Joe B updated Democratic Field Rating (Progressives only, please)

[JoeB131]

He didn't doubt Obama wasn't a citizen merely because he was black. He doubted it because Obama's father lived was from Kenya and only came to the US to attend school and get married(again) to Obama's mother. He then returned to Kenya. It isn't a far stretch to doubt if Obama Jr. had been born in the US, particularly when he refused to release his birth certificate for so long.

Um. No. Besides the fact there was no sensible doubt that Obama was born in the US, even if he hadn't been, he would have been a US Citizen because his mother was one. Questioning it was not only racist, it was ignorant of the law.

Again, you make the assumption that Trump wanted those guys convicted way back when just because they were black(and Latino). It couldn't have been because NYC was under siege at the time by violent crime and something needed to be done to stop it. Also, they did confess, so it makes perfect sense at the time. Granted, when asked now, he should have said something to the effect "at the time I believed it was the right call based on the facts at the time, but knowing what we know now, I obviously wouldn't make the same call." He doesn't like to admit to mistakes...to a fault. I don't however consider this racist.

Hey, frankly, I want a guy who admits a mistake when he makes a mistake. For instance, Mike Bloomberg now agrees that Stop and Frisk was a mistake. Calling to EXECUTE CHILDREN who DIDN'T DO WHAT THEY WERE ACCUSED of, and then refusing to apologize when it was clear it was a mistake... that's not a moral qualifier. Kind of the opposite.

He didn't call all Mexican's rapist's.

Oh, he didn't say, "all", that makes it okay, then.

People, this is what belonging to a cult looks like.

 

[JoeB131]

Why didn't it suck for the 80% under Obama? The average wages were lower and the wealth gap was even larger. Just curious. Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, it did. Obama had to fix the overall economy that Bush fucked up... which he did, but you'd never give him credit. you'd break out in hives if you ever praised a black guy.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Correct. Russian revolution of 1917 was a bloodbath, which is only way how communists can acquire power. Americans rejected communism, and progressives were looking more and more as socialists. Their goals were the same, only ways to get to it were different. Progressives were more like mesheviks in Russia, who didn't wanted the bloody revolution, but were for slower approach.

Um, no, guy, the only reason why the Revolution of 1917 was a bloodbath was that the West pumped tons of arms trying to prop up the White Armies.

Hmm.....sorry Joe..ya missed this one. The reason the revolution was a blood bath was that the Russians wanted one. it was brutal from the beginning. While there was some sporadic effort on the part of the West to support the Whites..they were occupied with WWI and didn't give a shit about what was going on in Russia. The White forces were divided and had no clear plan for the nation. They treated the populace brutally, as did the pro-communist forces.

If your contention is that had the West not helped at all..the revolution would have been non-violent....I seriously doubt it. All the communist plans agreed on one thing..a purge of the aristocracy and a massive reeducation of the Russian people..backed up with the army.

As to what is happening in this country..as regards Socialism...I recommend studying Fabian Socialism and the concept of Gradualism.

 

[DBA]

Why didn't it suck for the 80% under Obama? The average wages were lower and the wealth gap was even larger. Just curious. Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, it did. Obama had to fix the overall economy that Bush fucked up... which he did, but you'd never give him credit. you'd break out in hives if you ever praised a black guy.

Once again, it has nothing to do with him being black. That is just how you see everything. Obama had poor policies. The economy had nowhere to go but up. It went up DESPITE him. I didn't care for Bush either and he was white.

The current crop of complete nuts you guys are running makes Obama look fantastic.

 

[DBA]

Um. No. Besides the fact there was no sensible doubt that Obama was born in the US, even if he hadn't been, he would have been a US Citizen because his mother was one. Questioning it was not only racist, it was ignorant of the law.

In case you didn't know, there is still some debate on what a natural born citizen really means. The Supreme Court has never ruled on it. Maybe you sources didn't enlighten you to that little tidbit.

Hey, frankly, I want a guy who admits a mistake when he makes a mistake. For instance, Mike Bloomberg now agrees that Stop and Frisk was a mistake. Calling to EXECUTE CHILDREN who DIDN'T DO WHAT THEY WERE ACCUSED of, and then refusing to apologize when it was clear it was a mistake... that's not a moral qualifier. Kind of the opposite.

Wow, you got me there. He doesn't admit his mistakes. Funny though, I am 150% positive that had any Republican made the comments Bloomberg did, he would never, ever recover.

Oh, he didn't say, "all", that makes it okay, then.

