this is a paranoid place
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 08:04 PM
Apr 2017

But I don't think you have anything to worry about from me.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Democratic Dream Team Nee...