Dems, who is the best Pres and VP to beat Trump and to lose to Trump?

j brown's body said:

He's going to bring us altogether - just like Obama tried. Hard to do when the opposition party's number one priority is to destroy your career.

Click to expand...

LOL. Oh please. You just described the Democratic party who accuses the other side of being deplorables and when they lose they become the opposition party who's number one priority is to destroy your career.

Chomsky said:

We went through this, so I'm not going to dispute it. In fact, I'm happy to respect your opinion here because I don't have my ear to the ground with the more Lefty progressives.

But I'm not as worried about them, as I'm worried about pulling-in moderates from the middle, particularly in the new battleground states.

BTW - Harris' quality of espousing progressivism, while seeming to have moderate pragmatism, is the exact quality of hers that appeals to me.

Click to expand...

Careful. The left will eat you up and spit you out for not climbing on board their progressive train. No moderates allowed. They are deplorables.

Moderate Right said:

Careful. The left will eat you up and spit you out for not climbing on board their progressive train. No moderates allowed. They are deplorables.

Click to expand...

While I appreciate your concern, I think I can handle myself here!

But thanks ...

Moderate Right said:

I've always thought this. Charisma wins. It's actually a sad comment on society when you kind of scrap voting on issues and vote for the person with the charisma, the person you would love to buy a used car from without reading any fine print in the contract.

In fact, it kind of reminds me of when I was buying a new car many years ago and I had talked this salesman down to a fairly ridiculously low price on the car.

Click to expand...

Perotista rarely makes a poor argument, and he usually supplies overwhelming quantitative data in support of his positions.

And he's right here, as usual. 2016 became a personality contest, and personality will weigh heavily in 2020.

My wife noticed that the salesman got to the point where he was totally unenthusiastic in selling us the car and had zero personality and she wanted to say the hell with him and walk out. I told her we're buying the car, not the salesman and pointed out to her that he didn't act interested in selling the car anymore because he wasn't making any money on it and then she got the point.

Click to expand...

Hah! You're 100% right, here. Never let personality get in the way of business. AKA, "the money is still green"!

Perotista said:

We'll see. What I have found out doing my forecasts is one gets a good idea how independents will vote by seeing how they rate the candidates favorable/unfavorable, in particularly, their very favorable and very unfavorable. History has shown one usually doesn't vote for someone they dislike, whether that is because of ideology, personality, charisma etc. all go into one bucket in determining the favorable/unfavorable rating of a candidate.

Right now, it is all name recognition on the Democratic side. Wait until December or January time frame, then take a new gander at how independents view the candidates and then compare that view to Trump's very favorable/unfavorable.

Yeah, Hillary had the charisma of a wet mop, she came across as aloof and elitist among all her baggage. Then she was lazy and didn't inspire as the turnout percentage of Democrats vs. Republicans was much lower. Charisma does play a large part in our elections, our beauty contests. Obama had it, Romney and McCain didn't, Obama won. G.W. Bush didn't have that much charisma, but he came across a homey vs the two statues, Gore and Kerry. Bill Clinton had charisma all over the place, G.H.W. Bush and Dole didn't, again charisma won. Two who didn't have any charisma at all, 1988, G.H.W. and Dukakis, Bush won. Reagan had charisma, tons of it, won easily over Carter and Mondale. Carter like G.W. didn't have that much charisma, but was down homey vs. Ford who had none and so on.

I think you do have a point where independents tend to gravitate to the candidate who has the most charisma. Or in Trump's case, stands out.

I do believe Sanders would have beaten Trump, my main reason is that he wouldn't have been so lazy in ceding the campaign trail to Trump. From 1 Sep 2016 through 8 Nov 2016, Trump made 116 campaign visits/stops/appearances/rallies to Hillary's 71. In the three deciding states, Wisconsin, it was Trump 5 visits/stops to Hillary's none, zero. Michigan, Trump 6, Hillary 1, Pennsylvania was closer, 8 for Trump, 5 for Hillary. Even in electoral vote rich Florida, Hillary ceded it to Trump 13-8.