People, this is what belonging to a cult looks like.

Yes, not saying all and in fact saying there were some good ones too makes it okay to any sane person. You evidently don't fit into that category.

 

[Olde Europe]

Hmm.....sorry Joe..ya missed this one. The reason the revolution was a blood bath was that the Russians wanted one. it was brutal from the beginning. While there was some sporadic effort on the part of the West to support the Whites..they were occupied with WWI and didn't give a shit about what was going on in Russia. The White forces were divided and had no clear plan for the nation. They treated the populace brutally, as did the pro-communist forces.

If your contention is that had the West not helped at all..the revolution would have been non-violent....I seriously doubt it. All the communist plans agreed on one thing..a purge of the aristocracy and a massive reeducation of the Russian people..backed up with the army.

As to what is happening in this country..as regards Socialism...I recommend studying Fabian Socialism and the concept of Gradualism.

Yeah, and the Civil War was a blood bath because the Americans wanted one. While I mostly agree with the above, you might want to think about that broad generalization, Eye.

Blood baths emerge when virulent divisions combine with weak or failing institutions, leaving but armed forces to compete in an unregulated struggle for power. The hope for a blood bath I have yet to find in a significant number of "Russians" - or "Americans", for that matter.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Hmm.....sorry Joe..ya missed this one. The reason the revolution was a blood bath was that the Russians wanted one. it was brutal from the beginning. While there was some sporadic effort on the part of the West to support the Whites..they were occupied with WWI and didn't give a shit about what was going on in Russia. The White forces were divided and had no clear plan for the nation. They treated the populace brutally, as did the pro-communist forces.

If your contention is that had the West not helped at all..the revolution would have been non-violent....I seriously doubt it. All the communist plans agreed on one thing..a purge of the aristocracy and a massive reeducation of the Russian people..backed up with the army.

As to what is happening in this country..as regards Socialism...I recommend studying Fabian Socialism and the concept of Gradualism.

Yeah, and the Civil War was a blood bath because the Americans wanted one. While I mostly agree with the above, you might want to think about that broad generalization, Eye.

Blood baths emerge when virulent divisions combine with weak or failing institutions, leaving but armed forces to compete in an unregulated struggle for power. The hope for a blood bath I have yet to find in a significant number of "Russians" - or "Americans", for that matter.

Big canvas..broad strokes. The Civil War...at its very worst..never approached the systemic breakdown that Russia suffered. Perhaps Sherman's march comes close.

If I were to get into it..The American civil war was bloody because it was fought with 18th century tactics..and 19th century weapons. Most of the casualties were serving military...not that I'm discounting the hard times the South went through during the last years and during reconstruction. Even so..speaking of the entire US...social institutions did not break down...and anarchy did not rule.

Russia was a bloodbath because they started with very little..and devolved into nothing very quickly. The vast majority of casualties were civilians..with starvation taking the lead..and ideological genocide..of one form or another..ruling the country for decades. Yes, I believe that the Communist leaders of the time knowingly and with malice aforethought perpetrated a bloodbath. It was in the plans. It was a time when there were no good guys in Russia..no right side.

 

[Olde Europe]

Big canvas..broad strokes. The Civil War...at its very worst..never approached the systemic breakdown that Russia suffered. Perhaps Sherman's march comes close.

If I were to get into it..The American civil war was bloody because it was fought with 18th century tactics..and 19th century weapons. Most of the casualties were serving military...not that I'm discounting the hard times the South went through during the last years and during reconstruction. Even so..speaking of the entire US...social institutions did not break down...and anarchy did not rule.

Russia was a bloodbath because they started with very little..and devolved into nothing very quickly. The vast majority of casualties were civilians..with starvation taking the lead..and ideological genocide..of one form or another..ruling the country for decades. Yes, I believe that the Communist leaders of the time knowingly and with malice aforethought perpetrated a bloodbath. It was in the plans. It was a time when there were no good guys in Russia..no right side.

The 1950s are calling. They want their anti-Soviet propaganda back.

"Russia was a bloodbath because they started with very little..and devolved into nothing very quickly."

Why not stick with that very valid insight? Having had very little, and having just gone through WWI and found themselves in conditions worse than miserable, they suffered through the collapse of the tsarist power structure with nothing by way of civilian infrastructure to replace it. That explains the horrendous numbers of casualties. There really is no evidence to demonstrate a "plan" for a bloodbath. And yes, Western support for the Whites prolonged and exacerbated the suffering considerably.

