Hillary lost because there were just too many people outside the Democratic Party that just didn't trust her. People like Joe because he is authentic. There are already polls showing that he would beat Trump by double digits. He would be a good candidate because he has appeal outside of the party.

His age IS a factor. And I'm saying this as a senior myself. We need to set our sights on younger candidates with as strong a core set of beliefs as Joe Biden. They're out there. And they're charismatic and effective. And they will appeal more to a younger generation of voters.

and we have a special prosecutor bringing indictments, and news about Russian interference in U S elections is not being suppressed by government , and news about social media complicity is being revealed, and the Republican Party agenda on health care is known and unpopular, and the Republican tax plan is being revealed--Democrats seem much more popular in general.

Moreover, the left that found Clinton unacceptable due to her Iraq War resolution vote, have generally never held Biden, Edwards, or Kerry accountable for their same votes.

Those who opposed Clinton due to "Wall St" never raise the issue of Biden and the banking credit card industry-he has worked hard for the banks and been successful in promoting their agenda.

---but I don't believe in rewarding the double standard which has ( become like a strait jacket for half the population)or acquiescing to prejudice-so my work will be for female candidates.

That long and exclusive list of male candidates and presidents has not brought us to the equality we all need for surviving and prospering in the modern world.

I think polls at this stage are worthless but expect that many politicians will see opportunity in the new circumstances.

I am not opposed to Biden because of his age but do not find that he is especially authentic. He just hasn't been called to account on several important issues.

Biden is perfect.
He can serve for four years and let a rising star take over.

To do your own research.

and thought you could enlighten me, with maybe a one sentence summary. No worries, I'll do my "own research" and remember not to trouble you in the future. My apologies.

have happened to any Democrat who had such a big lead that they were considered an overwhelming frontrunner for years.

Admittedly, HRC had one big things going against her that Biden would not have: She's a woman. Sexism is a powerful weapon when you are trying to smear someone.

And I don't find him to be that "authentic"

His support for policies or actions that match up with HRC's aren't an issue but HER positions and actions are?

Well, it's called a glass ceiling because you can see right through it

Are those the same polls that said Hillary would walk away with the election? The same ones who said that trump wouldn't make it past the first state primary?

Gosh. Making a living out of hind-sight is a cool job.

the election.

they would change if Biden were the nominee. You can use polls to "prove" any position.

And the poll average never showed her walking away with it.

and russia influenced mind set.

You have no evidence of your position. But if finding some poll, somewhere helps you feel you are right, far be it from me to shatter your inner world.

But if you want to come out into the real world, you will notice that the polls were wrong - oh so wrong. That is primarily because there were no contra-indicator metrics applied for russian propaganda and voter suppression. . .oh and and FBI director who fumbled his duties the week of the election.

So Gallup said that Gallup got it exactly right. Those are some references there.

bashing her with lies.

Constant LIES.

If the right, some progressives, and Russia does that to Santa Claus, he loses too.

This was Comey's race, from start to finish.

And I don't trust her.

I voted for her despite my misgivings.

Trump was that much worse but had they run a reasonable candidate while I would have likely still pulled the lever for her it would not have been nearly as easy.

What do you base this “distrust” of Hillary Clinton on?

for his candidacy. He was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and could have done much, much more to keep Clarence Thomas off the Supreme Court.

Instead, he allowed Thomas to rebut her testimony and smear her character before he allowed Anita to deliver her statement. And he allowed testimony from someone who claimed Anita had erotomania and failed to call three witnesses who were prepared to testify on Anita's behalf.

If we had had a stronger Chairman, Thomas might not be on the Supreme Court.

Your post is also offensive because it is an example of ageism. Furthermore, you shouldn't be peddling the notion that Biden can't win solely because he is older than Trump. Let the voters decide.

If we nominated him, what message does it send to voters other than "Democrats won't give the next generation as chance!"?

BTW, I'm going to be 57 next month, so I can't really be an ageist.

Last edited Mon Nov 13, 2017, 04:39 PM - Edit history (3)

The items can’t be connected as you are. It would mean he beat out the field of primary oppononemts. Very few would be shallow enough to turn it into a divisive generational thing as you are doing. Just more division from you. He hasn’t even entered the primary and your discussing how divisive it would be if he won. How far can one go to divide. This about covers it. Hypothetical, on top of another hypothetical, all while painting younger generations as ignorant, selfish and entitled.

