Who you like 2020 Dems- Page 2

[SmoothLover]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 9:42am

It is still so early to have much of an idea as to what is going to happen, Some candidates will drop out along the way and then their votes will go to someone else. I have a feeling Biden will sharpen up his debating skills.

[Mike Barrett]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 9:47am

Oh, its still incredibly early to choose a front runner. However, not performing well in debates in June of 2019 when this field is so large to me is enexcusable. Lots of people really need to start dropping so we can have more cohesiveness come the primaries. If not, division amongst the Democrats again. 

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 10:22am

I think a Harris/Buttigieg ticket is nirvana to liberal Democrats like me, but we need to engage centrist Democrats too. I am loving Harris more and more. Apparently she’s having quite a hard time engaging African-American voters while Biden was still holding pretty well with them, but last night may change things. She wiped the floor with him last night although she didn’t give many specifics...but perhaps she didn’t need to...

Also a good chunk of America has said they’re not comfortable with a gay president. Maybe they’d be more OK with the gay vice president I don’t know. And there is a sizable portion of the African American community that is homophobic so then things get more complicated. I agree mayor Pete did really well last night. I don’t think he’s going to be confrontational enough to take on Trump as our presidential nominee, but I’d love to see a way for him to be in a vice presidential role. But I agree whoever the nominee is would be wise to pick somebody from a southern state as their running mate to pull in some of those voters.

I also think the Biden & Hillary comparison has some accuracy but isn’t quite exact. So far, Biden is polling well with African Americans (again, last night might change that, but African Americans overwhelmingly wanted the southern Democratic governor who wore black face to stay in office) and Hillary never did as I recall. I will say I loved Hillary and the more Biden talks the less I like him and I was pretty excited about him before.

Of course, I’d vote for a pencil if it could beat Trump.

Now, let’s talk about...

Williamson...ooof

and

Yang...vote for me and I’ll give you $1,000...

[Mike Barrett]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 10:27am

Yang is complaining that MSNBC turned his mic off. Which if true, is disgusting. However, whenever he did speak, he had nothing to say. And yes, call New Zealand!! Most LOL moment of the night for me. 

 

I think the Biden/Hillary comparison for me comes down to "baggage" which both have some of. For a candidate like Trump, thats what he wants because he can fight that and unite his base around hating that person and that person's past. He will have a much harder time doing that with Mayor Pete and Kamala without getting homophobic or racist. Which we all know he is, but for him to show that clearly on a debate stage I think would be interesting. So for me, Joe has issues with women, voting history, Anita Hill, being related to the Obama Presidency, I really fear Joe going up against Trump. Kamala seems the most ready and well spoken for it right now, in my personal opinion. Last night I think was a huge night for her. 

 

[javero]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 10:37am

Allow me to back my way into why Biden will be the nominee unless he totally self-sabotages.

Eric Swalwell: A promising candidate with unresolved daddy issues who pissed off a huge chunk of a loyal Dem voting bloc with his geriatric bashing.  He came across as everyone's bratty kid brother or moody middle child.  He needed to steal a bunch of Harris' thunder to shore up the CA primary vote.  Unfortunately, he could use a lil more seasoning.

Kamala Harris: An extremely shrewd candidate who was just enough of a foil to Biden in the debates to remind him, "without me, you'll get nowhere near 270".   She masterfully made her case for a veep nod.  Yes, it's misogynistic as hell to suggest that she lacks warmth, but to everyone in my circles there's a deficit there.  Everything about her is scripted and carefully calculated including the perfectly-timed photo of her as a kid and the shot at Biden about his support of de jure (or de facto) segregationists who opposed busing in 70s.  Biden and she have already metaphorically kissed and made up so there's no need to worry about that pair.  She needed him to wake the f*ck up and atone for his past sins early in the race before the other contenders could make hay out of it.  Plus, the African American twitterati would have eviscerated her had she not called out Biden after an obvious setup.  Kam Kam has a "tell" when she's about to attempt to emote.

