Don't forget that while Joe Biden does creepily fondle, kiss, and smell women without their consent (and also when it is extremely obvious they don't want him to), he also does this with small children.


Biden would have won on 2016...and he would probably win in 2020 if he decides to run. The last thing this country needs is a far left or far right president.


and Biden is 100% right about Millenials. They are the most coddled generation in history, and also the one that bitches and cries the most. Go figure.


More interesting, is who the R nominee will be in 2020 if not Donald.



true that


@3: No, that would be Boomers. Boomers were handed everything on a silver platter and instead of creating a golden age for their children, they actively stole from them so they could retire at 65, and have a few more pennies in the bank when they died.

Literally the worst generation in human history, as they were the first to actively decide to make their children's lives worse so that they could buy vacation homes, boats, and a new car every five years.

They failed the most basic test of humanity.

They destroyed the environment. They destroyed the economy. They are trying as hard as they can to destroy all of western civilization before they gracelessly expire. Yet, they still find the gall to bitch and moan constantly because their kids expect 5% of the opportunity they were handed.


Old boomers losing their mental faculties really need to stop running for office, and voters need to stop voting for them. Please, let's all do our job in the primaries next time and prevent more election disasters.


This why the Democrats are going to lose the Presidency in 2020. Morons like Rich are going to pass over the candidate that can actually beat Trump (like Biden) and instead put all their support behind someone who likely won't win because that candidate makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.


What a very, very harsh evaluation, Rich. Geez: Biden's has some flaws and limitations, yes. But he can win and is fundamentally much better than Trump. And as for the midterms teaching us that white males don't excite the Democratic base... People want a good candidate, period. And Biden, though imperfect, is a credible, experienced politician who could beat Trump. Is that so bad? Does he deserve this kind of relentless slam?


In the primary, I'll vote for the candidate that supports Medicare for All, just like last time. Then in the general, I'll vote for whichever compromised corporate Democrat that the DNC nominates, just like last time.


Every generation inherits a seriously fucked world, and every generation leaves a seriously fucked world to the next one.

When you're older, you'll understand.

Until then, fuck you.



well on that subject we are going to disagree.


Why is it that most of the first 9 comments here are from RWNJs pretending to offer good advice to the Democratic Party?

Are Ken Mehlman and Dave in Shoreline taking the day off?


@11, In the primary, for sure I will do the same--and Bernie may be the only guy who will come out lock stock and barrel in favor. But I will hold my nose and vote for another dem if he or she is nominated.

@2, he may well end up winning the primary, but Biden is a piss poor campaigner who won't match Trump's ability to stump everywhere at everytime.

At the very least I would like a dem who campaigns well in the battleground states, unlike Hillary.


Diviolet, you have it exactly correct. The "'Democratic" Nationalists and Corporatists (DNC) will settle for nothing less than Republican-lite, never-rock-the-Boat, get-TOUGH-on-Whatever, meaning Total Job Security (for them), and damn any Consequences their status and position ensures they're immune from. Their Progenies? Well, that's bound to be a vastly different story...

These (R & D) so-called 'two-party' Corporations will be the Death of America/Earth as we watch global climate disaster, famine and massive human displacement swallow any hope for A Future for those promised one by our Constitution.

Hell-Lo, Trumpfy Two!


@12: Contrary to your comment, that is something only childish nihilists believe. When you mature into an adult, you'll understand.

@13: You can disagree that the sky is blue too, but facts are what they are. Face facts, Boomer.


Ah good -- it's gonna be Millennials vs. Boomers, should Teddy and his far alt right tighty whitey buddies be chosen to frame the debate.

Divide AND conquer.


I love the phrase "non-Biden candidates"


@2 -- Yes, Biden probably would have won in 2016, just like he probably would win in 2020. But that doesn't make him a good candidate. He is also worse in 2020 than 2016. He has two big liabilities -- he is old and well known. These qualities make you look good in the early polls, but are terrible when the election happens. In the last three elections without an incumbent, the less experienced candidate won. Bush beat Gore. Obama beat McCain. Trump beat Hillary Clinton. The last time a President lost an election, it was to someone no one had heard of at this point (Bill Clinton). He was young, charming, and had very little experience. That hardly describes Biden.

Nor does it describe Sanders any more. Both are old, and both have now been around long enough to become famous. Both would have been good candidates (although not great ones) four years ago, but now would be weaker. Elizabeth Warren is younger, but is now famous, and since this country is sexist as fuck, her age is a bigger disability than it would be for a man (she will be older than Hillary was when she lost to Trump).

