The debate format is ridiculous. What matters most is nominating someone who can go toe-to-toe with Trump.

Instead of two nights of 10 candidates talking to each other, which only shows how good they aren't arguing with normal human beings, we should have a series of 20 different debates, maybe 30 minutes each, with each candidate going one-on-one against Dennis Miller, who's about the most Trump like entertainer out there--and who frankly needs the gig.

So then, whoever gets in the best zingers, perhaps as judged by an applause-o-meter... that's who we nominate.

I thought this was informative. We spend a lot of energy demonizing Republicans. It's not really helpful.

But among Democrats, education seems to make the problem much worse. Democrats who have a high-school degree suffer from a greater perception gap than those who don’t. Democrats who went to college harbor greater misunderstandings than those who didn’t. And those with a postgrad degree have a way more skewed view of Republicans than anybody else.

Read the whole article here
[link:https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/|
Republicans Don’t Understand Democrats—And Democrats Don’t Understand Republicans]

Period, the end.

We could nominate Gilbert Gottfried with whoever wrote that last episode of Game of Thrones as his running mate, and I'd vote blue and work like hell to get the worst person on earth out of the White House.

Agreed?

I like that. These people are competing with each other for the nomination, but not against each other.

If I see supporters of one candidate just trashing other candidates, it's a turn off. When I see supporters posting flattering articles about their competitors, it makes me hopeful. It tells me their candidate attracts people who care more about serving the country than winning power.

(just foolin', guys... Good luck to all)

He's made a splash here at DU and picked up a lot of supporters recently.

I'm adding him to the short list of candidates I'm actively looking at. Of course I'll back whoever we nominate. But he and his candidacy are clearly substantive and appealing. That's what we need for 2020: real solutions and real enthusiasm.

Go Dems!!

I see several strong contenders. There are many other candidates I'd be happy to see nominated, cut can't support because I think they'd be divisive to the party. There's maybe a couple I'd really be unhappy to support in the general election (but I'd do it anyway).

I'd really love to hear arguments about why I should support...

Cory Booker

Kamala Harris

Beto O'Roarke

Elizabeth Warren

or any other candidate.

I was just thinking about the bounty of excellent presidential candidates we have this go round. Maybe once or twice in my long liberal life have I seen such a strong field of candidates vying for the Democratic nomination (both 1988 and 2004 produced bumper crops). I expect soon enough I'll figure out who I will actively support for the nomination, but I don't particularly feel the need just yet.

I heard a coworker complaining about this today in the lunchroom. He considers it a mad rush of egos, "typical politicians all caught up in their careers and ambitions" he said, "and not putting the country first." He thinks some of them need to step aside and maybe defer to some senior party leader we can "all get behind" for just this election. He's worried that we'll "be too divided" to take on Trump in November 2020 after a drawn out primary season. But I'm not worried about that at all. I think our coming arguments are our strength. I think we need to kick the tires on every car in this beautiful lot before we make a choice. Personally I'm going to need a few seasons to see who the strongest candidate is... and that takes time.

And I'm not in the least concerned that whoever we nominate will just be a big strong egoist, just a pretty show horse who flatters the crowd the best. But more importantly, having a competitive will to win is a critical personality feature. The job they're going for requires a strong ego as well as a vision for the country's destiny. A president has to make so damn many decisions, you can't have a dithering Hamlet in the Oval. You need someone possessed of moral rectitude and operational certainty as much as you need someone who's philosophically solid but operationally flexible. This is exactly the time to field test our candidates in the coming months. I want to see each of their characters under pressure. The goal here is to have one of them live under pressure for 8 years.

And ambitious is a good thing. Frankly, you need someone who's ambitious in the job; someone who's audaciously ambitious, even. As a country we need to take on great tasks in coming decade--operating a government that's been swamped with debt and somehow paying for all the programs we need, from retooling our workforce for the rest of the century to getting off fossil fuels to meeting the threat of growing autocracy overseas to expanding wealth inequality to managing the coming global environmental melt down that we were unable to avoid in the early years of this century.

To paraphrase Gene Hackman from The Replacements, the Big Game is on the line. I'm encouraged by all the talented leaders who are stepping forward and demanding "Give me the ball, Coach." It tells me that we have more to hope for than to fear. America got kicked in the nuts just over two years ago--and really we sorta kicked ourselves in the nuts by allowing a foreign tyrant to use our own stupid against us and promote a egomaniacal nutcake into the presidency. The situation is sobering, daunting even, but we can only overcome these approaching crises if we have an ambitious leader who can charge us up to go out and fight for the survival of our civilization. And frankly, civilization itself is the Big Game that's on the line.

I'll pray for this country and this party, which is the only party that can save it now. I truly believe we'll win this and that it will be exhilarating.