Click to expand...

Charisma is definitely the most important factor; as stated, if you can sell the American people a bill of goods, whether or not you intend to deliver, you will almost certainly seize the presidency, hence the importance of things that tend to measure it like favourability which I agree is huge, and one of the most predictive metrics.

Yes, he certainly would have beaten Trump, for a multitude of reasons, not simply Hillary's presumptive indolence (which was huge no doubt), but also the fact that he had far more appeal with independents to begin with, that the Blue Wall never would have fallen per his policies and working class appeal, that he would have eaten Trump's lunch on economic populism, and that he actually has some charisma as opposed to Hillary being actively repulsive.

Chomsky said:

We went through this, so I'm not going to dispute it. In fact, I'm happy to respect your opinion here because I don't have my ear to the ground with the more Lefty progressives.

But I'm not as worried about them, as I'm worried about pulling-in moderates from the middle, particularly in the new battleground states.

BTW - Harris' quality of espousing progressivism, while seeming to have moderate pragmatism, is the exact quality of hers that appeals to me.

Click to expand...

It is curious that you are attracted to what I regard as, for lack of a more suitable word, duplicity, and an attempt to get one over on progressives.

Again, I don't think 'moderate' politics per the American vantage is necessarily pragmatism. Does a pragmatic society produce declining life expectancies (3 years running baby)? Economic oligarchy? The worst economic inequality the country has ever seen in modern history and among the developed world? By far the most inefficient healthcare system the world has ever seen? Get repeatedly embroiled in multi-trillion wars? Preside over deregulation and regulatory vacuums that caused existential level financial crisis? Destabilize and engender coups in countries, including democratic countries, largely for the sake of American economic and geopolitical interests (most of which backfire in the long term; Kissinger wasn't a genius so much as a psychopathic **** with a bad case of myopia). All of these happened under the watch of so called 'moderate' Republicans and Democrats. For all the bitching done about Trump, the damage he has done with respect to certain key dimensions has been minimal by comparison.

Craig234 said:

I think right-wing ideology allows paying lower taxes as not socialist, but getting any tax dollars as socialist. To be a bit more cynical, people they don't like who benefit from government programs are socialist, and people they do like, e.g., military contractors, are not socialist.

Click to expand...

It's amusing to see military contractors constantly mentioned as if they could have any other customer than the government. Are people buying F-18's these days and parking them in the driveway? Military contractors exist because we need a military and we need people with the competence to build the required equipment. If they are building redundant weapons or systems, blame the people letting the contracts. (ie. the government)

veritas1 said:

It's amusing to see military contractors constantly mentioned as if they could have any other customer than the government. Are people buying F-18's these days and parking them in the driveway? Military contractors exist because we need a military and we need people with the competence to build the required equipment. If they are building redundant weapons or systems, blame the people letting the contracts. (ie. the government)

Click to expand...

To be fair, defense companies exert a great deal of influence on the government through the mechanisms of campaign finance and well-paid lobbyists, many of which are former politicians, to purchase redundant weapon systems.

Surrealistik said:

To be fair, defense companies exert a great deal of influence on the government through the mechanisms of campaign finance and well-paid lobbyists, many of which are former politicians, to purchase redundant weapon systems.

Click to expand...

They may but we should be blaming the bribe takers as much or more than those offering the largesse. It also speaks to our glaring need to revamp campaign finance and lobbying laws but the people who need to do it are the ones who benefit by it, so it never happens.

Chomsky said:

Perotista rarely makes a poor argument, and he usually supplies overwhelming quantitative data in support of his positions.

And he's right here, as usual. 2016 became a personality contest, and personality will weigh heavily in 2020.

Hah! You're 100% right, here. Never let personality get in the way of business. AKA, "the money is still green"!

Click to expand...

