A Minority (& an Under 50) has to be on the ticket to win in 2020...

[SCNCmod]

In 2020, Dems will need a minority (and someone in their 40s to motivate millennials... a 75 yrs old doing this was a one off) on the ticket to achieve the turnout needed to win back the White House... Even if its the VP (the 1 exception to VP not impacting the election- is if the VP is a racial minority... in that it would likely attract more votes among that group)

Either:

1) Latino... to win AZ & FL  (Dems got 62% of the latinos that voted in AZ/FL ... We need 66% to win both states). 

2) Black...  to win back FL & PA (or maybe some combo of 1 of these with OH-NC-MI)

Dropping Kaine for, say, Castro, would cause one of NH, VA, MN, ME, or NV to flip. Anyone of these but ME would cause a loss. ME would put her at 270 EVs, so if even one of her faithless electors was still a faithless elector, she would lose.

I completely disagree that NH, VA, MN, NV or the ME district she won ... would have flipped.  Kaine did not help her in those states.  (In fact, regarding VA... even though he has won all of his past elections... I've heard from many that, at best, he was a net even this go around.. as many in VA were turned off by him during the election?)

[SCNCmod]

How about a candidate who is inspiring and has actual policy ideas instead of filling a quota. Obama didn't win because he was black. He won because he inspired the majority to vote for him, unlike the 2016 nominee who was hated even by those who voted for her.

What a novel concept!

In my original post... I was considering "an inspiring candidate" to be a given.    

*****watch Julian's 2012 Convention keynote speech.... he is very inspiring (and Obama & Trump had less experience than their opponents... but both could inspire and motivate a crowd)

[SCNCmod]

In 2020, Dems will need a minority (and someone in their 40s to motivate millennials... a 75 yrs old doing this was a one off) on the ticket to achieve the turnout needed to win back the White House... Even if its the VP (the 1 exception to VP not impacting the election- is if the VP is a racial minority... in that it would likely attract more votes among that group)

Either:

1) Latino... to win AZ & FL  (Dems got 62% of the latinos that voted in AZ/FL ... We need 66% to win both states). 

2) Black...  to win back FL & PA (or maybe some combo of 1 of these with OH-NC-MI)

This kind of thinking is what led us to lose the election.

^^thank you. This is the Democrats' problem: they focus too much on the demographics of their candidates more than the actual substance. This sort of affirmative-action strategy is not going to bode well for the party, especially if we want to try to win back those pesky WWC Trump Democrats. Joe Biden, an old white guy, would have done just fine among said minorities, especially African Americans who would respect him serving alongside the first black president.

I don't see the importance of the ageism argument. If you're saying we should nominate a young candidate to motivate the youth vote, that's really kind of condescending to young voters who flocked to 75-year-old white guy Bernie Sanders. Republicans made this same mistake with Marco Rubio and Sarah Palin: "he's young and Cuban he can help us win back the Hispanic vote and do well among the millennials!/let's put a woman on the ticket so we can close the gender gap and get some of those PUMA Hillary supporters." This strategy usually doesn't work out to either party's advantage.

And in Flordia... Rubio far outperformed Trump, in his Senate election... because of the Latino vote (many Dem- latinos voted for Rubio). 

I don't really consider Palin comparable to anyone... But her problem was lack of perceived intelligence... Not lack of experience...(I dare say Castro or Booker would have this problem... Considering they all went to Stanford, then Harvard/Yale ... not to mention Cory Booker is a Rhodes Scholar).  Many will disagree... But I still give a lot of value to candidates with a top notch Education on their resume. 

Not to mention Castro & Booker are very good (Obama-esc) motivating speakers.  But regarding age... I think Sanders is definitely the exception to the rule... that typically younger candidates are more motivating to younger voters.

[Confused Democrat]

In 2020, Dems will need a minority (and someone in their 40s to motivate millennials... a 75 yrs old doing this was a one off) on the ticket to achieve the turnout needed to win back the White House... Even if its the VP (the 1 exception to VP not impacting the election- is if the VP is a racial minority... in that it would likely attract more votes among that group)

Either:

1) Latino... to win AZ & FL  (Dems got 62% of the latinos that voted in AZ/FL ... We need 66% to win both states).  

2) Black...  to win back FL & PA (or maybe some combo of 1 of these with OH-NC-MI)

This kind of thinking is what led us to lose the election.

