Who do you think will win the next election?

When I read this, milk blew out of my nose. That is the funniest joke I've heard in a long time. Putting Trump's name in the same sentence with "peace and unity". Wow. That's a good one. My side is still hurting from laughing at that comical statement.


That cannot possibly be true. Look who got elected to the White House. The name Donald Trump and word "unifier" is an Oxymoron. On the other hand, the name Donald Trump and the word "divider" are Synonymous.

When you say everybody, you must be referring to the KKK, white supremacy, alt-right, and we can't forget about Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian government. Yes, Trump does represent a certain kind or class of society.

You know what, Roger? You're right! Some politicians would -- well, never mind.

Using that example, someone would have had to break through at the last convention and what did the Democrats present? more oldies

No one young and wildly exciting at that last convention.

The Democrats haven't been doing their succession planning.

Now the Republicans went outside of their succession plan - and picked someone who's been aiming for the job since the 1980's - but they do have some younger candidates and potential candidates lining up behind #45.

__

The American system does make it more difficult than other first world countries for young candidates to appear but a few have made it.






My preference is for national leaders in the 35 - 50 range so they're done before they're 60. That means the Democrats need to be developing potential candidates who are now 28 - 40.

__

edit: so to the original question. The Democrats don't appear to have any good candidates in the pipeline. The Republicans have a sitting president as well as a big batch of contenders (some of them were in the last round and hopefully learned something about debating/campaigning). There's always Pence, but he's truly dreadful. He's got potential to do serious damage.

I don't know if American parties ever really developed a "pipeline" for presidents. Maybe W was the closest-a consensus candidate everyone knew because of his father. Before Obama, Bill Clinton bombed out in his speech in 1988-people were walking out on him. Comes back four years later as the only Democrat with a "charisma" advantage. For what it's worth, Gore just missed and Hillary just missed. In both parties, it's basically up to the individual candidate to put together a formidable enough candidacy to get the party excited about him or her, and from there the parties try to get the country excited about them.

The reason we have so many “legacy” candidates is because the vast majority of Americans are ignorant and incurious about complicated issues that affect them and how their political choices translate to those issues. Examination of the conditions in our country requires a great deal of reading, researching, and critical thinking. These pursuits are not the national pastime.

That barrier to effective voting is multiplied exponentially by the fact that we don’t have any faith in our political system. It’s run by liars and cheaters. Why be a dedicated activist if everyone attracted to political office is corrupt in some fashion.

So, many of the voters who do make an attempt to slog through the process are most attracted by


name recognition.

So a bunch of elderly criminals find it easy to remain in office because voters know their names, regardless of what they’ve done while impressing their names on the public psyche.

In our country, you can just marry somebody with a well-known name or be their kid or grandkid, and you are magically elevated to presidential status.

Yay, murika.

It think over the last several decades, every person who ever got elected to the White House fell into one of three categories regardless of party affiliation. With the exception of Trump, each of those democrat and republican presidents were either a U.S. Senator, a Vice President, or a governor. Based on that observation, the democrats may have to get younger senators, younger governors, and younger Vice Presidents elected. That would build up a larger number of younger potential democrats to eventually run for president.

absolutely

Do you imagine that all of the people who fit your description are Southern rednecks?

That's what the use of "murika" implies.

It's offensive.

If the Democrats remain true to form, barring some major Mueller finding specifically against Trump, or an unforeseen and not to be desired national catastrophe, he will win reelection.

The Democrat base and major donors are leftists, not simply liberals and they will want to put up such a candidate. Such a candidate will lose, and then the party will begin moving towards the center again.

Quote Finn:

Seriously, what do you think is the chance that Mueller won't find something specifically against Trump? Half of Trump's campaign and Administration is composed of people who are either actively pro-Putin or just off the Kremlin payroll and he's spent the first months of his time in office trying to establish back-channel communications to the Kremlin that our intelligence services can't detect.

Why doesn't Trump just hang a sign around his neck that says, "Owned by Putin"?

I love the idea of a crop of young Democrats coming in to win elections. But at the moment, we haven't many to look at. So we had best be wise with what we have until that can be accomplished. If wishes were horses and we wished in one hand how many woodchucks would it take to make the horse take a drink of water?

I admit, I have no hope for a democrat; I am already depressed about the next election.

Pretty high. Higher yet if we restrict it to serious charges.

Quote Blickers:


Quote oralloy:


The people who Trump surrounds himself with, such as Bannon, Manafort, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and so many others, have such close ties to the Kremlin and Kremlin-connected oligarchs-whether ideologically or financially-that it seems remote that Trump's sleazy business practices haven't led him to illegal foreign involvements. Illegal in the US to be involved in these practices, even if they take place overseas. But we shall see.

So you're expecting a large national yawn when Mueller releases his report?

Why don't you hang a sign around your neck saying "Utterly Partisan Democrat?"

Keep wishing.

Maybe it does to you but I know plenty of Northern rednecks who share a similar sense of nationalism.

You mean it's not PC? So what?

Murca by another name -

Considering the moan, groan and hollering from liberals about keeping everything PC, I think it most definitelyis problematic.

Or do the rules only apply when Republicans and Conservatives speak?

Hey if you're ok with insulting stereotypes and sexist cracks, who am I to question you? You're an enlightened liberal after all.

(And blatham will find you comment delicious, so extra points for you.)