Perotista is one of the very few on here I actually enjoy posting with. He's not infected with TDS, nor whatever you call it on the right. He see's things with both eyes open. He is a much better man than I because sometimes I just love calling out the TDS'rs and interacting with their total and complete absurdities and, in doing so, I come across as being farther right than I really am. I thought a lot of the right was completely nuts under Obama's years and they drove me crazy while doing it but the left are clearly trying to show that they can't be outdone when it comes to crazy blind partisanship and being obstructionists/the resistance.

j brown's body said:

Most independents, I believe, reliably vote for one party or the other.

Click to expand...

They do vote for one party or the other, but I'd have to question reliably. But that may depend on how you define reliably. 2006 independents went 57-39 Democratic, four years later they went 56-37 Republican in congressional races. 2018 independents went Democratic 54-42 after going four years earlier, 54-42 for Republicans. This is in congressional elections which the stats I have go back to only 2006. I look at the difference between 2006 and 2010 and see an 18 point advantage for the Dems in 2006 which swung to a 19 point advantage for the Reps four years later. A huge 37 point swing. One could also look at as having roughly 40% of independents usually voting Democratic with another approximately 40% voting Republican give or take a couple of points.

Presidential races I have going back to 1976
1976 independents went to Ford 54-43. This was when the Democrats held a huge 43-28 edge of the GOP in party affiliation. 11 point advantage for the Republican.
1980 independents went to Reagan 56-31 over Carter with 13% voting for Anderson. A 25 point advantage to the Republican
1984 independents went to Reagan 64 to 36 over Mondale. A 28 point advantage to the Republican
1988 independents went to Bush 57-43 over Dukakis. A 14 point advantage to the Republican
1992 independents went 43-28 to Bill Clinton over Bush with Perot picking up 30% of the independent vote. Bill had a 15 point advantage over Bush and a 13 point advantage over Perot. you had a 43 point swing from Republican to Democrat from 1984 and a 29 point swing from 1988.
1996 independents went 50-30 Bill Clinton over Dole with Perot gaining 17% of the independent vote. A 20 point advantage to the Democrat.
2000 independents went to Bush 48-46 over Gore with 6% voting third party. Only a 2 point advantage to the Republican. You had a 22 point swing in 4 years.
2004 Independents went to Kerry 49-48, a one point advantage for the Democrat.
2008 Independents to Obama 52-44 over McCain. an 8 point advantage for the Democrat
2012 Independents to Romney 51-48 over Obama, a 3 point advantage to the Republican
2016 Independents to Trump 46-42 over Hillary Clinton with 12% voting third party. A 4 point advantage to the Republican.

Over that time period Republican had a high of plus 28 points and a low of minus 20 point. Of course the opposite is true, the Democrats had a high of plus 20 to a low of minus 28 point when it came to independents.

Moderate Right said:

I've always thought this. Charisma wins. It's actually a sad comment on society when you kind of scrap voting on issues and vote for the person with the charisma, the person you would love to buy a used car from without reading any fine print in the contract.

In fact, it kind of reminds me of when I was buying a new car many years ago and I had talked this salesman down to a fairly ridiculously low price on the car. My wife noticed that the salesman got to the point where he was totally unenthusiastic in selling us the car and had zero personality and she wanted to say the hell with him and walk out. I told her we're buying the car, not the salesman and pointed out to her that he didn't act interested in selling the car anymore because he wasn't making any money on it and then she got the point.

Click to expand...

Those who affiliate or identify with the two major parties vote the R and or the D more than charisma. History has shown that Republicans and Democrats average voting for their candidates 90% of the time regardless of whom their candidates are. Voting for charisma I think is more of an independent voter trait. Look at the two most charismatic candidates in my lifetime. Reagan won independents by 25 points over Carter and by 28 point over Mondale. No one can say either Carter or Mondale were charismatic. Bill Clinton the other charismatic candidate won independents by 15 points over Bush and 20 points over Dole. Again both Bush and Dole weren't charismatic.

Surrealistik said:

Charisma is definitely the most important factor; as stated, if you can sell the American people a bill of goods, whether or not you intend to deliver, you will almost certainly seize the presidency, hence the importance of things that tend to measure it like favourability which I agree is huge, and one of the most predictive metrics.