But hey, let's get back to Joe B's candidate ratings, okay? For the time being, things aren't heading toward a Russia-style civil war or similar atrocities.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Big canvas..broad strokes. The Civil War...at its very worst..never approached the systemic breakdown that Russia suffered. Perhaps Sherman's march comes close.

If I were to get into it..The American civil war was bloody because it was fought with 18th century tactics..and 19th century weapons. Most of the casualties were serving military...not that I'm discounting the hard times the South went through during the last years and during reconstruction. Even so..speaking of the entire US...social institutions did not break down...and anarchy did not rule.

Russia was a bloodbath because they started with very little..and devolved into nothing very quickly. The vast majority of casualties were civilians..with starvation taking the lead..and ideological genocide..of one form or another..ruling the country for decades. Yes, I believe that the Communist leaders of the time knowingly and with malice aforethought perpetrated a bloodbath. It was in the plans. It was a time when there were no good guys in Russia..no right side.

The 1950s are calling. They want their anti-Soviet propaganda back.

"Russia was a bloodbath because they started with very little..and devolved into nothing very quickly."

Why not stick with that very valid insight? Having had very little, and having just gone through WWI and found themselves in conditions worse than miserable, they suffered through the collapse of the tsarist power structure with nothing by way of civilian infrastructure to replace it. That explains the horrendous numbers of casualties. There really is no evidence to demonstrate a "plan" for a bloodbath. And yes, Western support for the Whites prolonged and exacerbated the suffering considerably.

But hey, let's get back to Joe B's candidate ratings, okay? For the time being, things aren't heading toward a Russia-style civil war or similar atrocities.

Fair enough. I disagree on the lack of evidence of a plan...but, for sure, most don't bother to actually read the writing of those who did the planning..most of whom were consumed by their revolution ala La Francais.

Anti-Soviet propaganda? Nah...just history..and the firm conviction that the Soviets and the Nazi's were two opposing peas in a pod..and neither let the body count stand in the way of their goals.

Ratings? None of them break the 'meh' barrier, for me.
Sadly, I think that anyone smart and ethical--and able..to do the job---wouldn't have it if they were offered on a silver platter!

I'll vote for any one who's last name isn't Trump. Living in Idaho..my Presidential vote is moot.

 

[Olde Europe]

Ratings? None of them break the 'meh' barrier, for me.
Sadly, I think that anyone smart and ethical--and able..to do the job---wouldn't have it if they were offered on a silver platter!

I'll vote for any one who's last name isn't Trump. Living in Idaho..my Presidential vote is moot.

Interesting. How many, do you think, "judge" candidates based on their ability to "break the 'meh' barrier"? Which I interpret as a focus on personal excitement, as opposed to a candidate's ability or politics...

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Ratings? None of them break the 'meh' barrier, for me.
Sadly, I think that anyone smart and ethical--and able..to do the job---wouldn't have it if they were offered on a silver platter!

I'll vote for any one who's last name isn't Trump. Living in Idaho..my Presidential vote is moot.

Interesting. How many, do you think, "judge" candidates based on their ability to "break the 'meh' barrier"? Which I interpret as a focus on personal excitement, as opposed to a candidate's ability or politics...

Far too many....I expect.
To me..in this context..it is the same...a candidate's ability..is what gets me excited. Not ideas..although ideas are cool...but governmental skills. Do they look at politics as, "the art of the possible."? Are they willing to do the right thing..even when it means crossing their constituents? When elected..are they going to be partisan lemmings..or are they going to do what they can..within the system..to make the system work?

I have had it up to my eyebrows with cultural posturing..I don't care about most litmus tests. What excites me about a candidate is if I perceive that they might give up a chance at reelection to do the right thing. I don't care about gender, race or religion. I consider them irrelevant.

As you might guess..I don't excited very often.

To speak to the Democratic field...if this were a job interview...why should I hire them? To lead us...all of us? To offer the hand of reconciliation to the Right? To unite us going forward? To herd the 300m mass of cats that we are..as a society? Is that even possible? I guess it really doesn't matter..as none of the candidates are offering any of that..anyway.

I want a President who will take the office back to what it was meant to be..who will enforce ALL laws..even the bad ones...until Congress does their job..and makes better ones.

As I said, 'Meh' is what we got...from my point of view.

 

[Coyote]

I like Sanders. He would be my first choice, but I think he's too far too fast for most folks.