Elizabeth Warren: Arguably the most suitable alternative to Biden who would shun Harris at her own peril.  A Warren/Harris ticket would never emerge for a number of reasons.  Liz desperately needs a male running mate who could help her in the old south & mid west.  She'd likely pick Buttigieg which would result in a pummeling nearly as bad as the one that Bush-Quayle delivered to Dukakis-Bentsen.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg: The guy was born to be a US senator.  A term or two in the Senate would allow some character to develop in his face and the electorate time to purge itself of residual homophobia.  If the nation is ever going to elect a LGBTQ president, he clearly fits the bill.  For now though, he looks like a well-rehearsed high school kid who showed up to the debates sporting his dad's hand-me-down suit.  Minority opinion here...it was not his best night in terms of substance or style.  His humility is refreshing.  But his troubled history with minorities back home is an obvious attack vector.  Unlike Biden, he doesn't have the benefit of decades of distance from the events. And he needs a better tailor.

Kirsten Gillibrand: I was really pulling for Amy Klobuchar and her.  But, Trump has turned off voters to anything New York.  New York is a wonderful state but it arguably doesn't play well outside of NY.  And naive voters too often associate the state with NYC.  The NYC bluster that works for Trump is the kiss of death on the national stage for any Dem with ties to NYC , especially de Blasio or anyone from the Cuomo clan.

Bernie Sanders: The act is stale.

Joe Biden: Nominate him already.  Give Kamala Harris credit for the assist.  She, along with his tailor and most of his record, made him appear the most presidential person on that stage, bar none.  She'll be rewarded later.  Biden was without peer last night.  Thanks to my 6th sense, I detected viewers hanging onto his every word.  It helps that he's never been more telegenic and is close in height to Trump.  #OpticsMatterInElections #Biden/HarrisEquals270 #IndiesWantBiden/Harris #UncleJoeWillOnlyGetBetter

Updated On: 6/28/19 at 10:37 AM

Posted: 6/28/19 at 11:09am

I liked Joe Biden yesterday; I like him today; I will like him tomorrow.  Joe Biden offers our best chance to save America.

[javero]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 12:37pm

I remain a Biden stan, but make no mistake about it, he is the establishment candidate in this cycle. 

Like clockwork, Atlanta mayor endorses Biden for potus.  

This reinforces my view that some of the usual suspects in the MSM are making way too much of Biden's trespasses with regard to forced public school busing and the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill debacle. 

I also don't mean to be pedantic, but some of the younger or less experienced candidates have wafer-thin public records that have often escaped close scrutiny.  After last night's debate, Mayor Pete now has a heavier cross to bear.  Eric Swalwell did him no favors.  The night before, the Bill de Blasio/Julián Castro tag team basically handed Beto his azz  on a pu pu platter.  Beto and Mayor Pete started the race as this cycle's Breck Girl and Sentimental Favorite respectively.  IMHO Beto's now toast and Mayor Pete's lost some lustre outside of his most ardent fans.

I sense that Biden's team is banking on Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris canceling each other out most likely guaranteeing him the nomination  The two women share a key bloc, and unlike Bernie, have no natural enemies within the party as far as I can see.

It's Biden's nomination to lose.  It's time for him to stop apologizing and start laying out concrete plans to lead the nation.  We can't change the past.

Updated On: 6/28/19 at 12:37 PM

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 12:45pm

I admire Harris' tenacity, way with words, and intelligence, but I don't think I could ever vote for her. I frequent forums with a more even distribution of liberals and conservatives, and, while she was probably the most effective speaker on stage last night, she has some huge liabilities working against her for both liberals and conservatives. On the left, there is a lot of opposition to her based on her record as a ruthless prosecutor, and in terms of policy, she's basically Hillary 2.0, which doesn't inspire much of the younger crowd. On the right, she is a woman of color who is outspoken and pulls no punches: people just don't like her. If you thought the vitriol against Hillary was bad, I see similar backlash against her coming.

Warren and Buttigieg are both effective speakers, have pretty solidly progressive policy proposals, and seem likable. However, their mild manners may not fair well against Trump. It could go either way. They might appear comparatively sane and principled against his brashness and win favor because of that, or they might be construed as weak. I like Bernie, but he did poorly last night, and will basically do the same going forward. I like that he's consistent, at least. Yang actually has very detailed policy proposals, but he is way ahead of his time. The fact that his universal basic income proposal garnered guffaws from the audience shows me that America simply isn't in any way ready for what he is proposing.