Really bad form.

I wonder if this has been presented before?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029145137

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2396101

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12511033764

I think I can say Joe was not a popular figure among women voters and pro-feminist men at that point. It's not as though everybody else had put the Thomas hearings aside.

And whatever I said, I worked for the Obama-Biden ticket, which proves I don't have it in for the guy

What I said then has nothing to do with the present...I just don't want us to lose by being the party of the past, and by staying with THIS generation while the next one doesn't get a chance until THEY'RE in their mid-to-late-sixties and it's too late for choosing them to represent anything new and different.

You've already decided to support the guy, haven't you?

You don't even read what you are replying to. It's a shame. Just pull out the templates and fill in the words.

Those links were about a lot more than Anita. Of course you went there. It's a great "concern" of yours. You seem to have ignored the link that is to another op of yours that is damn near word for word what this one is. Clear template. Ohhh. Might be another link up there as well.

A lot of people repeat phraseology when they write.

I don't hate Joe. I just don't think he should run. Can you not see the difference between those two states of mind?

Are you saying that no one has the right to even question the idea of nominating any particular person?

Why does it matter to you what I say about the idea of Joe or anyone running for president now when we're three years away from when we should even be thinking about that?

It's a waste of time at this stage to talk up anyone as a presidential candidate until 2018 is over.

It was natural to assume you'd already decided to support the idea when you can't tolerate the idea of anybody saying he shouldn't be nominated.

I criticized Joe in the past. What I said on those occasions was felt by a LOT of folks. You know that.

On a much deeper level. I haven't waded in shallow waters to attack him like you have here.

"A lot of people repeat phraseology when they write. "

It's a template. Example.

June of this year.

Joe Biden, you're a great Dem, you'd be a good president...but please don't run.

Nothing against you as a person, but we need a clean break from the status quo.

We need a ticket who has a connection with the present, a sense of the future, and a willingness to defend our base WHILE connecting with those who COULD be part of that base.

We need someone NEW.

Especially if Trump doesn't run again(which is entirely possible)and the GOP nominates somebody twenty or even thirty years younger than you, which is a real possibility.

If we look like a party of the past in 2020, we will have no chance.

You've got many other roles to play, Joe(you and Hillary would both be excellent Supreme Court nominees), but, with full respect, this is not the best role you could play.

(And I say that to anyone else who has been a major Dem candidate in the recent past).

Joe Biden has been great...but NO, he should not run for president.

This isn't about Joe as a person or a political figure at all.

It's about us and what we need to do to win.

More than anything else, while we stand for many good things, we need to move on as a party, connecting with the best of the spirit of the times while finding new ways to fight for what we already fight for.

We can't win if our nominee is OLDER than Trump and if our strategy is "run the exact same campaign again".

We need to be the party of change and renewal, about being the voice of the next generation in politics.

We need to about the future, about what happens next.

I always say what I really mean.

It's a coincidence that I repeat phrases and structure sometimes.

Joe Biden is a good person as a senator.

He tried for the presidency twice, it didn't go anywhere.

That should have put the idea of him running again to rest and he should just have stayed in the Senate.

The things I said about Anita Hill were felt by a huge number of people at the time.

And what I'm actually saying is we shouldn't be discussing the idea of ANYBODY running for president yet. It's takes us away from the need to work for victory in 2018.

It wasn't even in the post you replied to.

This is great.

The template is there for all to see.

"I always say what I really mean. "

You have changed in this conversation alone.

Or that I'm a hypocrite or something.

What is your goal here?

Why are you doing this?

I've done nothing that was ever directed towards you as a person.

It is one thing to say what you support or what you might have concerns with but you are tearing down potential candidates and sowing negativity within our ranks here. Not cool.

It was simply a comment about where we should be going as a party.

Then why do you edit your posts so many times?

1) I realize I could have phrased something better;
2) In acknowledgment that another poster raised a valid point;
3) As a fallible human being, I make mistakes.

It's never done with dishonest intent.

If another poster raised a valid point, then you acknowledge that fucking point then. You don't go back and edit your previous post to include that person's point in your own post that you missed. Give some credit to the person that made you think where you failed to do so. Your fellow posters here deserve that credit. It's called good conversation. Face to face you don't get to go back and edit what you said 10 seconds ago. Treat this place the same.