There's also the simple fact that the nation may not survive 4 more years of a spoiled child as president. As it is it will take decades to undo all the damage he's done, rebuild the experience and institutional knowledge he has thrown out, and deprogram all his rabid followers..

Mayor Pete has a similar issue. The nation just isn't ready for a gay president.

Styer isn't really going anywhere fast.

Warren isn't going anywhere fast.

Klobuchar does seem to be angling for a VP spot.

That leaves Bloomberg, who really does seem to have the best chance right now. Both more money and brains that tRump, all he lacks is the legions of brain-dead followers. But I don't think he's a zombie king kinda guy. He seems to atract folks with a higher IQ than the average tRumpling.

I'm gonna hafta say he's the favorite, at the moment at least.

You claimed you know what "that word communism" means.

Then this: "I like Sanders."

LOL

Yeah, you got it!

If you are calling any of the current candidates communist, then you do know what that word means.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I like Sanders. He would be my first choice, but I think he's too far too fast for most folks.

There's also the simple fact that the nation may not survive 4 more years of a spoiled child as president. As it is it will take decades to undo all the damage he's done, rebuild the experience and institutional knowledge he has thrown out, and deprogram all his rabid followers..

Mayor Pete has a similar issue. The nation just isn't ready for a gay president.

Styer isn't really going anywhere fast.

Warren isn't going anywhere fast.

Klobuchar does seem to be angling for a VP spot.

That leaves Bloomberg, who really does seem to have the best chance right now. Both more money and brains that tRump, all he lacks is the legions of brain-dead followers. But I don't think he's a zombie king kinda guy. He seems to atract folks with a higher IQ than the average tRumpling.

I'm gonna hafta say he's the favorite, at the moment at least.

You claimed you know what "that word communism" means.

Then this: "I like Sanders."

LOL

Yeah, you got it!

If you are calling any of the current candidates communist, then you do know what that word means.

James Carville hits back at Bernie Sanders after criticism: 'At least I'm not a communist' - CNNPolitics

"Last night on CNN, Bernie called me a political hack. That's exactly who the f**k I am!" Carville told Vanity Fair contributor Peter Hamby in a phone interview, according to a tweet Thursday from Hamby. "I am a political hack! I am not an ideologue. I am not a purist. He thinks it's a pejorative. I kinda like it!"

"At least I'm not a communist," he added.




Bernie Sanders in 1972: 'I don't mind people calling me a communist'

 

[Coyote]

I like Sanders. He would be my first choice, but I think he's too far too fast for most folks.

There's also the simple fact that the nation may not survive 4 more years of a spoiled child as president. As it is it will take decades to undo all the damage he's done, rebuild the experience and institutional knowledge he has thrown out, and deprogram all his rabid followers..

Mayor Pete has a similar issue. The nation just isn't ready for a gay president.

Styer isn't really going anywhere fast.

Warren isn't going anywhere fast.

Klobuchar does seem to be angling for a VP spot.

That leaves Bloomberg, who really does seem to have the best chance right now. Both more money and brains that tRump, all he lacks is the legions of brain-dead followers. But I don't think he's a zombie king kinda guy. He seems to atract folks with a higher IQ than the average tRumpling.

I'm gonna hafta say he's the favorite, at the moment at least.

You claimed you know what "that word communism" means.

Then this: "I like Sanders."

LOL

Yeah, you got it!

If you are calling any of the current candidates communist, then you do know what that word means.

James Carville hits back at Bernie Sanders after criticism: 'At least I'm not a communist' - CNNPolitics

"Last night on CNN, Bernie called me a political hack. That's exactly who the f**k I am!" Carville told Vanity Fair contributor Peter Hamby in a phone interview, according to a tweet Thursday from Hamby. "I am a political hack! I am not an ideologue. I am not a purist. He thinks it's a pejorative. I kinda like it!"

"At least I'm not a communist," he added.




Bernie Sanders in 1972: 'I don't mind people calling me a communist'

Again. It isn't communism.

 

[Ame®icano]

Great. You lefties were screaming how Trump's renting practices were racist, without any proof, because it was settled in court. It didn't bother you to call him a racist. That's OK, because everyone who's not with you on anything is a racist, we got it. Now you have Bloomberg, on the record, giving racist speeches (unintentionally), sexist jokes about women in workforce (but they're jokes, right), and not a single leftist raise the question about it, and even defending it.

It's not about "stop & frisk" policy itself, but about how he was explaining it and defending it.

