Well, you don't need to see Charles name on that post to know that was a 100% Charles Mudede post!

So who are good possible candidates for the dems coming up? I don't think any big name politicians, definitely. Not Sanders, not Warren. I mean, maybe them? But the Obama voters who disappeared into the ether this time around want a rock star, a dreamer, a presence. They definitely want style over substance. I dunno. Maybe Tina Fey would be a good candidate? I'm serious. Maybe Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert?

Nobody cares about my suggestions, so I won't make any. But I think you could do worse than putting money on Corey Booker.

They haven't counted the mail in vote yet

Thank you, in an odd way this helps because there is a definite component of existential distress in my despair and this aims right at that.

@2 beat me to it, at least if you're looking for a dreamboat kinda guy. And a minority, to boot. Julian Castro maybe too? I think a lot of these names floated about are perhaps too smart to want that lousy job.

Charles is like that kid you knew in high school who got shitty grades, clearly felt like he was better than the record reflected, and made up for it by patting himself on the back every time he got stoned and let everyone know that the light from the stars you were looking up at left those stars billions of years ago. But everyone just wanted him to shut the fuck up after the third time hearing it.

@1, do you have any idea how old Sanders and Warren are? Apparently not.

And Charles, please don't make sentences ostensibly about physics. Those sentences are stupid.

Of course Charles but sycophant liberals don't understand how their candidate's record critically affected voter turnout so pointing out to them that they'll need a program and a candidate to energize the disenfranchised out of complacency/despair seems almost too hopeful. In fact none of the previous comments said anything about dismal voter participation.

Thank you Charles.

Don't expect to many people to join me in thanking you though.
You see, the average Democrat wants to blame our loss on 'racism and misogyny', rather than admit that we ran a terrible candidate.

People don't want to look at the numbers, because the numbers show what a bad choice we made. Hillary Clinton was the worst candidate we could have chosen this election.

If Hillary would have had anywhere near the support Obama did, anywhere near the voter turnout he inspired, she would have easily won.

A lot of us don't want to hear that though.
Blame the 'deplorables', don't look at the numbers.

But the numbers tell the truth.
Trump didn't win, Hillary lost.

Millions of people that voted for Obama, twice, decided to stay home this time.

Racism and misogyny didn't win the election for Trump. Trump didn't even do as well as Romney.
Apathy lost the election for Hillary.

Once again we have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
This was our election to lose, and we did.

@8,
75 and 67, respectively.

What's your point?

Eh, physicists make smug incorrect comments about politics and economics all the time, and Charles is right on the politics here.