Acknowledge your mistakes in turn rather than re-writing your own history. One thing to edit your typo's or to go back and include a link. But to change what you actually said is dishonest.

and infer some malintent. You'd think, since we're all sposed to be on the same team, we could cut each other just a lil' slack!

And if people ARE posting here, it should simply be assumed that they've been involved in a lot of practical, pragmatic work in "the real world" and have done as much work involving compromise as anyone else.

And that their basic intentions are honorable and positive.

Didn't say I wouldn't.

But I believe our future as a party depends on giving the next generation a chance before its too late.

We can't make all the possible candidates we have who are in their forties and fifties wait until their in their sixties before they get a chance, until they are set in their ways.

Besides, what is the point of trying to talk up ANY presidential candidates right now? Why not focus solely on 2018? If we do that, I think figures of presidential stature will naturally emerge in the process.

And we can't stop whatever it is that you see as divisive be shutting out people if they talk about the party but aren't registered Dems.

(Btw, I AM a Dem and seek to end division through inclusion).

My objective has been to grow the party in all the ways it can be grown...through de-suppressing suppressed voters and finding ways to connect with voters that could BE Dems...and I don't think this would require us to do anything that would betray the base.

That was what the OP's that were so automatically attacked were about...not criticism of any public figure, not any intent to relitigate or refight anything at all, but simply about taking lessons and making constructive changes based on those lessons.

They were truly intended to be about the future and to help this party.

and people on the alleged left STILL debating purity.

Folks like you and me might just have to accept that there is nothing we can do, they are gonna do this, they are gonna cause problems, and the bad guys are gonna profit from it.

AT some point I might STOP supporting financially and physically and CARING about these people causing all these problems. They wont like that, because some of us DEMOCRATS actually make all continued existence possible by keeping the money flowing and work happening.

But I have to be VERY careful, my support of the D party here at this site often gets me in trouble. I am tired of arguing about why I should be able to UNCONDITIONALLY support the party.

Last edited Wed Nov 15, 2017, 11:34 AM - Edit history (1)

are stuck in the machinery of times that have passed. The future does belong to the younger generation coming along...the texas Castro brothers, Kamala Harris and any other young, progressive liberals that will boost our party, not divide and tear it down as has happened recently. I like Biden, yet as advisor only now, HRC, advisor, Obama, already advising and helping. Those calling for you to shut up are way off base and just have to look in the mirror to understand who should be quiet and go sit in the corner...2016 and it's candidates representing our party as mainstream candidates and those from minor wing/groups within our party, with minor leaders, should help to get a new generation of candidates up and running, 2018-20, instead of living on past FAILED, DIVISIVE policies.

I am with you sheshe2, time for new fresh blood in this Party to lead.

We have the Senate today holding hearings about the President starting a nuclear war...seriously that is where we are...on the brink of war.

Yet I see thread after thread that attempt to cause division among Democrats. Anyone can run, that is their right, however like you I do wish new energy, ideas and enthusiasm that the likes of the Castro brothers, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and others can bring to our party and to our supporters. The advisors or mentors that you mentioned will be crucial in helping us elect strong leaders in 2018 and 2020. WE must win the Senate and or the House back in 2018. This is crucial to our survival and frankly the survival of the whole planet. We are the energy that can make this happen by, first and foremost coming together...unified and then getting off our collective asses and get out the vote.

If people do not realize what is at stake then they have not been paying attention, heaven.

2018 then 2020 GOTV

Last edited Thu Nov 16, 2017, 06:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Ultimately, we will chose from about 15 candidates. Hopefully the party will unite behind whoever wins.

Here are the people who I think are quite likely to run (listed alphabetically):

Joe Biden
Corey Booker
Julian Castro
Eric Garcetti
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
John Hickenlooper
Eric Holder
Jason Kander
Amy Klobuchar
Mitch Landrieu
Chris Murphy
Martin O'Malley
Tim Ryan
Bernie Sanders
Tom Steyer
Elizabeth Warren

That is 17 candidates, the same number that ran on the GOP side in 2016.

I think that if Biden decides to run Deval Patrick will take a pass. If Biden sits the race out I expect Patrick to jump in.

I think Andrew Cuomo will sit the race out. I really like Jay Inslee, the governor of Washington, but he doesn't seem to be planning a run.

Speaking for myself, I am liking Tom Steyer more and more.

to make us treat any one candidate as so intrinsically superior to all others that we shouldn't even be HAVING a primary.