I can kind of see why Mike Terrifies you. He's the real deal, while Trump only plays that character on TV.

The reason why Trump is a racist is because he doubted the birth of the only black president MERELY because he was black. He called for the execution of five black men who were innocent. He was taken to court by the NIXON administration for discriminatory housing policies. (Seriously, how openly racist do you need to be to get Tricky Dick to say, "Damn, notch it back a bit, son!") Oh, yes, and then there's calling Mexicans "rapists" and throwing their children into concentration camps.

Oh. Bloomberg made an off color joke in the office once...

Mike doesn't "terrifies" anyone. You lefties are supporting him only because he might be your only chance to beat Trump, and that is questionable. At the same time, you are ignoring all the racist and sexist things he said, while at the same time blaming Trump for being racist without shred of proof that he did it.

Now this... "black and Latino males don't know how to behave at workplace, ... don't have jobs, don't have prospects, don't know how to find jobs"

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I like Sanders. He would be my first choice, but I think he's too far too fast for most folks.

There's also the simple fact that the nation may not survive 4 more years of a spoiled child as president. As it is it will take decades to undo all the damage he's done, rebuild the experience and institutional knowledge he has thrown out, and deprogram all his rabid followers..

Mayor Pete has a similar issue. The nation just isn't ready for a gay president.

Styer isn't really going anywhere fast.

Warren isn't going anywhere fast.

Klobuchar does seem to be angling for a VP spot.

That leaves Bloomberg, who really does seem to have the best chance right now. Both more money and brains that tRump, all he lacks is the legions of brain-dead followers. But I don't think he's a zombie king kinda guy. He seems to atract folks with a higher IQ than the average tRumpling.

I'm gonna hafta say he's the favorite, at the moment at least.

You claimed you know what "that word communism" means.

Then this: "I like Sanders."

LOL

Yeah, you got it!

If you are calling any of the current candidates communist, then you do know what that word means.

James Carville hits back at Bernie Sanders after criticism: 'At least I'm not a communist' - CNNPolitics

"Last night on CNN, Bernie called me a political hack. That's exactly who the f**k I am!" Carville told Vanity Fair contributor Peter Hamby in a phone interview, according to a tweet Thursday from Hamby. "I am a political hack! I am not an ideologue. I am not a purist. He thinks it's a pejorative. I kinda like it!"

"At least I'm not a communist," he added.




Bernie Sanders in 1972: 'I don't mind people calling me a communist'

Again. It isn't communism.

It is not totalitarianism but it certainly smells more communist than capitalist in my view.

 

[Ame®icano]

Wrong. You have some serious misconceptions about Socialism. You eventually run out of other people's money. It is a con-job meant to fool the low IQ folks. It is working.

Ho-hum.

Socialism works just fine in Europe.

"Our system sucks for 80% of you, but trust us, the other thing no one has ever really tried would suck a lot worse because something happened 100 years ago in a poor country."

USSR doesn't exist anymore, Yugoslavia neither, all former soviet block countries abandoned socialism, so please, which "successful" socialist country you are referring to?

 

[Coyote]

I like Sanders. He would be my first choice, but I think he's too far too fast for most folks.

There's also the simple fact that the nation may not survive 4 more years of a spoiled child as president. As it is it will take decades to undo all the damage he's done, rebuild the experience and institutional knowledge he has thrown out, and deprogram all his rabid followers..

Mayor Pete has a similar issue. The nation just isn't ready for a gay president.

Styer isn't really going anywhere fast.

Warren isn't going anywhere fast.

Klobuchar does seem to be angling for a VP spot.

That leaves Bloomberg, who really does seem to have the best chance right now. Both more money and brains that tRump, all he lacks is the legions of brain-dead followers. But I don't think he's a zombie king kinda guy. He seems to atract folks with a higher IQ than the average tRumpling.

I'm gonna hafta say he's the favorite, at the moment at least.

You claimed you know what "that word communism" means.

Then this: "I like Sanders."

LOL

Yeah, you got it!

If you are calling any of the current candidates communist, then you do know what that word means.

James Carville hits back at Bernie Sanders after criticism: 'At least I'm not a communist' - CNNPolitics

"Last night on CNN, Bernie called me a political hack. That's exactly who the f**k I am!" Carville told Vanity Fair contributor Peter Hamby in a phone interview, according to a tweet Thursday from Hamby. "I am a political hack! I am not an ideologue. I am not a purist. He thinks it's a pejorative. I kinda like it!"

"At least I'm not a communist," he added.