^^thank you. This is the Democrats' problem: they focus too much on the demographics of their candidates more than the actual substance. This sort of affirmative-action strategy is not going to bode well for the party, especially if we want to try to win back those pesky WWC Trump Democrats. Joe Biden, an old white guy, would have done just fine among said minorities, especially African Americans who would respect him serving alongside the first black president.

I don't see the importance of the ageism argument. If you're saying we should nominate a young candidate to motivate the youth vote, that's really kind of condescending to young voters who flocked to 75-year-old white guy Bernie Sanders. Republicans made this same mistake with Marco Rubio and Sarah Palin: "he's young and Cuban he can help us win back the Hispanic vote and do well among the millennials!/let's put a woman on the ticket so we can close the gender gap and get some of those PUMA Hillary supporters." This strategy usually doesn't work out to either party's advantage.

And in Flordia... Rubio far outperformed Trump, in his Senate election... because of the Latino vote (many Dem- latinos voted for Rubio).  

I don't really consider Palin comparable to anyone... But her problem was lack of perceived intelligence... Not lack of experience...(I dare say Castro or Booker would have this problem... Considering they all went to Stanford, then Harvard/Yale ... not to mention Cory Booker is a Rhodes Scholar).  Many will disagree... But I still give a lot of value to candidates with a top notch Education on their resume.  

Not to mention Castro & Booker are very good (Obama-esc) motivating speakers.  But regarding age... I think Sanders is definitely the exception to the rule... that typically younger candidates are more motivating to younger voters.

If you knew anything about Florida, you would know that the Cuban population here leans heavily Republican during almost every election. It didn't matter that Rubio was Latino.

Rubio lost the overall Latino vote in Florida, but won the Cuban vote. Among Cubans Rubio won 31-68. Among other Latinos Murphy won 58-39. Murphy also won the age 18-44 demographic.

Also, do you have anything to back up the statement "typically younger candidates are more motivating to younger voters," because I don't think it's true.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I'm sorry but political candidates are not made in a lab.

[Figueira]

In 2020, Dems will need a minority (and someone in their 40s to motivate millennials... a 75 yrs old doing this was a one off) on the ticket to achieve the turnout needed to win back the White House... Even if its the VP (the 1 exception to VP not impacting the election- is if the VP is a racial minority... in that it would likely attract more votes among that group)

Either:

1) Latino... to win AZ & FL  (Dems got 62% of the latinos that voted in AZ/FL ... We need 66% to win both states).  

2) Black...  to win back FL & PA (or maybe some combo of 1 of these with OH-NC-MI)

This kind of thinking is what led us to lose the election.

^^thank you. This is the Democrats' problem: they focus too much on the demographics of their candidates more than the actual substance. This sort of affirmative-action strategy is not going to bode well for the party, especially if we want to try to win back those pesky WWC Trump Democrats. Joe Biden, an old white guy, would have done just fine among said minorities, especially African Americans who would respect him serving alongside the first black president.

I don't see the importance of the ageism argument. If you're saying we should nominate a young candidate to motivate the youth vote, that's really kind of condescending to young voters who flocked to 75-year-old white guy Bernie Sanders. Republicans made this same mistake with Marco Rubio and Sarah Palin: "he's young and Cuban he can help us win back the Hispanic vote and do well among the millennials!/let's put a woman on the ticket so we can close the gender gap and get some of those PUMA Hillary supporters." This strategy usually doesn't work out to either party's advantage.

And in Flordia... Rubio far outperformed Trump, in his Senate election... because of the Latino vote (many Dem- latinos voted for Rubio).  

I don't really consider Palin comparable to anyone... But her problem was lack of perceived intelligence... Not lack of experience...(I dare say Castro or Booker would have this problem... Considering they all went to Stanford, then Harvard/Yale ... not to mention Cory Booker is a Rhodes Scholar).  Many will disagree... But I still give a lot of value to candidates with a top notch Education on their resume.  

Not to mention Castro & Booker are very good (Obama-esc) motivating speakers.  But regarding age... I think Sanders is definitely the exception to the rule... that typically younger candidates are more motivating to younger voters.

If you knew anything about Florida, you would know that the Cuban population here leans heavily Republican during almost every election. It didn't matter that Rubio was Latino.