I'm surprised to see the support for Biden here on this board. The consensus in other places online is that Harris basically eviscerated Biden. Biden looks tired and not at the top of his mental game. I don't think he is a suitable candidate for Presidency. My impression is that his heart isn't in this. After the loss of Beau, I don't think he had any intention to return to Washington after he finished his term with Obama. It feels like the only reason he is running is because people pressured him to and the urgency of beating Trump. The fact that he said his first priority as president would be to "defeat Trump" and that "things will remain fundamentally the same" under his administration, whereas everyone else is aiming for real progressive changes, speaks volumes about his level of motivation in this campaign.

Everyone else has their moments, but aren't viable candidates, IMO.

[javero]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 1:18pm

MikeInTheDistrict wrote: "Yang actually has very detailed policy proposals, but he is way ahead of his time. The fact that his universal basic income proposal garnered guffaws from the audience shows me that America simply isn't in any way ready for what he is proposing. "

Yang is the candidate who most appeals to me intellectually.  I even think his math works out.  Dude is definitely willing and capable of thinking outside the box.  But, I agree that the nation isn't ready for what he's peddling.

Setting aside the candidates for a moment, I abhor the following: (1) Donald Trump, (2) ageism, (3) sex trafficking, (4) corporate welfare including agricorp subsidies & bank bailouts (5) misogyny with which I still struggle personally (6) racism, (7) hatred towards the LGBTQ communities, ( excessive taxation on any entity at any level,  (9) class warfare, (10) FB, and (11) revisionist history.

Updated On: 6/28/19 at 01:18 PM

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 1:35pm

“It's Biden's nomination to lose.  It's time for him to stop apologizing and start laying out concrete plans to lead the nation.  We can't change the past.”

Uh, Biden doesn’t apologize. That’s kind of his thing. At least, so far during this campaign. He could’ve easily disarmed Harris if he had apooogized, but she knew he wouldn’t. It’s his Achilles heel. By failing to acknowledge his past failings and not saying he has learned from them (as most of the other candidates, including Harris, have), he doesn’t distance himself from the problematic parts of his past. Instead, he weds himself to them and brings them into his present. 

Does he still have a good chance of winning the nomination though? Yes, he does. 

[javero]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 2:07pm

"By failing to acknowledge his past failings and not saying he has learned from them (as most of the other candidates, including Harris, have), he doesn’t distance himself from the problematic parts of his past. Instead, he weds himself to them and brings them into his present."

I sense that there's a generational divide on here similar to the one that plagues the Dems presently.  The other candidates don't have his track record and the attendant opportunities to screw up.  I was writing in the broader context of Biden, personal space, and Anita Hill.  Not being snarky but ask yourself the following questions:

1. why does Biden enjoy better support from black or African American voters than Kamala Harris?

2. how did Biden arrive as the front runner in spite of his uncomfortable decisions in the past regarding forced public school busing & the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill debacle?

3. why has Mayor Pete been so easily knocked back on his heels by his "peers" over his relations with the police and minorities within his purview?

4. why are the two smartest kids in their middle school class, namely Amy Klobuchar & Kirsten Gillibrand, going nowhere fast?

5. how does Trump continue to beat Elizabeth Warren over the head with Pocahontas' mocasins?

6. what possessed Bill de Blasio to even consider seeking the party nomination?

NOTE: Another unpopular opinion I hold is that "Arkansas Hilary" would be president today.  Her biggest political mistake was relocating to NY to run for Senate as an on ramp to the White House.  Imagine if she had relocated to an Atlanta suburb and run for GA governor.  Clinton/Kaine lost NC, SC, GA, AL, TN, KY, MS, LA, AR, MO, IA, IN, OH, PA, MI, and WI.  That's an ominous harbinger for 2020.

[South Florida]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 2:17pm

I expect when the new polls come out Warren, Buttigieg, and Harris will perk up and Biden and Sanders will go down.  After the last two nights I add Harris to my list although any of them have my vote.  When they get to Florida as of now I'm looking at three instead of two.  I think Bernie and Biden are yesterdays news.

