Proposed Ukraine compromise

[Veerman_12]

At least 3 of those you call unelectable have been ahead of Trump in every poll I've seen for months.

Yes because I'm sure you have a varied media diet and wouldn't possibly just take in media that confirms your worldview.

Warren is about as electable as Hillary, Biden is probably a nice man, but way out of his league and past his prime, Bernie can't do basic math and is really only appealing to narcissistic snowflakes who don't want to pay for college or anything else, and Harris is simply unlikable if for no other reason than she's a hypocritical climber only interested in promoting herself.

Why would anyone with a brain vote for any of them?

And Trump is no better, I'm not a Trump supporter.

My question was, what is the solution, how do we get better candidates, because this is one garbage fire after another.

 

[Neutron Monster]

So again, what's the solution?

We're pissed at each other when we should be pissed at the parties.

Don't you also have to acknowledge that the reason these are the candidates is because they won their primaries and caucuses? It's not like the structure of the R party wanted DJT.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Marianne Williamson exists, so United States Representative and Iraq War veteran Tulsi Gabbard is far from the least qualified candidate running. Furthermore, she's the only Democratic candidate with half a chance to win in Red states because she doesn't present herself as a complete loon like Bernie or Elizabeth Warren.

Who are you to tell anyone how to, or not to, vote? Exactly what qualifies you to think your OPINION is better than anyone elses?

Her aura doesn't like this post.

Gabbard, on paper, could be interesting as a more moderate person, a veteran, etc. But I can't look past the Assad apologism. She's the Russia Today preferred candidate for a reason. They have better people with real NatSec bona fides than her.

If I could waive a wand and pick one of the candidates, I'd probably pick Amy. Some of the governors like Bullock could be good but they had no traction.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Yes because I'm sure you have a varied media diet and wouldn't possibly just take in media that confirms your worldview.

Warren is about as electable as Hillary, Biden is probably a nice man, but way out of his league and past his prime, Bernie can't do basic math and is really only appealing to narcissistic snowflakes who don't want to pay for college or anything else, and Harris is simply unlikable if for no other reason than she's a hypocritical climber only interested in promoting herself.

Why would anyone with a brain vote for any of them?

And Trump is no better, I'm not a Trump supporter.

My question was, what is the solution, how do we get better candidates, because this is one garbage fire after another.

It's true that candidate quality will matter, but elections with sitting Presidents are largely verdicts on the incumbent. That's a difference from 2016. Trump can either do really well or totally tank, and in those cases the Ds could nominate Williamson and still win or nominate their best candidate and still lose.

 

[Veerman_12]

It's true that candidate quality will matter, but elections with sitting Presidents are largely verdicts on the incumbent. That's a difference from 2016. Trump can either do really well or totally tank, and in those cases the Ds could nominate Williamson and still win or nominate their best candidate and still lose.

Correct, and there are still enough people very happy with the President and even those who aren't (Republicans and independent voters alike) see the prospective democratic presidential candidates as way too far left, extremist even.

Which is why I think a more moderate candidate like Gabbard or Bullock could do really well with moderate conservatives and independent voters.

 

[Veerman_12]

The question still remains, how do you fix the issue of such crappy candidates?

 

[Neutron Monster]

The question still remains, how do you fix the issue of such crappy candidates?

Ask the primary voters to be better? Tough thing to do.

 

[Veerman_12]

Ask the primary voters to be better? Tough thing to do.

No doubt. Like I said, Idk what the solution is, but we've got to do better in selecting leadership.

 

[millerbleach]

If I could waive a wand and pick one of the candidates, I'd probably pick Amy.

There is no way I would ever vote for her because she's still liberal but, I haven't understood her lack of traction. She's well spoken and has reasonable positions on the issues. If I were a Dem, i'd be pushing her. She MIGHT beat Trump. I don't see anyone else who would.

 

[3Rfan]

There is no way I would ever vote for her because she's still liberal but, I haven't understood her lack of traction. She's well spoken and has reasonable positions on the issues. If I were a Dem, i'd be pushing her. She MIGHT beat Trump. I don't see anyone else who would.

Pubs shouldn't be afraid of the liberal candidates as long as they hold the senate and McConnell is their leader. None of their far left proposals will ever get to their desk to sign. Mitch won't even let anything come up for a vote that his caucus doesn't support. He did say if Trump is impeached he will have no choice but to take it up according to senate rules. He didn't say he had to have a vote, just that he would have to take it up.