Yes, he certainly would have beaten Trump, for a multitude of reasons, not simply Hillary's presumptive indolence (which was huge no doubt), but also the fact that he had far more appeal with independents to begin with, that the Blue Wall never would have fallen per his policies and working class appeal, that he would have eaten Trump's lunch on economic populism, and that he actually has some charisma as opposed to Hillary being actively repulsive.




It is curious that you are attracted to what I regard as, for lack of a more suitable word, duplicity, and an attempt to get one over on progressives.

Again, I don't think 'moderate' politics per the American vantage is necessarily pragmatism. Does a pragmatic society produce declining life expectancies (3 years running baby)? Economic oligarchy? The worst economic inequality the country has ever seen in modern history and among the developed world? By far the most inefficient healthcare system the world has ever seen? Get repeatedly embroiled in multi-trillion wars? Preside over deregulation and regulatory vacuums that caused existential level financial crisis? Destabilize and engender coups in countries, including democratic countries, largely for the sake of American economic and geopolitical interests (most of which backfire in the long term; Kissinger wasn't a genius so much as a psychopathic **** with a bad case of myopia). All of these happened under the watch of so called 'moderate' Republicans and Democrats. For all the bitching done about Trump, the damage he has done with respect to certain key dimensions has been minimal by comparison.

Click to expand...

I agree. Sanders was one of three candidate who have a positive favorable rating among independents. The other two were Rubio and Kasich. Definitely the blue wall states would have never fallen if Sanders were the nominee. He would have been toe to toe with Trump on the campaign trail and I'm sure would have installed much more enthusiasm and energy in the Democratic base increasing their turnout.

Perotista said:

Those who affiliate or identify with the two major parties vote the R and or the D more than charisma. History has shown that Republicans and Democrats average voting for their candidates 90% of the time regardless of whom their candidates are. Voting for charisma I think is more of an independent voter trait. Look at the two most charismatic candidates in my lifetime. Reagan won independents by 25 points over Carter and by 28 point over Mondale. No one can say either Carter or Mondale were charismatic. Bill Clinton the other charismatic candidate won independents by 15 points over Bush and 20 points over Dole. Again both Bush and Dole weren't charismatic.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt the accuracy of the numbers in the statement I bolded. But very unusual for our discussions, I believe I see a possible logical error when combining all three bolded sentences.

While the party members may indeed vote their party 90% of the time when they do vote, they don't always come out! In fact, on the national level nowhere near 90% of a party's voters come out! But that's where "charisma" comes in. A charismatic candidate draws more of the party members out. This once again speaks to that wildcard we spoke about recently --> turnout!

Of course charisma also draws those from outside the party, but it draws from within too. And this last is also a critical component.

Chomsky said:

I don't doubt the accuracy of the numbers in the statement I bolded. But very unusual for our discussions, I believe I see a possible logical error when combining all three bolded sentences.

While the party members may indeed vote their party 90% of the time when they do vote, they don't always come out! In fact, on the national level nowhere near 90% of a party's voters come out! But that's where "charisma" comes in. A charismatic candidate draws more of the party members out. This once again speaks to that wildcard we spoke about recently --> turnout!

Of course charisma also draws those from outside the party, but it draws from within too. And this last is also a critical component.

Click to expand...

Those who vote is where those states come in. No one knows about those who don't. Exit polling provides most of the data. CNN is good at that as they usually poll around 25,000 people. Not the normal 500-1,500 everyone else does.

Turnout or lack thereof probably helped doom Hillary. In November of 2016 the Democrats had a huge 6 point edge in party affiliation, nationwide. But only a 3 point edge in the percentage of turnout. Had the democrats been able to maintain that 6 point edge in party affiliation with the same type of turnout, an 6 point advantage instead of 3, Hillary would be sitting in the white house today. This reinforces your point, I totally agree. The difference was a ho hum campaign by Hillary vs. an energetic one by Trump.