Rubio lost the overall Latino vote in Florida, but won the Cuban vote. Among Cubans Rubio won 31-68. Among other Latinos Murphy won 58-39. Murphy also won the age 18-44 demographic.

Also, do you have anything to back up the statement "typically younger candidates are more motivating to younger voters," because I don't think it's true.

I don't think younger candidates are necessarily more motivating to younger people. I just think they're better candidates overall.

[Confused Democrat]

In 2020, Dems will need a minority (and someone in their 40s to motivate millennials... a 75 yrs old doing this was a one off) on the ticket to achieve the turnout needed to win back the White House... Even if its the VP (the 1 exception to VP not impacting the election- is if the VP is a racial minority... in that it would likely attract more votes among that group)

Either:

1) Latino... to win AZ & FL  (Dems got 62% of the latinos that voted in AZ/FL ... We need 66% to win both states).  

2) Black...  to win back FL & PA (or maybe some combo of 1 of these with OH-NC-MI)

This kind of thinking is what led us to lose the election.

^^thank you. This is the Democrats' problem: they focus too much on the demographics of their candidates more than the actual substance. This sort of affirmative-action strategy is not going to bode well for the party, especially if we want to try to win back those pesky WWC Trump Democrats. Joe Biden, an old white guy, would have done just fine among said minorities, especially African Americans who would respect him serving alongside the first black president.

I don't see the importance of the ageism argument. If you're saying we should nominate a young candidate to motivate the youth vote, that's really kind of condescending to young voters who flocked to 75-year-old white guy Bernie Sanders. Republicans made this same mistake with Marco Rubio and Sarah Palin: "he's young and Cuban he can help us win back the Hispanic vote and do well among the millennials!/let's put a woman on the ticket so we can close the gender gap and get some of those PUMA Hillary supporters." This strategy usually doesn't work out to either party's advantage.

And in Flordia... Rubio far outperformed Trump, in his Senate election... because of the Latino vote (many Dem- latinos voted for Rubio).  

I don't really consider Palin comparable to anyone... But her problem was lack of perceived intelligence... Not lack of experience...(I dare say Castro or Booker would have this problem... Considering they all went to Stanford, then Harvard/Yale ... not to mention Cory Booker is a Rhodes Scholar).  Many will disagree... But I still give a lot of value to candidates with a top notch Education on their resume.  

Not to mention Castro & Booker are very good (Obama-esc) motivating speakers.  But regarding age... I think Sanders is definitely the exception to the rule... that typically younger candidates are more motivating to younger voters.

If you knew anything about Florida, you would know that the Cuban population here leans heavily Republican during almost every election. It didn't matter that Rubio was Latino.

Rubio lost the overall Latino vote in Florida, but won the Cuban vote. Among Cubans Rubio won 31-68. Among other Latinos Murphy won 58-39. Murphy also won the age 18-44 demographic.

Also, do you have anything to back up the statement "typically younger candidates are more motivating to younger voters," because I don't think it's true.

I don't think younger candidates are necessarily more motivating to younger people. I just think they're better candidates overall.

Why though?

[SCNCmod]

In 2020, Dems will need a minority (and someone in their 40s to motivate millennials... a 75 yrs old doing this was a one off) on the ticket to achieve the turnout needed to win back the White House... Even if its the VP (the 1 exception to VP not impacting the election- is if the VP is a racial minority... in that it would likely attract more votes among that group)

Either:

1) Latino... to win AZ & FL  (Dems got 62% of the latinos that voted in AZ/FL ... We need 66% to win both states).  

2) Black...  to win back FL & PA (or maybe some combo of 1 of these with OH-NC-MI)

This kind of thinking is what led us to lose the election.

^^thank you. This is the Democrats' problem: they focus too much on the demographics of their candidates more than the actual substance. This sort of affirmative-action strategy is not going to bode well for the party, especially if we want to try to win back those pesky WWC Trump Democrats. Joe Biden, an old white guy, would have done just fine among said minorities, especially African Americans who would respect him serving alongside the first black president.

I don't see the importance of the ageism argument. If you're saying we should nominate a young candidate to motivate the youth vote, that's really kind of condescending to young voters who flocked to 75-year-old white guy Bernie Sanders. Republicans made this same mistake with Marco Rubio and Sarah Palin: "he's young and Cuban he can help us win back the Hispanic vote and do well among the millennials!/let's put a woman on the ticket so we can close the gender gap and get some of those PUMA Hillary supporters." This strategy usually doesn't work out to either party's advantage.

