Or a white woman. An African-American woman was, regrettably, a bridge too far.

in that debate where Biden appeared to go blank, which he NEVER did before in a political debate.

As much as I love Kamala, I can not support her for the nomination again. As hard as it is for me to say it, the stakes are simply too high to risk another female candidate for the White House. I love what Newsom's been doing in that regard, but I also have misgivings about running a governor from California.
I’d much prefer to see a governor like Pritzker get in the race. It’s still early, so anything can happen in the next year.

Yes, she had little time to prepare or fine tune it. However, reining in Walz, was a big mistake. He was using words and imagery that people were relating to.I think she listened too much to the usual consultants on that one. As others here and, even she herself apparently have said, she also whiffed on Gaza. Finally, after her campaign loss she disappeared from the scene just when we could have used a little leadership and visible pushback from her. Leaders lead.

I enthusiastically supported her when she stepped in after Biden withdrew, but I would never have supported her in a primary election, given her pitiful performance of dropping out four years prior before the first primary state casted a vote. Not that I don’t love and admire her, but some candidates just can’t garner national support, no matter how qualified they might be.

I know it's hindsight but he should have realized he couldn't go forward. That awful moment during the debate made my heart sink.

My heart sank when I saw that. Was it a mini stroke or something that would have led up to a stroke? I still don't know what happened. Did you see the debate and when that moment happened? If you did, what did you think?

He was never a natural debater, and he's a stutterer. Then add chronic hoarseness that set in over the year or so before the debate. Most importantly, he ran his presidency like an old-school president, on the telephone, in the office, not interested in continuous campaigning. So this was something he hadn't done in years. And even a reasonably sharp 80 year old will look, well, 80. Contrast that with Trump, who is loud and self-assured, and I think that's enough to set the ball on the tee.

and I supported her fully. It was her first primary run four years prior that disqualifiee her for any future run in my mind.
She couldn’t garner enough national support keep her campaign from fizzling out before the first stage even held its primary. This is not to say anything bad about Kamala Harris. I absolutely love the woman, but the cold hard facts are she just doesn't have national appeal on her own.

His first two attempts didn't make it out of Iowa. His first run ended before the primaries and in 2008 he got 1% in Iowa before dropping out.

Conditions can change.

If Kamala enters the race and wins enough delegates for the nomination, I will be an enthusiastic supporter again.

Announces! Then what?

nt

No one is going to vote for teh Democrat just because someone from their region is the VEEP on a ticket.

merely incidental.

Clinton/Gore leaned into two Southerners.
Bush/Cheney were effectively both Western candidates — Cheney even had to re-establish Wyoming residency because they were both tied to Texas.
Obama/Biden had geographic variance, but Biden wasn’t chosen for Delaware.
Trump’s VP selections weren’t about geographic balance either.
Biden/Harris and Harris/Waltz may have produced some geographic diversity, but it’s a stretch to call that the organizing principle.

The broader pattern is that VPs only tend to matter electorally when they’re actively harmful, like Pailin. Otherwise, they’re marginal to outcomes.

I don’t see why a California/Arizona ticket is uniquely problematic. Newsom/Kelly may turn out not to be the optimal ticket, but it won’t primarily be due to geography.

Mark is originally from New Jersey (Noo Joisy, in case you're also a native), even though today, he'll tell you he's from Tucson.

Jack Cocchiarrella was talking about tRump's idiotic rant about Newsom running for POTUS right now.

These are beauty-pageant-name-recognition polls with little predictive value on who the ultimate nominee will be.

Go review polls from 1974, 1990 and 2006- there is no mention of Carter, Clinton or Obama in those polls. Now look at who the front runners were in those polls…

led in almost every poll taken in 2018.

How'd that work out?

That’s my point - beauty-pageant-name-recognition polls two+ years out are meaningless and have minimal predictive value.

20, 35, and 50 years ago


Not sure that any of those are very relevant.

Clinton dominated polling in 2014, BIden dominated in 2018.

If you're keeping score that'd both of the most recent contested primaries.

I'm not sure he's that ambitious.

