None of the current and prospective Democratic primary candidates

[MineralMan]

are, in any way, enemies. None of them. All would help us recover from the Trump era. The question we need to address is which one is the most likely to win next November against Donald Trump, who will probably be the Republican nominee.

That is the question to ask. It is really the only question. If we manage to regain control of both houses of Congress next year, whichever Democrat we elect will help Congress correct the ugliness Donald Trump has created.

That effort is going to take up the entire four-year term of the next President. Before we can move forward, we have to put on the brakes, stop the backwards momentum of the nation, and begin moving in the opposite direction. That will not happen overnight.

So, please think about who can absolutely and certainly defeat Donald Trump in 2020. That person is who we need as our nominee.

Right now, I believe that Joe Biden is probably the best bet. That might change down the road, but that's what I think right now, so that's whose picture is displayed in my posts. You might think someone else has a better chance. Tell us why, in practical political terms. Thanks.

[David__77]

1. I can understand your position.

I’ll see how things looks toward the end of the year as regards likelihoods of winning the general election.

[MineralMan]

2. OK. But, I'll bet you've already eliminated some candidates.

We all have. Narrowing down the field is the first step.

[David__77]

16. Not really.

I don’t think that’s the case.

[bigtree]

3. I don't think anyone has said they're the 'enemy'

..we come to this political process with individual concerns and interests, often with political considerations attached.

Most of us already assume our candidates have a chance to win, and I'd guess that's what all of the posting is about.

However, there's more that we bring to this process which doesn't place all of that electability hoo-hah that people insist on at the front of our advocacy. It's assumed that our candidate of choice has a chance to win.

Arguing electability at this point is a bit of a smoke-screen, mostly used against whatever we oppose in other candidates. I say we should recognize the concerns people bring into these discussions, more than the process questions and declarations. We live the issues. They are what bring most of us to the political table, not the politics.

[MineralMan]

4. Issues always matter to the politically engaged.

As they should.

However, there is another part of the electorate that doesn't vote on issues. It votes on less tangible grounds. We make a mistake if we ignore that group of voters. Many of them don't even bother vote unless a candidate charms them into going to the polls. It shouldn't be that way, of course, but it is. Elections turn on their votes more often than we would like to think.

I'm sort of a Realpolitik guy these days. I don't like it, but I've become convinced that it matters a great deal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

[bigtree]

6. the ability to communicate effectively with the public

..it's their main job description.

Communicating electibility is another, more intangible matter that can involve voting histories, statements, positions, associations, special interests... it's not just a sterile focus on numbers or cv, it's a combination of factors.

I think the debate I see here about electability has focused on misnomers like what republicans might think or how they might react, or on years of experience devoid of actual policy positions taken. It's become a canard to try and exclude some candidates based on esoteric reasons.

[Hortensis]

13. Political scientists have found people do NOT choose leaders

who share their issues and principles.

Instead, the usual dynamic for most is to identify with a group of "people like me."

Then some leader appeals to the group, which gives him or her their support. Each person has to accept the leader, but most do and stay because it's a group thing. "People like me."

Then -- and this is huge!!! -- they then adopt the leader's goals and principles. Good leaders elevate their followers. "When they go low, we go high." But followers will also loyally adopt the lack of principles, irrational reasoning, and dishonorable behaviors of bad leaders, even if a great deal of personal dishonesty is required to maintain loyalty.

So, science identifies a very big part of the "real" in realpolitik.

Btw, everyone should note, this starts with joining "people like me, who think like I do." That's how some end up becoming what they never initially intended to be.

[NurseJackie]

5. Is is reasonable to consider anyone who denigrates, divides and weakens the Democratic party itself...

Is is reasonable to consider anyone who denigrates, divides and weakens the Democratic party itself to be an "enemy" of the party? Anyone who continually promotes LIES that the Democratic party is the "party of the elite" or the "party of the one-percent" is someone who is HELPING the Republicans and Trump.

Is it unfair to conclude that anyone who spreads the LIE that "there's no difference" between the Democrats and the GOP is an enemy of the Democratic party? Is it fair to characterize that type of harmful rhetoric as blatantly trying to SABOTAGE the Democratic party?