And in Flordia... Rubio far outperformed Trump, in his Senate election... because of the Latino vote (many Dem- latinos voted for Rubio).  

I don't really consider Palin comparable to anyone... But her problem was lack of perceived intelligence... Not lack of experience...(I dare say Castro or Booker would have this problem... Considering they all went to Stanford, then Harvard/Yale ... not to mention Cory Booker is a Rhodes Scholar).  Many will disagree... But I still give a lot of value to candidates with a top notch Education on their resume.  

Not to mention Castro & Booker are very good (Obama-esc) motivating speakers.  But regarding age... I think Sanders is definitely the exception to the rule... that typically younger candidates are more motivating to younger voters.

If you knew anything about Florida, you would know that the Cuban population here leans heavily Republican during almost every election. It didn't matter that Rubio was Latino.

Rubio lost the overall Latino vote in Florida, but won the Cuban vote. Among Cubans Rubio won 31-68. Among other Latinos Murphy won 58-39. Murphy also won the age 18-44 demographic.

Also, do you have anything to back up the statement "typically younger candidates are more motivating to younger voters," because I don't think it's true.

Rubio won many more votes in Florida than Trump ... this difference was mainly due to the Latino's who voted for Hillary & Rubio.  (I know that Cubans usually vote Republican & most voted Trump/Rubio)

... Regarding my statement that younger voters are typically more motivated by younger candidates (obviously you are going to have exceptions like Bernie).... But, I don't know many who would disagree..(regarding the reason for this... probably because overall...usually younger voters tend to be able to identify more with younger candidates).

But I also agree with previous that statement that younger candidates tend to make better candidates... many reasons this among voters (some even psychological).

[Confused Democrat]

In 2020, Dems will need a minority (and someone in their 40s to motivate millennials... a 75 yrs old doing this was a one off) on the ticket to achieve the turnout needed to win back the White House... Even if its the VP (the 1 exception to VP not impacting the election- is if the VP is a racial minority... in that it would likely attract more votes among that group)

Either:

1) Latino... to win AZ & FL  (Dems got 62% of the latinos that voted in AZ/FL ... We need 66% to win both states).  

2) Black...  to win back FL & PA (or maybe some combo of 1 of these with OH-NC-MI)

This kind of thinking is what led us to lose the election.

^^thank you. This is the Democrats' problem: they focus too much on the demographics of their candidates more than the actual substance. This sort of affirmative-action strategy is not going to bode well for the party, especially if we want to try to win back those pesky WWC Trump Democrats. Joe Biden, an old white guy, would have done just fine among said minorities, especially African Americans who would respect him serving alongside the first black president.

I don't see the importance of the ageism argument. If you're saying we should nominate a young candidate to motivate the youth vote, that's really kind of condescending to young voters who flocked to 75-year-old white guy Bernie Sanders. Republicans made this same mistake with Marco Rubio and Sarah Palin: "he's young and Cuban he can help us win back the Hispanic vote and do well among the millennials!/let's put a woman on the ticket so we can close the gender gap and get some of those PUMA Hillary supporters." This strategy usually doesn't work out to either party's advantage.

And in Flordia... Rubio far outperformed Trump, in his Senate election... because of the Latino vote (many Dem- latinos voted for Rubio).  

I don't really consider Palin comparable to anyone... But her problem was lack of perceived intelligence... Not lack of experience...(I dare say Castro or Booker would have this problem... Considering they all went to Stanford, then Harvard/Yale ... not to mention Cory Booker is a Rhodes Scholar).  Many will disagree... But I still give a lot of value to candidates with a top notch Education on their resume.  

Not to mention Castro & Booker are very good (Obama-esc) motivating speakers.  But regarding age... I think Sanders is definitely the exception to the rule... that typically younger candidates are more motivating to younger voters.

If you knew anything about Florida, you would know that the Cuban population here leans heavily Republican during almost every election. It didn't matter that Rubio was Latino.

Rubio lost the overall Latino vote in Florida, but won the Cuban vote. Among Cubans Rubio won 31-68. Among other Latinos Murphy won 58-39. Murphy also won the age 18-44 demographic.

Also, do you have anything to back up the statement "typically younger candidates are more motivating to younger voters," because I don't think it's true.

