All the icky comments I just have something to say -

[BumRushDaShow]

31. However unless some dark horse GOP candidate comes to the fore

SOME Democrat will hopefully win the general. It's difficult to get 3 terms of one party post-FDR with the term limits imposed in the Constitution by amendment (although Reagan/Bush) achieved it. But it's something that needs to be fought for.

What Bernie has going for him is not unlike what Elizabeth Warren had going for her - he addresses the populace from the perspective of pocketbook issues and income fairness. Particularly in an era when the federal minimum wage hasn't been successfully addressed since 2007 and notably where the last increase of it went into effect in 2009... and the disparity between income brackets that has reached and even exceeded levels not seen since the late-'20s. He has experience in both chambers of Congress, which is important when attempting to move legislation through. He was also born and raised in an urban area and has lived in a mostly rural state.

What Hillary has going for her is the women's vote, which is very strong and will be moreso this time around because of the dynamics of the 2008 primary. She also has a wide-ranging knowledge of both the Executive and Legislative branches through election or appointment (and having been a First Lady in the White House), and has very extensive foreign policy experience. She is a Midwesterner with a long history in the deep south as a First Lady to then-Governor Clinton, but also in the Northeast as a Senator and through family ties. She has a law background (that people forget about) and although not practicing, I expect like Michelle Obama, one does not forget all that knowledge.

What O'Malley has going for him is the "outsider" perspective as a former mayor and governor. But then he also has an "insider" perspective coming from a state that has a large federal population and part of the "beltway" running through his state. MD is also a state that is (theoretically) both "the south" (below the Mason-Dixon Line) and "borderline north" (with a large transplant population from above that line). And because of the federal presence, he has also dealt with a large immigrant population. He was born and raised in an urban area (Washington, D.C.) and is from the "Obama generation" (which is mine too - tail-end boomers). Like Hillary, he is also a lawyer by education, which does help navigate legalese in legislation.

But all 3 will need to look at this nation's diversity as well as it's "regional issues", and then find a platform that covers "all of America" but also builds speeches tailored at specific regions that address their concerns when visiting that region. E.g., the water issue in the west, the environmental issues caused by coal ash or rail tanker spills in the south, the road and bridge infrastructure in the Midwest and Northeast, and the land rights and pipelines in the mountain west.

There are issues that impact Native Americans that don't impact me but are real issues to them. There are issues that impact Hispanics or Asians that often overlap with issues that my demographic has, but they have language and citizenship-discrimination issues that do not impact me but do impact them. There are issues of equality when it comes to gender, gender-identity, and even religion or choice of no religion (and I don't mean the RW nut interpretations of such). There are issues impacting those with disabilities where despite the passage of the ADA and amendments to it, many facilities are still not accessible - and this is critical for many of our Vets who are coming back into the population with missing limbs and prosthetics.

Each of these is a subset of the Democratic "base" and although the loudest push would be those issues that impact "everyone", these other issues cannot be shunted aside and marginalized. That will only guarantee a win for the GOP due to lack of Democratic turnout if they feel marginalized.