Perotista said:

Those who affiliate or identify with the two major parties vote the R and or the D more than charisma. History has shown that Republicans and Democrats average voting for their candidates 90% of the time regardless of whom their candidates are. Voting for charisma I think is more of an independent voter trait. Look at the two most charismatic candidates in my lifetime. Reagan won independents by 25 points over Carter and by 28 point over Mondale. No one can say either Carter or Mondale were charismatic. Bill Clinton the other charismatic candidate won independents by 15 points over Bush and 20 points over Dole. Again both Bush and Dole weren't charismatic.

Click to expand...

One could argue that Trump had more charisma than Hillary, but that's not a big stretch anyway. Dried paint had more charisma than Hillary.

There are 22 swallowing up all the oxygen. None can beat Trump.....unfortunately true (if you are a Democrat) for one that could.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Moderate Right said:

One could argue that Trump had more charisma than Hillary, but that's not a big stretch anyway. Dried paint had more charisma than Hillary.

Click to expand...

I don't know if Trump's brashness, uncouthness, in your facet style qualifies as charisma. Whatever one's calls it, it made him standout. Yes on Hillary and her total lack of charisma. Dried paint, wet mop, yours and mine are good adjectives to use to describe her charismatic standings. Chomsky pointed out that the lack of charisma can also lead to a smaller turnout of one's base. Even though those who showed up to vote, Hillary's base did vote for her 89-8 over Trump. Right on average, many of her base stayed home. This was seen in the 6 point gap or advantage the Democratic base had over the Republican base in Nov 2016. But that advantage was cut to a 3 point advantage in turnout. Had her base matched the 6 point gap it had as a percentage of the electorate over the GOP, she'd be sitting in the White House today.

I was curious, I went back to 2000 and found the same thing. In November of 2000 the Democratic base was 5 points larger than the GOP base. But only 3 points larger in actual turnout. Had the Democratic base turnout equal to their 5 point advantage, Florida would have been irrelevant. Of course we had the very uncharismatic Gore, the statue vs. not very charismatic G.W. Bush, but Bush was what I call a down homey type of guy.

Both Trump and G.W. Bush won the independent vote to go along with the smaller Democratic base's turnout than their proportion of the electorate. I found that interesting.

Whereas Democrats blamed both Gore and Hillary's loss on the electoral college, it was their own lack of turnout that made it possible for both Trump and Bush to win in the electoral college.

Surrealistik said:

Charisma is definitely the most important factor; as stated, if you can sell the American people a bill of goods, whether or not you intend to deliver, you will almost certainly seize the presidency, hence the importance of things that tend to measure it like favourability which I agree is huge, and one of the most predictive metrics.

Yes, he certainly would have beaten Trump, for a multitude of reasons, not simply Hillary's presumptive indolence (which was huge no doubt), but also the fact that he had far more appeal with independents to begin with, that the Blue Wall never would have fallen per his policies and working class appeal, that he would have eaten Trump's lunch on economic populism, and that he actually has some charisma as opposed to Hillary being actively repulsive.




It is curious that you are attracted to what I regard as, for lack of a more suitable word, duplicity, and an attempt to get one over on progressives.

Again, I don't think 'moderate' politics per the American vantage is necessarily pragmatism. Does a pragmatic society produce declining life expectancies (3 years running baby)? Economic oligarchy? The worst economic inequality the country has ever seen in modern history and among the developed world? By far the most inefficient healthcare system the world has ever seen? Get repeatedly embroiled in multi-trillion wars? Preside over deregulation and regulatory vacuums that caused existential level financial crisis? Destabilize and engender coups in countries, including democratic countries, largely for the sake of American economic and geopolitical interests (most of which backfire in the long term; Kissinger wasn't a genius so much as a psychopathic **** with a bad case of myopia). All of these happened under the watch of so called 'moderate' Republicans and Democrats. For all the bitching done about Trump, the damage he has done with respect to certain key dimensions has been minimal by comparison.

Click to expand...

I'll address the portion directed at me, with two comments:

1] Duplicity? Hell man, I'm evaluating a Presidential candidate via public discourse. You're the one that sees her as "criminal", "deceitful", "conning", or some such here - not me.