 

[artscallion]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 2:18pm

2. Biden arrived as front runner solely because of name recognition. At this early point in the game he's the only one whose name the general public even knows.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 2:40pm

I agree this is Biden's nominee to lose. But he's losing points since he officially announced his bid. Warren & Harris came out the best, followed by Mayor Pete. I would love it if Harris was Biden's VP choice. I'll keep saying this, but if Biden wins the presidency, he should only do one term, then hand it over to Harris(or whoever his VP is).

[javero]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 2:42pm

Regarding polls, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...

If one of the candidates can catch lightning in a bottle coming out of Iowa, she or he could have a sizable lead after the Mar 10 primaries and caucuses. 

Final thoughts regarding Biden for the day.  His worst enemy right now is the MSM trying to make a story out of a non-story, not voters.  He's also the only candidate who's had to square off against Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham, two seniors who absolutely do not play nice in the sandbox with Dems.  Trump has made it painfully apparent that experience does matter.

Updated On: 6/29/19 at 02:42 PM

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 3:11pm

I'd be happy never to hear from Sanders again. I think he was the catalyst for 2016 - he should have done it the classy way, like Hillary in 2008. It was a bitter primary, but she simply didn't have the delegates. She stumped for Obama to unify the party. Sanders widened the divide and seems poised to do it again, but it looks like the larger field prevents him from truly going against a singular party. Most suspected it would be a showdown between him and Biden, but it sounds like he failed to make an impact next to Kamala. Also, Warren seems to have packaged what Sanders has in a more personal, palatable way while maintaining the fire Sanders works up. I sense he is fading. His chance has passed.

I look forward to watching night 2 - I recorded it but have been working nonstop. Warren owned night one and Harris seems to have finally entered into the spotlight. I'm interested in what Pete has to say and I've heard good things about Gillibrand. Gillibrand is my personal favorite, but barring something spectacular, I doubt she will make it more than a few weeks after Iowa.

[Gorlois]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 4:06pm

Gillibrand has smart things to say, but the way she said it she said came off as pushy and aggressive, fighting for speaking time. She didn’t do herself any favors last night and I doubt will see gain any momentum from her performance. The winners of the debates were Warren, Castro, Harris, and Buttigeig. I still think Beto was the only loser, but Biden and Sanders need to step their game up to better court voters in these debates.

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 4:48pm

I just got an email from Beto’s team titled “Were a bit worried.” Definitely not a good sign for him. As some who has liked Booker, I’d also say hex was a loser on night one of the debates. Neither he or Harris didn’t offer specific plans, but the difference is I believe she has plans, pushed through a compelling narrative, and is a very effective speaker. Booker doesn’t cone across as having specifics and seems more obviously to be diverting from that. He also just wasn’t as compelling as I wanted him to be.

Also, Yang may have great financial plans but, speaking as someone who knew next to nothing about him (I think I saw him on Bill Maher or another network talk show once before), I wouldn’t have known that from the debate. Both he and Bennett seemed to be surprised to be asked questions by the moderators. All I took away from Yang is he wants to give everyone $1,000 a month with no clear way to pay for it. That may not actually be his plan but that’s how most people including me received it. He was not a clear communicator.

And, of course, Williamson seemed to have just stumbled in from a spiritual wellness seminar.

Winners, IMHO, were:

Harris
Warren
Buttigieg
Castro
Gabbard
Klobuchar
Gillibrand

In addition to the losers above, I’d also list de Blasio. He needed a big win and he just came across as a blowhard. The rest were not so much losers as they were forgettable. They just didn’t make much of an impression and are pretty forgettable, which I suppose makes them losers as well. I’d guess the “forgotten” candidates will fall out of the race first. After all, Biden and Sanders may have also lost, but they have huge name recognition although I do think they’ll lose a few points in the polls (although 2016 tells us something about the fallibility of polls).

That’s not to say I see all the “winners” having a clear path to the nomination. There’s still the Biden (and to a lesser extent, Bernie) factor.

The eventual nominee will be the one that most voters feel they “understand”, find compelling with good ideas, and, most importantly, can stand up to Trump and his relentless attacks during the laborious campaign and ultimately beat him.