But he's normal, and has a cool name.

Lawyer, Marine, Pennsylvanian, former Congressman.

Forty-one years old. Pleasant to handsome appearance.

Uncontroversial. Of little interest to anyone compiling opposition research.

Who? you say.

Exactly. Under the radar. He just needs the party to lift him on its shoulders and present him to the voters.

Now, proceed to explain to me how I don't understand politics.

In this environment where the media will be scouring only the Dem candidate for any whiff of scandal or even something they can ridicule while giving the R a free pass, that may be our only option. But even if we play it safe like that it's no guarantee. When the media wants to it can blow the most trivial thing into a major problem. Remember the Dean scream? That being said, I like Lamb.

and things can still change quite a bit between now and when we go to vote in the primaries. I don't personally see Harris as a viable candidate simply because the country has already weighed in on her and said no. I feel we cannot run candidates a second time and expect to get a different outcome. Trump was an outlier because he had actually won an election before. Harris hasn't.

I do feel Newsom may be one of the top candidates however, because at this point, the other possible contenders either are being dismissed by many voters for not being straight white Christian males, or if they are in that demographic, they don't have much of a national profile at this point. Things could still change. Candidates may develop more of a national profile. The results of the midterms may give voters more confidence to think outside of the box with regards to choosing a candidate. We will have to see.

I'm personally voting for Pete Buttigieg if he's running, and if Elizabeth Warren is in there, she's next on my list. I like Newsom, though, and I'm open to learning about some of the others that live in other parts of the country that I don't know much about yet, and might learn more about during the debates and primary.

I'd like to see him chop up his opponent the likely J.D. Couch Vance!

It would be a mistake in my opinion if she does and I couldn’t support. But I think others guiding the process will ask her not to run. She simply is not a strong enough candidate to bet our future on.

The problem for Harris is that Newsom has become the early frontrunner, and it’s not clear that even her informal entry to the race would change that

The country is not electing a politician from California. It is just not going to happen.

California is vilified by everyone here

Colorado, Alaska, New Mexico, and Wyoming.

I grew up on a working ranch. My dad ran a cow/calf operation. We had 500 mother cows.

California culture does not translate well in most of the west. They are seen as out of touch. I’m sorry this seems to piss you off, but thanks to the electoral college, a Dem candidate needs to over perform. We NEED Nevada and Arizona.

You just proved my point. Not trying to listen or understand but rather, you’re wrong. You’re a hick. My way is better and if you did it MY WAY - you too could be superior.

I can ride the tail feathers off a horse, I can slaughter a beef and process it correctly, I make my own sausage, salami, and prosciutto. I can shoot a shotgun, rifle, and pistol extremely well. I can tear down an engine and make my own repairs. I can siwash in the back country and not die.

You’re not superior but you think you are. This is exactly why California doesn’t play well here. You THINK we want to be LIKE you - we don’t. You move HERE because there is something THERE that isn’t working and instead of being thoughtful and reflective. You’re arrogant and condescending. Like I said, a Californian politician isn’t winning.

I’m going to crank up some Police and Duran Duran. It’s 1984 again!

1. Does the candidate have the ability to make the deep structural changes needed to rebuild the Republic?
2. Does the candidate have the inclination to make the deep structural changes needed to rebuild the Republic?

I'm going with the one who checks those two boxes. So far, I see one that clearly checks the first and one who clearly checks the second. I'll be listening in from the North and getting my absentee ballots.

Newsom is a Governor of a large state with a huge economy. When he talks, he comes across as knowing what governance is and how government works, and he can articulate the facts and figures of a large economy. (California economy is like the fourth or fifth largest in the world.) He understands farm economies and urban economies, agriculture being one of the biggest industries in CA. Basically, the people of this country are on edge about how close to the economic cliff we have become with Trump driving the car and are looking to who can rescue us.

As far as no one voting for someone from CA, how'd that work out for Reagan?...

and a fighter.

"Necessary, but not sufficient."

Two years before primary season heats up, it doesn't have much more relevance than a five year old Cheesecake Factory menu.