Eric Swalwell

[mtnsnake]

Every time I hear him speak, he impresses me with just about every sentence that comes out of his mouth. Mostly, I love how tough he is when it comes to his handling of Trump. Unlike so many of our current crop of candidates, Swalwell doesn't hesitate when it comes to bashing that asshole. He doesn't hold back when it comes to going after him, and we really do need someone who can be as tough as nails in the next election, not someone who is only going to take the high and stick to the issues without also going after the bloated one at the same time. Talking about the issues is of utmost importance, obviously, but in 2020 it's going to be about who can best make the asshole in office cry like a baby.

Of all our people who have announced, I think Elizabeth Warren would make the best president of any of them, but I have to wonder how she'd do with independents, moderate republicans, and any other fence sitters in a general election. I've always liked Bernie, and I think he is by far the toughest of our current announced candidates when it comes to going after Trump, but I think he'd be too easy a target for the right wing in a general election.

If Swalwell jumps in, I think he would quickly impress a lot of folks. I think a ticket of him along with either Andrew Gillum, Amy Klobuchar, Kamela Harris, or Beto O'Rourke as his running mate would be a winning ticket. Then again, I'm confident we'll beat the pigfaced lying asshole no matter who we put up against him as long as it's not Kirstin Gillibrand.

[True Blue American]

1. Agree!

[marylandblue]

2. I don't think Trump bashing will win. Trump thrives on negative attention

and ends up sucking the air out of the room. We need to put forward a positive case for ourselves

[mtnsnake]

3. Of course it's vital to put forth a positive case but if we don't hit back hard at him we could lose

If we simply ignore Trump's insults and lies without pounding back at him, I think we'll be perceived as weak. If we don't hit back hard, then all of Trump's lies will stand a better chance of sticking. We really do need toughness as long as we're smart about it.

[marylandblue]

6. Not saying we don't hit back, but Trump bashing seems to be Swalwell's forte.

On other issues, he doesn't seem to be better than current contenders, who will also be hitting back at Trump.

[empedocles]

4. The 'positive case', policy aspirations did not win the midterms.

trump lost the midterms

[marylandblue]

7. Pelosi played up healthcare and played down impeachment.

That worked. The case against Trump makes itself. People knew all about it in 2016 and voted for him anyway. It will happen again if our message is "we are not Trump."

[athena]

13. This is a very good point.

When your opponent is digging himself into a hole, you step aside and let him do it. We don’t need a candidate who will attack Trump. We need a candidate who will make a better president and survive the attacks from both the right and the left.

(Unfortunately, some on the left will also be attacking our eventual candidate, manipulated by Russian trollls. We have to make sure we don’t let them succeed this time.)

[Cosmocat]

11. The way to deal with him is to be blunt, short and hit high

nm

[BlueFlorida]

5. I really like Eric Swalwell n/t

[NurseJackie]

8. I REALLY like that he doesn't shit on the Democratic party every chance he gets...

... and that's a BIG PLUS in my book! And he's easy on the eyes, he's got a nice haircut, very clean-cut, sensible and hygienic-looking... you can tell that he takes care of himself. He's just got an overall aura of being healthy and fit... mentally and physically, he's got STAMINA. I also like that he's got a friendly demeanor that's respectful of others. I could easily see him as the Leader of the Free World. He listens, he can be serious without being grumpy or scowling at others or waving his hands in their faces or invading their personal space. Every time I see him on Rachel, I'm very impressed.

[BlueFlorida]

9. Of the dozen plus candidates

only one person does that. The others care for the Democratic party and its future.

[Hortensis]

10. If all our good people run for president, do we default

congress and state governments to the Republicans, or what?

Swalwell isn't going to run for president. He's being brought along for eventual top leadership and has been delegated the house's public face for certain issues. Notably, he's on both the judiciary and intelligence committees (!), and is now co-chair of the powerful steering and policy committee, so of course we're seeing a lot of him.

And if that's not enough, "I serve on the Policy & Communications Committee, which is tasked with developing a Caucus-wide message that forcefully communicates where House Democrats stand on issues to the American people. I am leading the committee’s outreach to millennial audiences."

Maybe take a breath? Why, with so many good candidates already announced, do some keep discarding each as soon as someone else comes along, one after the other, over and over. Ben & Jerry's syndrome, just too many choices? Maybe it's time to turn to learning in more depth about the people who have declared their candidacy so far, plus Biden They're not really all discards.

Meanwhile, over on the increasingly authoritarian right, Republicans have essentially one, and only one, candidate to dutifully endorse. And isn't HE a prize?

[athena]

12. If you think Warren would make the best president,

why don’t you support her? I don’t see that Swalwell has any advantage over Warren, except his gender, and even that’s debatable. He’s a valuable member of Congress, which is where he should stay.

At this early stage, we should all be for the candidate we think would make the best president. For a long time, I was for Harris because I didn’t think Warren could win. But Warren has the boldest ideas. I’m for Warren, Harris, and Booker, in that order. And Warren is my candidate because she’s first on the list.

[mtnsnake]

15. Read what I said. I said "of our people who have announced." Swalwell hasn't announced yet.

BTW, I disagree with you that Swalwell has an advantage over Warren because of his gender. For that matter I pretty much disagree with everything else in your post such as the other part where you said Swalwell should stay in Congress because he's a valuable member there. Well what about Elizabeth Warren? Do you think she should stay in Congress because she's a valuable member there, too? Obviously not.

And I don't need to have anyone as my number one choice at this juncture just because you say so. I want to hear what all of them have to say once the real campaigning begins. Right now I'm considering all of them, with the exception of Gillibrand perhaps. I will ultimately support the person who I think can not only make a fine president but someone who also has a good chance of winning.

[athena]

16. I see. You don't actually think Warren is the best candidate.

Forgive me for misunderstanding. I mean, I can totally see that Swalwell is soooo much better than Warren.

Feel free not to support Warren or anyone else. And feel free to jump at people’s throats for trying to have a discussion with you.

[RLG]

14. TBTH, I am extremely impressed with him.

He may not speak eight languages and is a Rhodes Scholar like Buttigieg, but at least he has run for higher office. Also, he has Midwestern ties since he's from Iowa.