2] You missed the larger thrust of my use of "pragmatism". One cannot govern, unless one attains office. That's the pragmatic step here; getting in. All the perfect platforms and ideology mean nothing, if you don't attain a position to execute them.

In essence, I'm saying:

"Don't let perfect be the enemy of good"

If you fail in getting Trump out of office, you'll realize a Biden-Harris Presidency was the least of your worries!

independentusa said:

I have head a lot of people talk about who they want to run on the Dem ticket for Pres and VP. So I am asking who you think would be the choice for Pres and VP who would beat Trump? Who do you think if the Dems chose for Pres and VP who would certainly lose to Trump?

Click to expand...

I'm still a registered Republican who will be voting for William Weld in my primary, but can I still answer?

I know I will not vote for Trump. So I'm looking to strong opposition from the Democratic Party. There a quite a few I can see beating him. My #1 choice is Hickenlooper. Think so highly of the man. I think it's Biden's race to lose at this point - not my favorite but I'll vote for him over Trump. I'd be good with a Biden/Hickenlooper ticket.

Chomsky said:

I'll address the portion directed at me, with two comments:

1] Duplicity? Hell man, I'm evaluating a Presidential candidate via public discourse. You're the one that sees her as "criminal", "deceitful", "conning", or some such here - not me.

2] You missed the larger thrust of my use of "pragmatism". One cannot govern, unless one attains office. That's the pragmatic step here; getting in. All the perfect platforms and ideology mean nothing, if you don't attain a position to execute them.

In essence, I'm saying:

"Don't let perfect be the enemy of good"

If you fail in getting Trump out of office, you'll realize a Biden-Harris Presidency was the least of your worries!

Click to expand...

1: What I mean is you seem to be praising her for presenting a false veneer of progressivism and tricking progressives onside while in truth being a moderate which espouses the sort of ideas that have resulted in the disastrous outcomes stated later in that post.

2: If by pragmatism you strictly mean doing what it takes to obtain office, that's fine. However, I don't accept that this means engaging in/promulgating so-called 'moderate' policy, particularly in light of its horrid track record, and the demonstrated appetite of independents for key progressive policy.

Surrealistik said:

1: What I mean is you seem to be praising her for presenting a false veneer of progressivism and tricking progressives onside while in truth being a moderate which espouses the sort of ideas that have resulted in the disastrous outcomes stated later in that post.

Click to expand...

What makes you think she's displaying a "false veneer"?

I actually like what I'm seeing with her, and to be honest she seems to think similarly to me, from the little I've seen. She has progressive qualities, tempered by moderate qualities. I like that! For me, her prosecutorial experience is a plus; it grounds her in reality. Have you consider that what you're seeing, is what she is? As complex beings, we are an amalgam of qualities and perceptions, that are not always easily pigeon-holed into the hypothetical boxes of political characterizations.

As an example, in my public politics I'm for single-payer, public funded community college, and a guaranteed income. All liberal cornerstones. But if you got to know me in my private life, you'd see I'm a fairly conservative Catholic with a very conservative wife and family. My personal life doesn't really fit in that well with current Dem principles, but I respect larger society having freedom & liberty, so I support the Dems. Still, I am who I am. And to the best of my introspection, I believe I am honest & realistic in my description of myself.

So I think it's very possible you are seeing the real Harris, and she's more complex than can be easily defined. And I like that complexity.

2: If by pragmatism you strictly mean doing what it takes to obtain office, that's fine. However, I don't accept that this means engaging in/promulgating so-called 'moderate' policy, particularly in light of its horrid track record, and the demonstrated appetite of independents for key progressive policy.

Click to expand...

Too a point, that's what I'm saying. You have to do what it takes to get into office, before you can use your power. But you also need to do what it takes to remain in power, too. Say what you want, Obama and Clinton (Bill) knew how to do both (attain & hold power). And I hate to say it, but they both had to moderate rather than veer to the edge to do it.

Biden and Harris would be the best ticket to beat Trump.