Bernie Sanders in 1972: 'I don't mind people calling me a communist'

Again. It isn't communism.

It is not totalitarianism but it certainly smells more communist than capitalist in my view.

Socialist maybe.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Okay, all you Trump supporters, please sit this one out. You have 500 other threads where you can scream "They are all communists!!!"

In no particular order.

Bernie Sanders - Sanders is in a strong position because he has dedicated followers. This helps a lot in a primary battle. He's leading a movement, everyone else is just running a campaign.

His weakness- he's a lot further to the left than any Democrat since McGovern. If Trump weren't the alternative, even I'd consider voting Republican. Also, his age, he's pushing 80!

Peter Buttigeig - He's young, he's dynamic. He's the only veteran in the group. (Seriously, both parties, we've just been through a 19 year war and you can't find any vets to run?) The downside. He's gay, and I'm not sure the country is ready for a gay president yet. Right now, he's benefiting from being an alternative to Bernie and Biden. But he's running fifth nationally, and you have to wonder if this is just another case of placing too much emphasis on NH and IA.

Joe Biden - He's pretty much in freefall right now. He could still pull a rally at South Carolina. Let's not forget, Bill Clinton lost both IA and NH, and still turned it around. His big strength remains that there's still a lot of good will for him in the African American community for being Obama's wingman for 8 years.

Liz Warren - Probably turned out to be too smart for the room. She had lots of good ideas, and got bogged down into arguments about her Native American heritage and whether or not Bernie said a woman couldn't
run. (Ignoring Bernie's decades of support for female candidates.)

Amy Klochabar - this is a case of someone running for Vice President. She knows she's not going to be the nominee, we know it.. She's trying to place strong enough where someone will pick her up because she's a woman from the midwest.

Mike Bloomberg - Bloomberg's big strength is that he has nearly an infinite amount of money to run. He has strong progressive creds, but also strong cred as someone who can work in a bi-partisan manner. If it comes down to him and Bernie, it would be ironic if the the top two contenders for the Democratic Nomination aren't actually Democrats.

Tom Steyer - Um, yeah, I guess he's still in this.

Tulsi Gabbard - The Kremlin needs to ask for it's money back.

Hey Joe, how come you dislike Trump, can't take his blunt honesty or you don't care for the successful?

 

[BS Filter]

Okay, all you Trump supporters, please sit this one out. You have 500 other threads where you can scream "They are all communists!!!"

In no particular order.

Bernie Sanders - Sanders is in a strong position because he has dedicated followers. This helps a lot in a primary battle. He's leading a movement, everyone else is just running a campaign.

His weakness- he's a lot further to the left than any Democrat since McGovern. If Trump weren't the alternative, even I'd consider voting Republican. Also, his age, he's pushing 80!

Peter Buttigeig - He's young, he's dynamic. He's the only veteran in the group. (Seriously, both parties, we've just been through a 19 year war and you can't find any vets to run?) The downside. He's gay, and I'm not sure the country is ready for a gay president yet. Right now, he's benefiting from being an alternative to Bernie and Biden. But he's running fifth nationally, and you have to wonder if this is just another case of placing too much emphasis on NH and IA.

Joe Biden - He's pretty much in freefall right now. He could still pull a rally at South Carolina. Let's not forget, Bill Clinton lost both IA and NH, and still turned it around. His big strength remains that there's still a lot of good will for him in the African American community for being Obama's wingman for 8 years.

Liz Warren - Probably turned out to be too smart for the room. She had lots of good ideas, and got bogged down into arguments about her Native American heritage and whether or not Bernie said a woman couldn't
run. (Ignoring Bernie's decades of support for female candidates.)

Amy Klochabar - this is a case of someone running for Vice President. She knows she's not going to be the nominee, we know it.. She's trying to place strong enough where someone will pick her up because she's a woman from the midwest.

Mike Bloomberg - Bloomberg's big strength is that he has nearly an infinite amount of money to run. He has strong progressive creds, but also strong cred as someone who can work in a bi-partisan manner. If it comes down to him and Bernie, it would be ironic if the the top two contenders for the Democratic Nomination aren't actually Democrats.

His weaknesses - the current mood in the Democratic party is anti-plutocratic, and his stances on gun control wouldn't play well in the red states.

Tom Steyer - Um, yeah, I guess he's still in this.


Tulsi Gabbard - The Kremlin needs to ask for it's money back.

I hear the poop patrol in San Francisco is hiring.