Thank goodness we didn't elect Hillary Clinton!

Looking ahead to 2020

Who does everybody think would be good potential candidates to unseat Trump in 2020? I know that the dust hasn't quite settled on 2016 but given how important it is to reclaim the WH in 2020, does anybody have any dream candidates? Have there been any names bandied about within the party as potentials for 2020 yet? I would guess that, due to age, neither Clinton nor Sanders are likely to run again. So, who's up to bat for us, next?

Governor-Elect Holcomb

Does anybody know what we might expect with him as Governor? I know absolutely nothing about him. He seems like little more than a more or less typical Hoosier Republican "empty suit". Is he a religious fanatic like Pence. Judging by his ads, he seems more interested in the economic side of things even though he reportedly expressed very little substance in terms of plans during the Gubernatorial debates.

Other than "newness"

What does Tim Ryan as ML do for us? I'm not necessarily opposed to "new blood" but I guess I'd like to know why we should throw Pelosi overboard and put in Ryan?

In all fairness

The polls heading into Election Day all seemed pretty favorable to Hillary, though Comey's letter seemed to suddenly take the wind out of her sails that had been building. I still find it weird that all of the polls were off so much in so many places and that the election ended up going so horrifically wrong for us. I mean, Ron Johnson, one of the stupidest GOP Senators in the country, won re-election over Russ Feingold? I have not seen hard evidence of election fraud/hacking but it all just seems weird.

I think that Garland's nomination should stand

for as long as President Obama is in office. We should not voluntarily accept the precedent that Republicans are setting in terms of blockading SCOTUS nominations (or any nominations, really). President Obama has been well within his rights as President to nominate and have the Senate consider a nominee of his choosing no matter how long he has left in his Presidential term, especially since there has obviously been more than enough for the time for the Senate to have considered his choice. This blockade has NOTHING to do with trying to "respect" the will of the American public, their feelings about Garland, or even logistical issues such as the amount of time the Senate has left on its work calendar to schedule and hold hearings and a vote. This is all about keeping Scalia's seat empty until a REPUBLICAN President can replace him with a like-minded Justice. They thought that they would be able to shoehorn a Republican into the WH next January (and they conceivably still could though probably not), so they decided that blockading a potential replacement was the best strategy to do it. For the most part, they have gotten away with it. Whether they can manage to do that for another 4-8 years under a new Democratic WH is another matter altogether but this seat *should* be President Obama's seat to fill as long as the nomination remains active and his to make IMHO.

So IOW

he's wanting Congress to waste days and hours and loads of taxpayer monies for an impeachment that not only isn't warranted (and she wasn't "pardoned", she wasn't even indicted) but also isn't going to even amount to anything more than a symbolic vote. But, since I guess Republicans have given up on legislating and keeping government running smoothly and their voters don't care because they keep electing them, I guess that we'll still have to suffer through another Clinton impeachment.