O'Rourke would have been a great candidate if he won, but now would be a terrible candidate. I can just hear Trump calling him a loser. Really, if you can't win your home state, then it is tough to become President.

The best bet is some governor or Senator most of the country has never heard of. Inslee would be better than any of the people I've mentioned. He isn't young, but he is younger than Trump (and in way better shape). But more than anything, he is unknown. He has a chance to define himself to the country. Not that he is a great candidate either, just better than the alternatives. Of the people I've heard of, Sherrod Brown is fairly similar, but better. They are both about the same age; somewhat similar upbringing and education (neither was especially wealthy or spent all their time in private schools). Both can appear as moderates quite easily, while you can find plenty of progressive roots and passion if you scratch the surface. The big difference is that Brown is from Ohio, a key swing state (and part of a key region).

Klobuchar is also a solid candidate. She is younger than any of the other candidates mentioned (58) is more of a centrist, and comes from a region that the Democrats need to win.

But as I said, the best candidate is probably someone I've never heard of (like Bullock from Montana, or Cooper from North Carolina) or someone without a traditional role in politics (thus beating Trump at his own game).


@19 -- Why Not Oprah.
Or Matt Damon.
(Prolly not Alec Baldwin).

Best yet -- Tom fucking Hanks.


No Biden No Bernie No Beto. No more white men. No more people over the age 60. How about we try something new? We need a young, fresh, alternative perspective.


@16 - just a heads-up that your account has apparently been hacked by Ralph Nader. Or maybe Jill "Putin's second choice" Stein.


@2,5,9,10..Thank you. Joe Biden isn't perfect, but he's LIKABLE! In the way Pete Carrol is likable.

If Trump can shake off as much as he did in the campaign, PR wise, I don't see why Biden couldn't.

I still wish Biden would have ran in 16. He was eminently qualified to win the nomination instead of that joyless, scolding old harridan that was as likable as a librarian 'shushing' everyone. He would have killed it election night, instead of that that walking pool of vodka vomit that occupies the White House.


Biden couldn't have won in '16 because he would first need to get the Democratic nomination. And that is something Joe Biden can't do. Because he's a buffoon.


This sounds like a lead-up to a pro-Sanders follow-up piece.

Forget it, I will NEVER vote for Sanders. Like Sanders supporters in 2016, I'll vote for a snowball's chance in hell third party candidate or sit out the election if Sanders is the nominee in 2020.


No wonder our in house right wing trolls are salivating over this article. Thanks Rich.


@21: In other words you're saying that diversity stops at the ballot box.


@21, 27,

I think the last 12 years fairly obviously demonstrated that blacks (who represent a ginormously important voting bloc) are going to be far more motivated to vote for someone who looks like them. Throw around accusations of race bating if you must, but it's pretty hard to blame them after being entirely unrepresented for several hundred years leading up until 2008. Fortunately, we have a black guy who is both progressive and a dreamboat of a candidate to boot. Cory Booker, everybody!!!! Here he is on Krista Tippett's On Being podcast with an embedded transcript included. So good.


@7 So, back in the day, divide and conquer was an approach often used to break up unions. It is still used today, of course, but the racism has simply shifted (from Chinese to Mexicans). But now, it appears, the same rich motherfuckers are busy on a different tact: ageism. You young people don't have good jobs or much wealth because the old people have it all. End Social Security and Medicare now! Raid the pension funds and vote Republican (might as well)!

Total, fucking bullshit. Jesus, as a young fucker, you must remember those "We are the 1%" rallies, right? Did none of that shit sink in? Read the fucking Wikipedia article: Let me spell it out to you. Rich family members, regardless of age, own most of it. I'm talking Walton, Koch, Mars and yes, Trump (and don't forget Bush). Do you really think that age, rather than family status matters most in this country? Do you think those rich old folks aren't passing it on to the next generation? Would you rather be an average retiree -- with practically nothing but Social Security to live on -- or a young man whose family has more wealth than Paraguay? Seriously?

Civil rights, women's lib, the environmental movement, opposition to the Vietnam war and foreign imperialism in general were all ideas fought for by boomers. The left were never as powerful as they were when there was a big fucking generation gap -- between Ike style older Republicans and young baby boomer leftists. Things got worse because of Reagan, Gingrich and Bush, certainly. The boomers deserve some blame for that, I suppose. But every one of those fuckers got into power because of the so called "greatest generation". Holy fuck, the Reagan (and Thatcher) revolutions were built almost entirely on reactionary politics. Nixon did the same shit as well. His "silent majority" and war on drugs were simply an attempt to divide America; the older, white, "real Americans" on one side, with the hippies and blacks on the other (and he did a great job throwing as many of them in jail as possible --



im no boomer, kiddo.



you sexist much? ageist much?