[javero]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 5:17pm

With the exception of Biden, I think the women outperformed their male counterparts on both nights, including Marianne Williamson who was hella entertaining.  Perhaps Tulsi Gabbard is not the most popular person around these parts, but she completely handed Tim Ryan has azz when he tried to mansplain Middle East policy to her.  That's her lane all day long.  If's safe to suggest that we can agree that Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, and Kirstin Gillibrand are all whip smart women who know how to land their talking points.

Now, onto the purely frivolous stuff that actually wins primary nominations.  Apart from Biden, who "looked" presidential? And what does a woman president look like by US standards?

I'll limit it to the dudes since women are forever picked apart over their appearance.  So, from night 1 we have de Blasio, hell no for a number of reasons; Castro, no...too short; Tim Ryan, nope...too much of a himbo; Booker, possibly due to height & heft but lacks hair & a wife and reads inauthentic; Beto, nope...another himbo with pointy ears, lanky build & nervous ticks, Jay Inslee (winner)...well, if governors were in vogue the nom would be his; and John Delaney...bless his heart.

From night 2

Hickenlooper, nope...no rock star quality; Yang, perhaps if he had some semblance of rhythm and featured Biggie in his holograms; Mayor Pete, nope...too puerile & short; Biden (winner), only a year younger than Bernie but looks 10 years younger; Sanders, nope and hasn't improved any since 2016; Bennet, not until he snaps out of the coma, and Swalwell (honorable mention)...he'll be potus in 8 years as long as he avoids orange neck ties.

Updated On: 6/28/19 at 05:17 PM

Posted: 6/28/19 at 7:48pm

This t-shirt was available for sale on Harris' website barely a breath away from the conclusion of last night's debate.  As a fellow Californian, I liked her well enough.  But not now.  Her campaign's coordinated attack on Joe Biden was planned, and cheapens the process.  She has neither my respect nor my vote. 

https://store.kamalaharris.org/that-little-girl-was-me/

 

 

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 8:06pm

Oh please, unclutch your pearls. Uncle Joe will be just fine. Of course, she planned to address that issue with him during the debate in exactly that way because she’s a seasoned speaker and prosecutor. Whoever wins the nomination is going to need those skills. If Biden can’t handle Harris confronting him on his past, he has no business thinking he can take on Trump toe-to-toe. I think I’m going to buy that shirt!

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 8:13pm

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/kamala-harris-ends-the-era-of-coddling-joe-biden-on-race.html?utm_medium=s1&utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=nym&fbclid=IwAR2x6CAe_7K4GaxaWC9fzGgNpvv5EHEen__eskQ7hR2YYhqIWYL_hseAR7w

Posted: 6/28/19 at 8:14pm

Miles2Go2 said: "Oh please, unclutch your pearls."

 

BE  POLITE

[Pauly3]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 8:52pm

Opinion:

If the Democrat candidates don't start addressing current policy issues in a more meaningful way, their chances of winning will fade.  Kamala Harris is an example of how not to succeed, even when the ultimate opponent is so hated.  My own opinion of her is that she is capable, tough and likeable.  From appearances, there is no more perfect candidate provided her policies are desirable.  She would likely get my vote, but for her policies...  Unfortunately, she is lying to herself and everyone else about her beliefs as to managing policy.  Whether Trump has lied to America or not, he's got a lot of ammunition that is working for him.  Harris can't match him, nor can anyone else at this time.  At least not with the ammunition they are currently bringing to the fight.

Harris pointing out that Trump toots his own horn - stemming from the current prices in the stock market - was not a high point for her.  More specifically, her quip that Trump's "accomplishment" is fine but only for those who own stocks was effective only to those not paying attention (which I'm guessing is part of her plan).   Trump will tout tax cuts along with deregulation, which are keys to getting more people into the job market as well as into the stock market.  Harris' attempt to diminish the economy and the unemployment figures, saying she knows people working two and three jobs to put food on the table, was another losing point.  Were those same people not working two and three jobs during Obama's administration - or any prior administration?  Is her "living wage" really going to be a living wage?  How will her administration keep from chasing its own tail in realistically keeping up with what will become an ever increasing "living wage"?  How will she (or anyone) do that and provide healthcare to everyone, literally everyone?  Those not paying attention don't ask these questions, which again, is likely part of her plan.  The same sentiment applies to all candidates who are being accused of wanting to steer this country into Socialism.