The nomination should always be decided in a real contest in which Dems in all parts of the country have a real say.

Just let it play out.

The only time I ever heard anyone talk about how "we shouldn't even be HAVING a primary" was when I heard Sanders and O'Malley supporters claiming it was happening.

Anyone who wanted to run in 2016 was welcome to. Nobody came under pressure not run. Biden may have been advised not to by the president, but it was up to him.

The reason the field was so thin in 2016 is because HRC had unprecedented poll numbers for years prior to the fake email scandal. Nobody gave her those numbers--she earned them.

I expect a full field in 2017. Maybe all 17 of the people I listed will run. Maybe 12 of them will make it to the Iowa Caucuses, 10 will make it to New Hampshire, 7 to Nevada and 6 will make it to South Carolina. Then the race may come down to 2 finalists as we head towards Super Tuesday.

I am surprised that you didn't comment on my list. I worked kind of hard putting it together. What do you think about that list of potential candidates?

It surprised me to see the mayors on there...we haven't generally had people in that office seeking the presidency(the last ones were Giuliani's brief effort in '08 for the GOP and John Lindsay briefly seeking the Democratic nomination back in '72). They could be interesting. What would you think of the idea of DiBlasio as a potential candidate as well?.

My hunch is that you might see Sanders OR Warren running, but not both-Bernie had tried to get Warren to run in '16 and only ran when she stayed and there was the real possibility of no one who was progressive on economic issues being in the race at all. That's why he hadn't established long-term relationships with the AA and Latinx communities-the guy never EXPECTED to be seeking national office, and because of that he hadn't thought of the importance of establishing such relationships.

Any of the Congresspeople or senators you listed could be a credible candidate.

Steyer could run...he would have the most work to do to establish himself as someone who would be pro-worker and committed to a serious anti-poverty effort, but he might pull it off.

I can see a plausible case for pretty much everyone on that list running for the nomination.

DeBlasio hasn't said anything about considering a run for president. That's why I didn't think to include him.

I like Tom Steyer and Jay Inslee because they both have good records on fighting climate change. I am sure that either one of them, if they were to run, would have a comprehensive plan for improving the lives of workers.

I see your point about Sanders and Warren in 2016 but I think 2020 will be a whole different situation. O'Malley supported Clinton in 2008 but still ran against her in 2016. I think Sanders is incredibly likely to run, regardless of what Warren does. I suppose it is possible that Warren takes a pass, but I think she is likely to run, regardless of what Bernie does.

Candidates tend not to sit out a race in deference to other candidates because they never know when that other person's candidacy might implode.

They will be essentially fighting for the same people, with Warren probably having some additional support because she has better connections with the Democratic base.

I can see Inslee as running mate material if Warren or Harris is nominated.

Remember the SNL skit from Halloween 2007? Biden and Dodd came dressed as the same person. Hillary joked that having two of them diminished the value of both.

Perhaps Biden and Holder would also appeal to some of the same people. But it is possible that they both run.

In the end we are trying to read politicians' minds. That is always a hard thing to do.

Even if Inslee doesn't run for president I could see him being a good VP.

I also like Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada as a running-mate, for a lot of different potential nominees.

With regards to Sanders and Biden: I just can't imagine either one of them not running. When you are doing well in the polls you tend to enter the race. The last candidate who was polling really well, but chose not to run, was Ted Kennedy in 1984. And Chappaquiddick was probably a big factor in that. It was still hurting him when he ran in 1980.

Bernie is the early leader in the polls and Biden is a decisive second. I expect them both to seek the nomination.

..in fact that's when I started to notice him.

No I don't. Not really. I actually know WHY.

I would be happy to support Joe.

I brought back three Biden signs from the National Convention and another delegate grabbed the other. My son and I both framed our signs. I would be happy to support Biden if he decides to run

in the last couple of weeks.

We should only be talking about 2018 at this point.

And we need to give the next generation of possible candidates a chance now, because it will be too late to go to them when they're all in THEIR mid-to-late sixties or later.

Thanks for doing this, I am NOT at ALL surprise by what you are disclosing.

Ya know what I wish, I wish DU was a place where ALL posters respected Democrats.

Last edited Wed Nov 15, 2017, 11:30 AM - Edit history (1)

minor wing of our great Party has an itch that they can't and won't ever be able to scratch. We must support young, fresh ideas from younger Democrats not tainted by failed past attempts or candidates. I have always believed that. Whether k. burch is now trying to grow away from the minor wing and leader of that wing, we all know who that is, I guess...it's a new direction in which I agree.