I sense another one of your psychotic meltdown coming soon...


I hope he runs. He can split the conservative democrat vote with the dozen other milquetoasts getting ready to run for the primary.


@28 “
@21, 27,

“I think the last 12 years fairly obviously demonstrated that blacks (who represent a ginormously important voting bloc) are going to be far more motivated to vote for someone who looks like them”

You might take note of the fact that Hillary got a larger African-American vote count than Obama before making ridiculous racist generalizations like that.


I think it’s funny how Clinton’s Cult thinks they’re making a big sacrifice of Joe Biden just so they can say No to Bernie through superficial judgements.

They still believe that the Anti-Clinton campaign was because she was an old white woman, not because she did stupid indefensible shit like voting for the Iraq War, voting for the PATRIOT Act, refusing to legalize marijuana, championing the crime bill, saying a hard no to single payer health care, negotiating on minimimim wage hikes, lying at every turn (No, Bernie did not want to dismantle the ACA without replacing it with a better system), dismissed Standing Rock activists, and lying about lying when she was caught.

Joe Biden has an equally indefensible track record and is a non-starter for me. Not because he’s an old white dude, but because he was an architect of the PATRIOT Act, voted for the Iraq War and railroaded Anita Hill.

No thank you.



Really? Do you have a source for your claim? Here's one for mine.


As far as I know Hillary Clinton is not a white man and for the record, I don't want Hillary Clinton to run for POTUS again either. I repeat, We need a young, fresh, alternative perspective.


Beto O'Rourke is probably the early favorite. He's charismatic, centrist and highly electable outside the deep South. And he's 30 years younger than Biden. There is something to be said for that.


@36: Do optics trump substance?


We need someone who can get Dems to VOTE! The reason the RepubliKKKans so often win is because, in addition to their cheating, lying, racebating and gerrymandering ways, their supporters turn out to vote, while many Dems stay home. THIS is why are being ruled by the psycho bigots even though there are more of us than them!


@36 Thanks for admitting you don’t care about policies, you just care about optics.


@7: Wow, Teddy. For all your senseless trolling, you obviously don't know shit about Boomers, either. 0 for 10,000 comments is it? And no embarrassment? I nominate you the bitch and moan champion of the world. What happened? You didn't get a Porsche under the tree?
@11 Diviolet for the WIN! Seconded and Yessssssssssssssss!
@13 Destroying_your_narrative: Agreed and seconded re @7.
@16 O.D. on Xmas sugar again, Teddy? Tsk tsk tsk.
@17 kristofarian: LOL I KNEW I liked you!


@39 Oh man, did you forget you change your log in to Auntie Grizelda before typing in RepubliKKKan?


Anyone who still indulges in that game of how Mrs Clinton could still become President is living in a glass house here.


Bernie, Biden, and Warren are all too old. They're in stroke territory. I'm older than Bernie so I can say that credibly. Nine years from now, if he's still alive, Bernie will be 85 in his last term. You want that? Ageism, BS; it's realism.

Maybe millenials know a whole different bunch of boomers than i do. I'm a slightly older boomer and I live -- barely -- on savings and Social Security. I have savings because I didn't travel or buy anything new. You probaby wouldn't like that life, but I'd be homeless without those savings. In fact, people slightly younger than I are the biggest group falling into homelessness.


@44 Thanks for proving my point @34.


@36 "We need a young, fresh, alternative perspective."

I agree but the best progressive we have with a chance of winning is Bernie. Hopefully next time Ocasio-Cortez or another youth will have the chops to step up and win.


@39 iseult: Spot on! Agreed and seconded.
@42 TheMisinformed: Oh man, did you forget to change your login to Ken Mehlman, Theodore Goliath, or David in Shoreline before trolling in RepubliKKKan?


@48 You’re agreeing with yourself?



39: Please, for the love of God, the Easter Bunny, Allah, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, learn to spell baiting! "Racebating" is causing me to want to hunt you down and hit you repeatedly with a dictionary. One masturBATES. One baits a hook to catch a fish. Race baiting is what you were trying to convey. Hey, for the new year, why not buy yourself a pocket-sized dictionary (or larger, if you have vision issues as well) and keep it by your computer? It's so fun to learn to spell things correctly and not be thought of as a moron.