When anyone smears the Democratic party with that type of negativity it generates apathy.

When you have apathy, that discourages voter turnout.

When you have low voter turnout that gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt".

It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "feeble".

It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "corrupt".

It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party is an "absolute failure".

It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party is "the party of the one-percent".

It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party is the "party of the elite".

It's NOT TRUE that there's "no difference between Democrats and Republicans."

It's NOT TRUE that Democrats are "do-nothings".

It's NOT TRUE that the Democratic party "doesn't care about climate change."

It's NOT TRUE that the Democrats "focus too much" on diversity.

It's NOT TRUE that people who the refuse to vote for an African-American because of his skin color "aren't racists".

It's also NOT TRUE that the Democrats who "are very big into diversity" aren't "particularly sympathetic" to the working class.

That type of hate-speech serves no good purpose. Showing such open contempt and hostility for the Democratic party is a GIFT to the GOP.

These are the types of lies that only serve to divide and weaken Democrats. They are the type of lies that give voters NO REASON to come out and support Democrats.

All I'm saying is that it's perfectly reasonable for anyone to conclude that anyone who purposely and knowingly SABOTAGES the Democratic party like this is NO ALLY and NO FRIEND OF DEMOCRATS. Why would it be unfair to use the word "enemy" of anyone who engages in these Sarandonesque attacks that are purposely intended to weaken and destroy the Democratic party?

[ehrnst]

7. +1000. (nt)

[Me.]

8. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[BlueFlorida]

10. What a great post!

Brava

[peggysue2]

14. Yes, exactly

[Gothmog]

15. Great post

[Cha]

17. I definitely think it's "Reasonable"!

Especially when someone hires 3rd party attack dogs who worked against our Democratic candidate in the GENERAL "Election".

Mahalo, Jackie!

[BlueFlorida]

9. I disagree with you

Some candidates have hired attack personnel to besmirch other candidates and bring their positives down. How do you explain that?

Never before has a Democratic primary had such attacks. Even Ted Kennedy vs Jimmy Carter was purely on policy and in the end Ted Kennedy endorsed Jimmy Carter. That was the most spirited Democratic primary as I recall -- even more spirited than Clinton v Obama until 2016 when the attack personnel kept attacking even after the convention with no reining in by the candidate whatsoever.

[bigtree]

11. weird. Kennedy's challenge to Carter was considered heresy back then

...and Carter did not get the endorsement at the end of the campaign he wanted with Kennedy grandstanding at the convention.

It was humiliating for Carter.

[McCamy Taylor]

18. I disagree. Since any "attack against one Dem attributed to another Dem" makes Dems think "Russia!"

the candidates are playing very nice. And third party splitters like Jill Stein might as well go crawl in a hole. No one is going to buy their line this time.

I expect this to be the most civil Democratic Primary ever. And anyone not being civil will be shunned and labeled Troll

[BlueFlorida]

20. Hiring

David Sirota, Nina Turner and Brihana Joy Gray suggests otherwise. Those are considered attack weapons.

If a person proclaiming peace and love suddenly goes and buys 3 AR-15s, their peace proclamation becomes less credible.

[Baclava]

12. Not now, but, you forget how much of a bloodbath the primaries can be?

The attack ads will come out and everyone has to stand up on their own two feet to defend themselves.

There will be casualties along the way

[McCamy Taylor]

19. Russia wishes. But not this time.

I would not be surprised if Biden is unofficially selected well before the convention and then the rest vie for the Vice President slot.

[Trenzalore]

21. After Kavanaugh and the Mueller report

I'm convinced the Dept. of Justice has been co-opted and made into a political operation.

Kamala Harris or Amy Klobachar are my picks as both have experience as prosecutors.

Absent everything every other monstrosity Trump has done the new President has to appoint people to investigate and prosecute the crimes of the past administration. No looking forward. We did that with Bush and the Republican became emboldened with Trump. The Justice department also has to be restored to enforcing the rule of law.