Here's an idea - an attack candidate

[extvbroadcaster]

Democrats need somebody that does not ever expect to win. Somebody that can run, get on TV, and in debates. And that person just nails Trump in a way the others can't. Think about that. A candidate that comes on TV and just flat out says Trump is a moron. That he is a lying racist con man. And sticks some label on Trump - like "Comrade Trump" - In every interview, they refer to Trump as "Comrade Trump" and do it in debates too. Then the rest of the field can be respectful and nice and let Trump have a dose of his own medicine. Just a thought.

[Sherman A1]

1. Traditionally the role of the VP choice

on the ticket.

[Hoyt]

2. We're going to end up running against trump, only to have him dropout at last minute. His replacment

His replacement will be some "moderate" who leaves us flatfooted, if we are not careful. But, then, I never thought trump had a chance in 2016.

[Javaman]

3. the orange asshole will never drop out...

his ego and rampant narcissism prevents that from happening.

he will lose and will have to be dragged out of the WH in handcuffs.

[lagomorph777]

4. I think Hoyt means the attack dog would drop out, leaving us stuck with a "centrist"...

and to me, "centrist" is somebody who always takes the center position between the center and right-wing crazies. That approach is doomed to drift farther and farther to the right, and appeal to nobody; losing the election.

[Javaman]

6. I see what you mean but the logic/sentence structure makes it hard to determine that. nt

[SlogginThroughIt]

5. I think the OP means during our primary debates

Interesting strategy. Once a candidate is starting to look like they are not going to make it have them assume the attack position.... Although hell that may be the move that makes them viable again!

[imanamerican63]

7. Wasn't this the way Trump won?

[Whiskeytide]

13. Exactly right. n/t.

[LiberalLovinLug]

18. That was my thought. He (or she) would probably win the primary

But even if that person simply did well, the biggest accomplishment would wake up the Democratic party brass into finally realizing that the public is (sadly) so jaded now that if you don't come out hard and vicious against your opponent, you are not going to be heard. I really wish going high when they go low actually worked. But it doesn't in this poisoned social media era.

[extvbroadcaster]

8. I think Trump would be caught flat footed

Trump's secret weapon is that he is a crude boor with money willing to say nasty things that others won't. Look at what he said about McCain. Nobody with any class at all would do something like that. But if somebody stood up to Trump, called him an asshole and Russian mole on TV and to his face - that would be the best thing for America.

[Whiskeytide]

14. Clinton did that. In a debate. It didn't work. n/t

[CrispyQ]

9. It would at least be a way to get different framing out there.

Something the dems suck at - framing & capturing the narrative.

[maxsolomon]

10. That person should be our nominee.

Trump depends on the decorum of others for his "Insult-Comic Presidency" to work.

Our Nominee needs to point at him and laugh. Don't debate the words, debate the TECHNIQUE. Expose his Con IN REAL TIME. Use his bleached fake hair as an example of his Narcissism. Emasculate him.

Who can do that?

Maybe Harris, maybe O'Rourke. I don't see other options right now.

[groundloop]

11. I've said for quite a while what's important is someone who will kick some repub ass

I'm not as concerned about relatively minor differences in candidates platforms (within reason - they still need to be a solid Democrat), what's most needed is a President who can put repubs in their place, twist their arms, and get stuff done. In that respect maybe Joe Biden, but I'm still keeping an open mind.

[Chakaconcarne]

12. Yep.... like a soldier to take the brunt of GOP attacks and not be concerned about the PC filter.

The GOP did this in 2016 to an extent but used all candidates to help thwart focused attacks from the left.

The GOP also needs a label.... "corrupt" that should be a unified message.

[mac56]

15. We need a heckler.

[LiberalLovinLug]

16. Avenatti?

He'd be perfect.

[Jarqui]

30. +1

I was looking for who might bring him up.

I don't want him as leader. But he can make his case with the media.

[mopinko]

17. i nominate bernie.

[JudyM]

32. Bernie leverages some seriously pointed attacks on tRump, for sure. He takes no prisoners.

[kimbutgar]

19. Al Franken would be a great attacker

Take the orange maggot down with humor and biting satire. I’d donate to his campaign in a heartbeat.

[gopiscrap]

20. I would be willing to do that

but don't have the clout or name recognition

[Honeycombe8]

21. If a candidate were like that, he'd win. So the devious plan fails, because it's too good.

[The Wizard]

22. Alan Grayson.

[kentuck]

23. attack him as anti-American.

Which he is.

[JudyM]

33. You are so right, he masquerades well. The mask needs to be ripped off him and shredded.

[Rhiannon12866]

24. I vote for Maxine Waters!

She's not afraid to tell it like it is and I love her!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. THIS!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Rhiannon12866]

27. Thanks! Isn't she great?!

We need to see and hear more from her each and every day!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. Absolutely adore Maxine... I would seriously love it if she ran and was our nominee.