Boomers get so mad when you point out how entitled and destructive they are.

Imagine being in charge of a fortune 500 company for 40+ years, you completely run it into the ground, and then blame the mailroom guys you hired a year ago for bankrupting the company.

This is the mindset of the Eternal Boomer. Most humans will never understand this level of narcissism, destructive nature, and self delusion, but this is how they think and live everyday.


Age and gender do not matter. Only policies matter. I will vote for anyone with a Progressive agenda: Medicare for All, a living wage, stop the wars, free public college, a Green New Deal, etc. The only two politicians I would vote for at this point are Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard.




If you want a fresh candidate, aren't you going to need some fresh ideas first?

Biden would be fine. The next president's job will be rebuilding the US government.
Anyone who remembers what the system looked like when it was functional will do. Someone with a new plan would be fine, too, so long as it's a detailed plan; just winging it and breaking shit as you go along is what we've got now, and it doesn't work.


also @50,

Getting so worked up over a simple typographical error on a local blog's comment thread is probably not healthy! I'd suggest checking out Krista Tippett's On Being podcast that I linked to there, which takes a weekly deep dive into things existential, spiritual and awareness. It's really quite good. And if you check out the podcast rather than the embedded transcripts, you won't encounter those horrific errors that get you so violently worked up!

And for the record, I'm generally a terriffic speler, thank you very much.


Beta would get demolished by Trump, why is he even a considered a candidate? He's got zero experience and lost to Ted Cruz. Like it or not you gotta go old n white to beat Trump in 2020 he's stirred up the race cards too much and if he is reelected kiss the supreme court goodbye for the next 20 years.


Just imagine if the left invested as much time and energy into finding a candidate who could beat Donald Trump as they have in absurd, hail Mary impeachment fantasies. Or if they actually fostered a credible stable of national candidates instead of their fetish for Tammany Hall "it's MY turn" style politics. Or developed an actual message beyond "beware the Republican boogeyman". Why, they might even possibly win.

Nah. Won't happen. Look for Biden, Warren, or some other cringeworthy fossil (maybe Clinton again!) to get creamed by Trump in 2020.


Pokémon go fuck yourself we are going to nominate a boomer multi-millionaire to run against trump no matter what you want.


@58, the problem is that the DNC isn't run by the left, but run by corporate centrists in thrall to big donors who've done a lousy job of bench building. As the head of the DNC, Howard Dean was building a bench and helping dems wins down ticket races until Obama and Emanuel had the bright idea of getting rid of him. The incompetents that followed Dean, Tim Keane and Debbie Wasserman Shultz, lost legislative seats and governorships en masse.

In spite of some potential talent on horizon that should be groomed into higher office--Gillum, Abrams, O'Roarke--some that have made it--Ocasio Cortez and the female democratic governor of Kansas, the corporate centrists who run the party are to blame for not recruiting sufficient talent to win and take back government like the GOP has.


@60 yet there's no proof that the reason for the Democrats lack of tactical success on the ground is due to insufficiently left positions. It might increase turnout among by the base, but only in places where Republicans would never win anyways. It would just increase the margin of victory in solidly Democratic districts, which does not solve the problem the party is facing (far from it).


@61, Populist positions (which in substance tend to be left) and campaigning in battleground states (which are not necessarily solid dem), will serve the democratic party well in building the brand, leading to more down ticket victories and majorities in congress.

Trump got over with battlegrounds with false populism; The dems simply have to promise and provide real populism to win.


@61: well-said.


@61 I agree up to a point - but against a more conventional Republican candidate, or even Trump, that theoretical left populist candidate would still need to clear more hurdles in swing states than a centrist (let alone Republican) challenger. Not just funding, but a message that's more than "I'm not a Republican!" and the pie-in-sky free college and medicare for all message that nobody actually believes will happen (hell, even Trump's expansion of the border walls are more likely).

And for the love of god, whoever it is, will have to completely refrain from woke virtue signaling on the campaign trail at all costs. It plays well to the base, and to raise money from usual big donors, but alienates the hell out of purple voters and small donors.


If the Democrats want to beat Trump (or Pence) in 2020, they will have to do it by winning the enthusiasm and votes of suburban women in the swing states. That will take a middle of the road to slightly left of center candidate politically like Clinton, Obama or Biden. It would help if the nominee was a bit younger than that group. Male/female/black/white won't matter much. This time around being female might help a bit.