Rubio won many more votes in Florida than Trump ... this difference was mainly due to the Latino's who voted for Hillary & Rubio.  (I know that Cubans usually vote Republican & most voted Trump/Rubio)

... Regarding my statement that younger voters are typically more motivated by younger candidates (obviously you are going to have exceptions like Bernie).... But, I don't know many who would disagree..(regarding the reason for this... probably because overall...usually younger voters tend to be able to identify more with younger candidates).

But I also agree with previous that statement that younger candidates tend to make better candidates... many reasons this among voters (some even psychological).

If this election has taught us anything, it's that Democrats need to stop picking candidates on the basis of  "looking the part" or "impressive resume."  Those things matter very little to voters e.g. Trump.

Young voters don't go "hey! I'm gonna vote for that guy because he/she is young."  Black and Latino voters won't vote for candidates just because they're Black or Latino. Voters want a candidate with a message that resonates with them. A candidate who is passionate about the issues and is comfortable in their own skin. A candidate who can inspire people and turn them out to the polls on election day.

This whole notion that Democrats need to nominate someone who is a minority and under fifty in order to win is absurd.

We need more candidates like Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama.

[SCNCmod]

Obviously someone who resonates with voters is the key... but 1) there are usually multiple candidate that resonate (2016 was a bit odd... in that it was really Hillary or Bernie as the only 2 choices for the entire Primary campaign)... and ... 2) the nominee also needs to motivate turnout among those that are the least likely to turnout. 

There are many facets to choosing a nominee that will be successful.  And although its not as simple as saying a young candidate, etc... Its also not necessarily as simple as saying we should pick the most idealistic candidate or the candidate that can generate the biggest crowds at a stadium.

What if there are 2 candidates who draw equally big crowds... ie although I don't think Bernie will run in 2020... I'm sure Bernie & Cory Booker will be able to fill up college stadiums in the primary.

[Confused Democrat]

Obviously someone who resonates with voters is the key... but 1) there are usually multiple candidate that resonate (2016 was a bit odd... in that it was really Hillary or Bernie as the only 2 choices for the entire Primary campaign)... and ... 2) the nominee also needs to motivate turnout among those that are the least likely to turnout.  

There are many facets to choosing a nominee that will be successful.  And although its not as simple as saying a young candidate, etc... Its also not necessarily as simple as saying we should pick the most idealistic candidate or the candidate that can generate the biggest crowds at a stadium.

What if there are 2 candidates who draw equally big crowds... ie although I don't think Bernie will run in 2020... I'm sure Bernie & Cory Booker will be able to fill up college stadiums in the primary.

You're mischaracterizing my argument. I never said "we should pick the most idealistic candidate or the candidate that can generate the biggest crowds at a stadium."

I literally laid out the most important characteristics in my previous reply. I said, and I quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm unclear on what your position is. You're initial post was quite explicit about how Democrats need to nominate a minority who is under 50 in order to win in 2020. Now you seem to be backing away from that position.

[SCNCmod]

Maybe saying "has to be on the ticket to win" is an overstatement (as I obviously don't think this is the only, single way Dems can win in 2020.

And It think I was making the assumption that most serious candidates running for President...  are candidates who are passionate about the issues and comfortable in their own skin.  And that many  candidates also posess the ability to inspire people..  also- typically candidates for the Dem nominee tend to start off much closer in terms of policy than was the case with Clinton & Sanders (& I expect most Dem candidates in 2020 will embrace platforms much like what was decided on at the DNC after the election ... by representatives of both Clinton & Sanders)

But (as I just posted in the Henrich thread)...
.... Many seem to be taking the position that Black turnout is not affected by having a black candidate on the ticket (or that Latino turnout is not affected by having the 1st Latino on the ticket).  Which would seem to further say that all voter turnout is only influenced by the details of their policy stances. (A position I think is not steeped in reality)

... Do those who say people only consider policy position details, etc.... also say.... for example- That it is somehow bad if Democratic leaning Latinos were more motivated to turnout to vote ... by a Dem ticket that included the 1st Dem ticket in history to include a Latino?

[Confused Democrat]

.... Many seem to be taking the position that Black turnout is not affected by having a black candidate on the ticket (or that Latino turnout is not affected by having the 1st Latino on the ticket). 

Can you point me to a credible source that proves otherwise?