Anonymous wrote:I call troll— no one, not even progressives, are dumb enough to run HRC again. And Progressives are the flat-earthers of American politics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most of the country is not a white middle aged man. They are now going to have to get things on merit. And there is not a lot of white male talent in the Democratic Party.

Besides, why should the Democrats pander to the Trumpkins? They aren’t going to vote Dem. even if we do, and Dems are not the party of white nationalism/ populism.

Trumpkins will not vote for any Democrat and libtards will not vote for any Republican - to use monikers that each group refers to the other - but there are white voters who don't fit into either category and can be swayed.

The reality is that whites who make up 70% of the voters gave Trump his victory. Trump's margin of victory among these voters was 21%. I suspect if you leave out CA and NY, the margin of white voters who sided with Trump would be even higher. Democrats have to earn a larger portion of those votes in the swing states. Who is the nominee who can bring some of those voters back into the fold?

Anonymous wrote:Hillary for 2020! Sure, Vladmir. Kinda late in Moscow right now, isn't it?

Anonymous wrote:
Most of the country is not a white middle aged man. They are now going to have to get things on merit. And there is not a lot of white male talent in the Democratic Party.

Besides, why should the Democrats pander to the Trumpkins? They aren’t going to vote Dem. even if we do, and Dems are not the party of white nationalism/ populism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not going to happen. I am looking at Kamala Harris for 2020.

Kamala Harris? A half black/half South Asian liberal woman from California you think is the answer to winning white votes in the states that will decide who wins the electoral college?

If she is the nominee count on President Trump through 2024.

How do I know she will be the nominee? Because Trumpkins spend so much time and energy trying to convince me that Dems shouldn’t nominate her.

Actually nominating her would be their dream come true! But I am confident we will not do something that dumb given what happened in 2016. We need a white, Christian, middle aged guy preferable from the south or the mid-west - definitely not anyone from CA or the north east.

BTW, nothing to do with Harris' qualifications - but 2020 is not her year.

Anonymous wrote:Why are Trumpkins so obsessed with Hillary?

Anonymous wrote:
I think even the most ardent Hillary supporters can see this is not what we need. The OP is trying to gin up a discussion of the possible alternatives (maybe to dismiss all of them?).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the last time: HRC will not run. She has zero interest. She was publicly humiliated the last time around, and she is acutely aware that the majority of Americans can't stand her.

Plus, she's far too old.

The next candidate will be in his/her 40s.

40s is way too young

Clinton was 46.

Obama was 47.

Mid to late 40s seems best in terms of being equipped and physically up to the demands of the job.

You lose your stamina in the 50s and 60s, and 70 is geriatric.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the last time: HRC will not run. She has zero interest. She was publicly humiliated the last time around, and she is acutely aware that the majority of Americans can't stand her.

Plus, she's far too old.

The next candidate will be in his/her 40s.

40s is way too young