@61 Not true. There is lots of evidence that leftwing positions would bring success to Democrats.1) Clinton got outflanked from the left by Trump in battleground states when he pretended that he would stop outsourcing jobs and renegotiate NAFTA. 2) Voter turnout is often lowest in red states like Texas where people who don't vote are most often poor, claim to hate politics and politicians and their voting wouldn't make a difference anyway, i.e they are disenfranchised from the political process just as Republicans ordered. 3) There are large national poll majorities for left wing proposal like Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, free public college, minimum wage increases, etc

There is also lots of evidence that when Democrats move to the right, it depresses voter turnout thus making it close enough for Republicans to steal elections through voter suppression


@64 "message that nobody actually believes will happen"

it will never happen as long as corporate pols control the Democratic party, the same people under which Democrats lost more than a 1000 legislative seats and all branches of government.


@64 "theoretical left populist candidate would still need to clear more hurdles in swing states than a centrist"

Not true. Left wing progressives more effectively address both a) climate change that is becoming a critical issue for farmers and b) de-industrialization brought by neoliberal outsourcing through clean energy infrastructure development. So-called centrists preach business as usual that make matters worse.


Seems like much of the woke left would rather see society burn than see it saved by an “old white man.” Because it’s all just optics, isn’t it? The substance and ideas don’t matter; it’s the appearance of diversity on the surface, which has reached a cult-like frenzied pitch on the far left. If an old white guy presented a better plan to address climate change and the income gap, screw it. He’s old and white.


By definition diversity includes white, old, and male along with all the other spices.

There are no centrists. We just have the ubiquitous knowable unknowns: independents, undecideds, and the selfish contingent whom won't vote out of spite or laziness.

All politicians therefore have to cast a wide net, and avoid conceptual traps like "deplorable", "fly over", "extremists", etc.


@49 TheMisInformed: No, actually the usual members of the commentary Klown Kar---Ken, Teddy, and David are your crowd, not mine. Your irrelevant babbling is what's beyond hilarious. LOL
@51: Yeah, that's right, Teddy. Keep babbling senselessly because you didn't get a Porsche from Santa.


65 for the win


b-b-but its Hillary's turn! maybe she should try again, lol....

trump is total crap - imagine the humiliation and heartbreak of losing an election to him? ugh.


Biden is lame, because he isn’t strong on protecting Social Security and Medicare, let alone expanding it. Bickering about age and generations is divisive and better left to the trolls. With Biden, he has policy ideas that will depress voter turnout, and if he wins he’ll probably be a Warhawk, Wall Street President who throws crumbs at America’s spiraling inequality.


@73 yup, when a team loses to the Browns they fire the coach.


Never underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to shoot itself in the foot. It did it in 1968 and 2000 and again in 2016. If you like car crashes, dumpster fires and trainwrecks, keep your eyes peeled on the Democrats as they try to screw things up again.


@73 & @75: No, the REAL reason Hillary "lost" in 2016 to a white collar, criminally xenophobic, incompetent pigfucker was due to the following:
1) A grossly outdated electoral college
2) RepubliKKKan rezoning, gerrymandering, and racist propaganda
3) Russian collusion and illegal hacking into our national elections, and
4) A disporrionate number cowardly white male chauvinist PIGS and blindsided bitches who just will not accept a woman as President of the Divided States, regardless of how qualified she is.


@76: See my comment @77.


@76: Correction: make that "disproportionate".


@77 They’d definitely be ok with a woman. They loved Sarah Palin more than they loved McCain. And non-white, non-straight conservatives get a lot of love too. Obviously there are lots of reasons Clinton lost, and you list a number of them. I just don’t know how much sexism was really to blame.


So...A) dismissive of young idealists in a year when we can ONLY win by engaging young activists(they're the only voters we have any chance of adding to the 2016 Democratic totals-the "moderate Republican women in the suburbs" were proven not to exist when none of Hillary's "vote for me because Trump is a scumbag" ads ever caused a single female GOP voter to switch to Hillary); B) "pro-business", and therefore anti-working class and anti-economic justice, therefore doomed to lose working-class voters to Trump and his demagogy; C)NOT COMMITTED TO DEFENDING SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE. D) Not for any break with our "perpetual unwinnable war for the sake of perpetual unwinnable war" foreign policy.

Therefore, not different from Trump on any issues that matter-at best, a pro-choice and slightly pro-LGBTQ Republican.

Why settle for that when NOBODY wants the party to be that right-wing in 2020? When there's no call for a "stay the 1993-2017 course" candidate? When we can only win a high turnout election and "get Trump out" can't ever get a high turnout by itself?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.