Maxine doesn't take shit from anyone... speaks her mind and is consistent on progressive issues.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Rhiannon12866]

31. I would enthusiastically vote for her, too! For any office at any time!

She is sharp as a tack and has the courage of her convictions!

[UniteFightBack]

25. I like it and it would need to be someone extremely quick witted because we can't go as low as rump.

I am available.

[Mr.Bill]

28. We need to choose this person carefully.

They might win.

[JunkYardDogg]

34. Malcom Nance is the Dude for that job

What would really be great, Triumph the Insult Dogg
could you picture that on a debate stage

[Amyishere]

35. Al Franken

'nuff said.

[zentrum]

36. Constantly calling HRC

....."Crooked Hillary" sure worked for Trump voters. But if we call names, then we're all in the gutter of "reality TV" language, which I think may be one of the things the country will not recover from after Trump. That our degraded language is reflecting a deeper loss in the sense of who we are.

For example when Trump called Conway's husband "a jealous loser"---it's appalling. That the President of America talks like this? It's really low grade.

But I think it's too late for "taking the high road". We've got to be tough because we have to win the office back and then try to restore its dignity from within.

[BlueFlorida]

37. The problem is

that such an attack candidate will actually win the primaries in today's charged environment.

Every time I see Democrats on TV being respectful to the orange buffoon, I cringe; but I also know that they have to respect the office.

If any candidate did that, I may be tempted to vote for him/her.

[LiberalLovinLug]

39. But what is that telling us? Or the party brass?

Despite Trump branding himself as someone who "tells it like it is" He doesn't. He lies all the time. But that mantra DID win.

Imagine if we had a candidate that could also "tell it like it is" Only they would stick to the actual facts, not alternate facts. And attack with those facts. That is why someone like Avenatti would be fantastic.

[BlueFlorida]

40. Trump was and is an exception

He touted himself as a billionaire, was a reality TV star where he was portrayed as a successful entrepreneur and he had never held a political office before.

For these reasons he got the pass on all the horrible behavior and still gets it today in some quarters.

Trump has a knack of bringing people down to his low level and beat them with experience. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and a few others tried going low and it didn't work.

We need someone like Obama, young, energetic, intelligent, hope instilling, charismatic and INSPIRING. Going low and out loud-mouthing Trump will not work well.

[LiberalLovinLug]

41. Respectfully, I disagree

Well, okay, if we had another Obama, it may work. Or a Franken Someone who by their sheer positive energy could help to expose the cretin in their light.

But I just don't see anyone on the D side that can reach the same level as Obama did. No, this time we need to fight fire with fire. Beat him at his own game. What I would like to see is someone who is very smart, and has all the refuting facts, and their sources, memorized for every possible fake charge Trump might throw out there in a debate, and give it back as good as they get it. That will be their ammunition. The gun will be their ability to communicate in a forceful, but effective way that can stand up to Trump's iying, and interrupting. IMO Hillary just did not have the chops for it. She had the facts on her side, but was an ineffective communicator against such a boor. We need someone not afraid to make Trump look like an idiot. Too much excusing themselves because of a "respect for the office". This big asshole does not respect the office. How is respecting the office, which is held by someone who pisses on the office, law enforcement, the constitution, exactly working out?

I think a lot of the public interprets "going high" with weakness. Especially if that "going high" means thinking that zero response to some childish tweet is somehow communicating to the nation that you are beneath responding, and they will respect that more than "speaking what's on your mind". And it can easily be re-interpreted by "the most watched news network" as being that Democrats don't actually have any plausible retort. This is why AOC is so effective. She responds immediately with bite.

That kind of thinking lost Gore and Kerry their elections. And maybe even Hillary's. It is an arrogant altruistic belief that the other side must have the same good heart, that can be empathetic, and rational, and ethical, as they are, somewhere deep down. And that eventually....if they only wait long enough, and if the MSM (fingers crossed) presents all the facts fairly, the public will rush to their side.

No! The public, in a very generalized way, WANTS to see some push back. Politely countering them with facts and figures, as opposed to attacking their lies with the same venomous language. That lack of passion, is interpreted as meaning they do not believe much in their platform, or in the words they are saying. i wish that weren't the case, but it is.

[BobMcWan]

38. This is why I was excited about Richard Ojeda.

I was SO looking forward to hearing him on the campaign trail and in the debates. Sorry to say we'll never know but I suspect he would have been the Democrat with no filter, just like 45.
I think Bernie does a nice job of reminding his audience that we're up against a lying racist con man.
One of the reasons I like Tulsi is she served in Iraq, just like Ojeda, and I don't think 45 would make her blink.

Oh...forgot to add: I expect the candidates to be respectful and nice to one another, but no respect is due our opponent. I would like to see our nominee treat him with the respect we all deserve as human beings, but that doesn't mean he gets home field advantage and we battle him on whatever planet he lives on. I seem to recall Elizabeth Warren saying something along those lines.