Beto O'Rourke is tempting because of the lure of carrying Texas - which would sink Trump all by itself. If Biden fades or self destructs or even succumbs to age problems, it is wide open with O'Rourke benefitting greatly.

Sanders is going to fade and is not a realistic pick this time despite my support of him in 2016 primary season.

Chomsky said:

What makes you think she's displaying a "false veneer"?

I actually like what I'm seeing with her, and to be honest she seems to think similarly to me, from the little I've seen. She has progressive qualities, tempered by moderate qualities. I like that! For me, her prosecutorial experience is a plus; it grounds her in reality. Have you consider that what you're seeing, is what she is? As complex beings, we are an amalgam of qualities and perceptions, that are not always easily pigeon-holed into the hypothetical boxes of political characterizations.

As an example, in my public politics I'm for single-payer, public funded community college, and a guaranteed income. All liberal cornerstones. But if you got to know me in my private life, you'd see I'm a fairly conservative Catholic with a very conservative wife and family. My personal life doesn't really fit in that well with current Dem principles, but I respect larger society having freedom & liberty, so I support the Dems. Still, I am who I am. And to the best of my introspection, I believe I am honest & realistic in my description of myself.

So I think it's very possible you are seeing the real Harris, and she's more complex than can be easily defined. And I like that complexity.

Click to expand...

The problem with Kamala Harris is that she comes off as patently insincere in her apparent support of progressive policies, always vacillating, downplaying, backpedaling and qualifying. It's not that she's tempered with moderate qualities so much as that she, like most politicians, is simply going the way she perceives the wind to blow without any real convictions.

Though I'm sure I've linked you to them previously, these links detail a pretty comprehensive summary of her; notably problematic highlights regarding her prosecutorial record include not prosecuting banking interests engaged in mortgage fraud and baseless foreclosures, appealing a ruling by a judge of the death penalty as being unconstitutional, as well as unethically withholding information from defense lawyers about a testing lab technician that was accused of sabotaging her work and stealing drugs, then disingenuously doubling down, trying to excuse her clearly unethical behaviour by suggesting a laughably bogus conflict of interest on behalf of the judge due to her husband's job as a defense lawyer (who had nothing to do with the case), amongst other sins.

The Two Faces of Kamala Harris

Opinion | Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’ - The New York Times

Too a point, that's what I'm saying. You have to do what it takes to get into office, before you can use your power. But you also need to do what it takes to remain in power, too. Say what you want, Obama and Clinton (Bill) knew how to do both (attain & hold power). And I hate to say it, but they both had to moderate rather than veer to the edge to do it.

Click to expand...

I mean here's the thing:

Obama and Clinton both had an abundance of charisma, the 90s aren't 2020 (even if you want to argue that Clinton's moderate stances were a benefit then), and Obama solidly campaigned as a progressive in 2008 and was very notably to the left of Hillary; in 2012, after his true colours were established, his popularity fell off dramatically, as did his performance in the general.

haymarket said:

Biden and Harris would be the best ticket to beat Trump.

Beto O'Rourke is tempting because of the lure of carrying Texas - which would sink Trump all by itself. If Biden fades or self destructs or even succumbs to age problems, it is wide open with O'Rourke benefitting greatly.

Sanders is going to fade and is not a realistic pick this time despite my support of him in 2016 primary season.

Click to expand...

It's curious and likely a function of confirmation bias that you would imply Sanders is more likely to fade than Biden; someone who is notorious for fading in his prior two failed attempts at the nomination versus the person who exploded out of literally nowhere and who, essentially overnight, became one of the most powerful and influential senators in Washington from nothing.

I don't see a path for Beto at this time; a candidate who has thus far _actually_ faded.

This all having been said it is very early in in the nomination process, and a great deal is possible.

I'd say a Biden/Warren ticket would utterly curbstomp Trump in 2020, but I think the only Democrats I could see potentially losing in 2020 would be Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard and the more obscure ones like Hickenlooper, Inslee, Delaney and Williamson.

Pretty much anyone else would beat Trump.

Biden will utterly mangle him.