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)


**Its a given that the candidate Needs to be: Charismatic, Inspirational & Qualified..

For example... Cory Booker & Castro Brothers are very good motivating Obama-esc Speakers... (Youtube Julian Castro's 2012 Dem Keynote Address).
Also regarding qualified:  ..........Cory Booker was a big city mayor & Senator... Stanford/Yale Law... & Rhodes Scholar.  ......... Julian Castro was Mayor to the 5th largest city in the US (larger than 10 states & 2.5x the size of Vermont)... A Cabinet Secretary...& Stanford/ Harvard Law degree.
.........Joaquin Castro served 10 years in the Texas house... and will have have served in US congress for 6 or 7 years by 2020... and also has degrees from Stanford/Harvard Law.

[Biden Stans Are Cringelords]

No, the Dems need someone with policies that motivate people to actually go out and vote for them.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

They need Tulsi Gabbard

[SCNCmod]

Tulsi will not motivate turnout... Not that she would be able to get the nominee anyway.  The most loyal Dem voters are minorities.. but they also have the lowest turnout.   A minority on the ticket will motivate turnout (esp a younger candidate to connect with younger minorities who have the lowest turnout)

[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.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Tulsi will not motivate turnout... Not that she would be able to get the nominee anyway.  The most loyal Dem voters are minorities.. but they also have the lowest turnout.   A minority on the ticket will motivate turnout (esp a younger candidate to connect with younger minorities who have the lowest turnout)

Tulsi Gabbard is a minority...

[Hindsight was 2020]

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.

I keep seeing this but no proof how does a 70 year old white lady and her vp pick a white guy in his late 50's (I think) equal "identity politics"

[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.

Actually- not really.  Minorities delivered the Primary to Hillary... yet she picks a Bland white male for VP (with many good minority VPs in the mix).  Had she picked Castro- she would be president (by winning FL & AZ ... where she only got 62% of latinos that voted in FL/AZ ... and would've won with just 66% in FL/AZ).

Because of the Electoral College- this is the reality.  I think by 2024, Demo shifts will but the EC & popular vote back in stronger sync ...

But to beat Trump in 2020- you will need (Both) ideas & a little ID politics. Not to mention a younger, popular, minority ... is the opposite of Old & Stale, etc (and often you need the right messenger for people to actually hear the message)

[SCNCmod]

But IMO- Tulsi has no where near the charisma needed

[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.

I keep seeing this but no proof how does a 70 year old white lady and her vp pick a white guy in his late 50's (I think) equal "identity politics"

You're assuming the candidate has to be a minority in order to play "identity politics."

[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.

Actually- not really.  Minorities delivered the Primary to Hillary... yet she picks a Bland white male for VP (with many good minority VPs in the mix).  Had she picked Castro- she would be president (by winning FL & AZ ... where she only got 62% of latinos that voted in FL/AZ ... and would've won with just 66% in FL/AZ).

Because of the Electoral College- this is the reality.  I think by 2024, Demo shifts will but the EC & popular vote back in stronger sync ...

But to beat Trump in 2020- you will need (Both) ideas & a little ID politics. Not to mention a younger, popular, minority ... is the opposite of Old & Stale, etc (and often you need the right messenger for people to actually hear the message)

You're living in a bubble if you think what voters really care about is the age and skin color of the candidate.

I'm also pretty sure Clinton still would have lost if she chose Castro as her VP, but there's no way to really know. You're just making assumptions without any real evidence. I could say that a Bernie/Warren ticket would have beaten Trump, and it would be a just as valid argument as the one you're making.

[Figueira]

In general, Democrats have historically won when they've nominated people under fifty-five.

I also don't think Cory Booker is as toxic on the left as some think.

[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.

Actually- not really.  Minorities delivered the Primary to Hillary... yet she picks a Bland white male for VP (with many good minority VPs in the mix).  Had she picked Castro- she would be president (by winning FL & AZ ... where she only got 62% of latinos that voted in FL/AZ ... and would've won with just 66% in FL/AZ).

Because of the Electoral College- this is the reality.  I think by 2024, Demo shifts will but the EC & popular vote back in stronger sync ...

But to beat Trump in 2020- you will need (Both) ideas & a little ID politics. Not to mention a younger, popular, minority ... is the opposite of Old & Stale, etc (and often you need the right messenger for people to actually hear the message)

You're living in a bubble if you think what voters really care about is the age and skin color of the candidate.

I'm also pretty sure Clinton still would have lost if she chose Castro as her VP, but there's no way to really know. You're just making assumptions without any real evidence. I could say that a Bernie/Warren ticket would have beaten Trump, and it would be a just as valid argument as the one you're making.

I latino on the ticket would absolutely energize Latino voters...(Same with black Pres or VP energizing black voters)... This is nothing bad- its just a reality... a little extra sense of pride within the respective community.   I don't think many average- casually following politics- voters would disagree.

Regarding Castro... sure there is no proof... But it is not a HUGE leap to suggest that the 1st Latino on the ticket (who is also very good at motivating, speaking, energizing, etc)... that he would have lead a Clinton/Castro ticket to get 66% of Latinos who actually voted in FL/AZ ... rather then the 62% Clinton received

(*** 62% of Latino's that voted in FL/AZ ...was a definite under performance for HRC... esp vs Trump)

[Comrade Funk]

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.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

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.

[NHI]

No, the Dems need someone with policies that motivate people to actually go out and vote for them.

[Pericles]

Perhaps if it's a really close choice between a minority and a white guy then this could break that tie but really, whoever has the best qualifications, policies and appeal should get on the ticket.

[Kingpoleon]

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.

[Saint Milei]

Dems need Tulsi Gabbard or they will continuously lose. If you don't have your Kucinich/Sanders revolution, nothing will change. It is as much needed as Paul/Trump was

[Shadows]

A minority will 100% lose. There is a limit to this pandering bull-crap. You are setting up for a while polarization in many liberal Northern states.

The Dem party is destroyed, don't kill the party forever like the whigs!

[Comrade Funk]

Dems need Tulsi Gabbard or they will continuously lose. If you don't have your Kucinich/Sanders revolution, nothing will change. It is as much needed as Paul/Trump was

Ron Paul is nothing like Trump (although some of the faux libertarians showed their true colors morphing into Trump loving alt-Rightists) and Kucinich is nothing like Bernie (Bernie isn't a conspiracy theorist going on Russia Today/Pravda). The Democratic establishment certainly need to change their tune on globalization because it's modern incarnation is dying, and the writing is on the wall. The fact guys like Schumer are supporting Ellison is a step in the right direction, but he and Pelosi still need to go. I love NYC minus their sports teams, but having leadership come from NYC/SF is bad perception to the so-called flyover states. Ellison, despite being an "evil scary black Muslim ahhh" comes from a working class, Midwest lifestyle. Hopefully 2020 Dems actually pay attention to these areas instead of taking it for granted. Nominating a schmuck like Cuomo or Newsom is the opposite of what needs to happen. I say this as a Philadelphian, so it's not like I hate coastal cities btw lol.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

A minority will 100% lose. There is a limit to this pandering bull-crap. You are setting up for a while polarization in many liberal Northern states.


The Dem party is destroyed, don't kill the party forever like the whigs!

Wow, talk about overreaction!

Although I agree that Dems can blame this year's loss on identity politics.

[Suburbia]

If the Democratic Party chooses a minority to run in 2020, it may be seen as identity politics pandering. Some voters are fed up with that. It should be about merit, but it may be an upside as well. Cory Booker, Joaquin Castro, Kasim Reed could beat a Trump or a Pence in 2020.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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!

[HAnnA MArin County]

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.