The old notion of conservative leaders wanting to provide a ladder so those who are willing to work hard can climb (lower taxes, deregulation) vs liberal leaders desire to provide a rope and say, "hang on, we'll pull you up" (higher taxes and redistribution of wealth) is glaringly relevant today.  I think a lot of America prefers the former approach - and sees it working successfully today, and the Democrat candidates have done little to show how the latter can work at all, let alone better.

[javero]

Posted: 6/28/19 at 11:59pm

Pauly3 wrote: "Harris pointing out that Trump toots his own horn - stemming from the current prices in the stock market - was not a high point for her.  More specifically, her quip that Trump's "accomplishment" is fine but only for those who own stocks was effective only to those not paying attention (which I'm guessing is part of her plan)."

Truly, the low point of the night.  How the other candidates allowed Kam to get away with that drivel boggles the mind.  Even if you don't trade individual stocks or directly invest in the myriad funds available, you likely either currently possess or aspire to hold a 401(k), Roth, or retirement saving plans of some sort.  I detest class warfare.  It is so beneath Kam to try to pull that stunt especially considering that she's probably fully vested in at least 3 fuggin' retirement plans and certainly isn't hurting for money.  Also, I'm no fan of Trump but his team can cook the books as well as all the administrations before him to bend the numbers to their will.  If the unemployment numbers are favorable to the cretin he must be given the credit he deserves even if he's riding the wave generated by the previous administration.

All Kam had to do was ask Americans to track the performance of their retirement savings plans since Trump took office, and then pin the last gov't shutdown & the ballooning national debt on Trump's backside .  A lot of Americans still get their health care and a portion of their retirement plan contributions from their employers.  Scores of folks have been complaining to me about their shrinking 401(k) balances, even the ones invested in very conservative funds, and rising deductibles.  Where's the Trump replacement for the ACA???  

There's something fundamentally un-American about the gov't trying to pick winners and losers in the marketplace, even in the private insurance space...and I'm looking at you now, Liz & Bernie.  But, there's also something very un-GOP-like about Trump's national debt.  Obama piled it on to jump start the economy.  Trump added to the heap to fund a tax cut for entities that didn't need it which caused scores of average Americans to get hit with a surprise tax bill when they filed their returns earlier this year. And he's spent the past few months buying off small farmers in the mid-west who've been walloped by record flooding and his stupid agricultural tariffs.

Also, an open GOP secret is that Wall Street is sick of Trump due to his gaul-awful tariffs and knee-jerk reaction to world events.  Equity fund managers will never embrace someone like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders but a single tweet from Trump can generate a tsunami of unwanted volatility in markets worldwide.  And I'm convinced that Trump has no understanding of the role of the Federal Reserve whatsoever.  Practically all my Republican friends and colleagues privately dismiss him as a self-serving bumbling idiot with no knowledge of the markets or the central banks.

The Dems need to reassure all Americans, including the equity class, that their gal or guy can get our troops out of senseless wars, mend fences with our key allies in NATO, make both the business and moral case for rejoining the Paris Climate accord, set an example for the provision of political and economic asylum in a humane and equitable way, roll out a new green deal to supplement (but not displace) current energy production, restore manufacturing jobs in some form in regions that aren't ready to become the center of the A.I. universe, dispatch grownups to oversee Silicon Valley, project realistic costs of universal health care for public inspection, protect children at school from from gun violence, foster the next great thing, and restore the rule of law, among other things.

We indie voters know that Trump is incapable and uninterested in achieving any of the above.

Sorry for the treatise.  It's just that there are so many opportunities for the Dems to make their case for wholesale reform in several contexts, as well as an early retirement for the Charlatan-in-Chief.  Let's spur pragmatic Dems to action and take out Trump in the process so that he gets his just desserts in the NY state penal system.  There is little margin for error or recourse if the Dems award the nomination to a total dud. With one miscue, Trump in all his ineptitude could be pushed over the wall again by his followers, foreign interference in the elections, gerrymandering, and byzantine electoral college calculus.

Updated On: 6/29/19 at 11:59 PM