If it is a ploy to gain acceptance here because of some of his troublesome comments touting a failed primary campaign and person as a savior of our Party, then it would fit k.b's m.o.

I do not see wanting new people LEADING our 2018-20 efforts to topple the RW administration running our country as a negative as some here may, no matter who want that, old guard like me who has been calling for a switch to a new generation rising in our ranks...or newcomers come lately.....who are just covering their asses.

"not a part of failed past attempts or candidates."

That simply makes no sense. I guess it sounds good to some but there is no thought behind it.

Thanks for kicking and highlighting this post from Ken again. Transparency is a good thing.

your response...I neither kick 0r rec anything by burch and it looks like you either now, I guess. I don't want the old failed policies or candidates from our past failed attempts to unseat the power of the repthugliKKKans. If what you got from anything I wrote is I support burch, so be it and you are wrong. I want fresh new ideas from fresh new Democratic candidates is all I'm saying. I do not appreciate you trying to make me a burch fan.

A well-worn tactic, and completely transparent.

Are we going to have situation in which ANY thread or any post questioning the idea of nominating ANYBODY is now verboten?

I like Joe. Just saying it's the time of the next generation.

And that nobody should be floating presidential candidates at a time when 2018 is what matters.

It never helps us at the polls to try to settle the nomination years early.

If those threads hadn't appeared, I wouldn't have started this one.

I wouldn't have said these things if there weren't tons of threads raising the subject.

It's not as though it's intolerable for me personally to ever list any year in which a presidential election is held.

Why are you so fixated on trying to shut me up any time I post anything?

I'm not the enemy and I don't think you and I actually disagree on any issues.

Once, we supported different candidates for the nomination.

After the convention, that difference ended and I campaigned for the nominee.

It's not my fault the current situation we're in exists.

I posted this thread because I want us to win.

And that means winning in 2018.

What is so terrible about wanting us to focus solely on 2018 until its over?

show up at any election anywhere, vote for any democrat

period

end
of
story

Some of our people here seem fixated on details and losing the big picture...You valiantly debate them but I dont think they are listening.

capable of listening when their words drown out logic and stifle progress within our Party.

And I didn't call you a stalker or even think that of you.

As to family issues, I'm sincerely sorry you have those. Didn't know.

I'll ask it this way: I'm just one person posting here. Why do you care so much about what I post? I'm not a particularly horrible presence here, nor are any of the ideas I put out unduly damaging. I've spent a lot of time calling for dialog-for people who were in both camps in the past to talk to each other and let each other know what are good and bad ways to communicate.

And I've called for platform that we can all back that involves a blending of ideas to everybody's basic satisfaction.

How does THAT somehow equate to wanting to tear the party to shreds or throw whole groups of people under the bus?

I never meant you were stalking me.

What should I describe it as when you seem to feel that whatever I post has to be treated as intolerable?

When it seems as though you are convinced I have a hidden anti-Democratic agenda?

When you act as though I'm actively working against you and what you support-virtually all of which I agree with?

I don't knowingly "call you out". I've asked that my threads not get an automatic "oh no you don't!" response.

All I'm meaning to do is to ask you not to accuse me of holding views I don't hold or of defending things I don't defend, or of supporting candidates I no longer support.

I've never dismissed the need to defend choice, or speak out against misogyny, racism, or anti-LGBTQ prejudice. I've never at any point said anything close to the disgusting idea that Democrats should take the side of white men against women, people of color, LGBTQ people and immigrants. I join you in denouncing anyone who says we should do such a stupid thing.

The last platform was pretty good(my only real issue with it was the ambiguity on the TPP. It was that, in my view, that prevented full party unity from being achieved and allowed Trump to be competitive in the Upper Midwest.

And I've also said that that ambiguity could have been neutralized if HRC had put lines in her acceptance speech clarifying that while the platform was phrased as it was, her position was actually the same as the primary.

I'd like to make sure we base all future fall campaigns on leading with the platform, rather than depending on attack ads.
The next platform could be maybe a bit more pro-union and antiwar(not pacifist, but getting out of the world's police role and pulling back on nukes and on military intervention in the Arab/Muslim world). And with that I'd like an outreach effort to the voters we needed but didn't win...not because I think it's ok that they didn't vote for us, but because I simply don't believe it ever works to shake a finger in people's faces for not voting for us-that what matters is bringing them in and getting them to vote, without betraying any of our current supporters, can be done and is much more likely to be achieved by positive means than by chewing people out.

To me, what matters

Maybe it's time to listen to what other people are telling you?

I've also been saying Bernie shouldn't run again.

and indicative of a statesman. There is nothing compelling Biden to make a decision three years before the election and two years before the first primary. I think that Joe will make a decision by spring of 2019 as to whether he will participate in the primaries so that the speculation can end and Democrats can choose whether to support him or someone else.

From a personal perspective, I'm inclined to support a candidate that has a solid record in the Democratic party compared to relative newcomers who may be prone to making mistakes because of ignorance.

they wanted to go back to the old days so many people in government and elsewhere, particularly white men did things to help beat her .

a female president would have been a huge change . especially one whose major issue was women's rights. as she showed in china unlike the piece of shit that got the support from those who attacked hillary for being status quo.

Did all I could to help her get elected then.

There are a lot of white men who wouldn't support her(almost all of whom wouldn't have supported any Dem)but I wasn't one of them.

Don't confuse me with the white men who didn't want the future.

Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton are absolutely right: the old guard needs to stick around with their experience and advice, but younger blood needs to come to the forefront and take over the reins. If 2020 is another Clinton vs. Dole, or Obama vs. McCain, the result will be similar, I predict, and I only hope it won't come too late for some serious damage control.

This has less to do with ageism and more to do with media perception. More than ever, the next election will be fought on electronic media, and it will be MSNBC vs. Fox as much as it will be Democrats vs. Republicans.

That is how to be the party of the future, the party of change.

What happens next? As women step up and demand full equality as human beings we need to ensure that we don't make some other group the scapegoat-in this case the "OLDER" people to whom you refer.

It is about becoming the party of inclusion-not just another party of exclusion, of division, of playing favorites with human rights.

What happens next is what we make happen. We can use our brains to figure out how to compensate and substitute for the sociological tendency to bind most of us together by making some of us second class citizens (the out group);

or we can continue on that well-worn path to maintaining inequality by championing liberty and justice for some by denying it to others.

I am not a Joseph Biden fan but if he wants to run for president, it is his right. the primary voters will sort it out.

We used to have party bosses who decided the candidates-we switched to become more democratic. I am not interested in regressing.

Always have.

If I didn't, I wouldn't have campaigned for Hillary after she was nominated.

If you think I ever supported putting equality for all people aside for any reason, you don't know me.

Both were solidly pro-choice. Both were solidly for everything else.

if I didn't support full equality for women, I wouldn't have campaigned for HRC in the fall.

Or been prepared to support Elizabeth Warren had SHE entered the primaries(there was no difference whatsoever between HRC and Warren on women's equality).

There is a limit to what else can be said about this. Please don't dredge up the primaries anymore-what matters now is the future.

I respect your passion and share your grief about what occurred last November.

To me, as much as I like Joe, it sends the wrong one. And he won’t mobilize people to vote as much simply due to that.

And are willing to stand up and fight for issues that are important to people of all gender identities and races.

he drew good support from the African American community during the primary when he was running.

IMO, this "we need new ideas" or "fresh faces" is going to be swimming upstream in 2020 because of the nonstop shit show that is 45.

His whole candidacy was based on blowing up the system, and after 4 years of POTUS taking to twitter to assail anyone and anything other than vodka, and his running the entire federal government into the ground, the tides are probably going to be that the people will want calm and competent.

I am not saying he WILL win, and if it were today I would want Warren.

But, I just can't fathom that an unknown/little known, will be able to win in 2020.

2020 is going to be about trying to put the pieces back together, giving everyone a break from the drama, trying to get back SOME of our good will and standing abroad, etc.

Joe Biden could look VERY good in that kind of election.

His support in the African-American community is nothing to write home about.

In fact, he has some serious problebms that will resurface if he runs. For example, his record on busing is a disgrace.

Oh, and Clarence Thomas ...

Biden is enjoying the kind of honeymoon that Hillary had before she ran. But if he were to get in the race, that will go away. And, while black folk are loyal and forgiving, we also have verrrry long memories. And I don’t think the black community will fall all over itself to support Biden, especially if he’s positioned as the “let’s forget about all that identity politics foolishness and pick the guy who the white working class will like” candidate.