Morning Joe talking about a Washington Post poll that claims the GOP has regained three points

[Demsrule86]

in a 'who should control congress poll'. This is pitting generic candidates against known GOP candidates of course, but one of the reasons given is that there is 'division' in the Democratic Party because the 16 election has not been resolved, we have no clear leader and there is a failure to move on to younger candidates. I don't agree about Congress in 18. I think we have a great shot...a blue wave, but we need a younger candidate in 20 than in 16, and we need one not tainted by the disastrous election of 16. Neither Sanders, Clinton nor O'Malley should run in 20. We need to unite as a party behind younger candidates and move into the future leaving the divisions of 16 behind or the GOP will destroy us.

[Vinca]

1. Amen! Couldn't agree more.

[Demsrule86]

2. Thank you...sick of hearing how we will lose because we are 'divided'. I don't buy it.

[Thirty by 30]

3. Really ...

As I recall, the GOPigs had a whole bleacher full of candidates in their debates before settling on Shitler.

[Demsrule86]

9. We are not Republicans and don't vote like them. I have no problem with multiple candidates...

but we need new candidates...no 16 candidates.

[Hortensis]

22. Yes, but choosing candidates to support by age could

be a badly losing strategy for those who take that path. We have a chance to take both houses of congress, and if we fail to take both -- or either! -- it's going to be by gerrymandering, vote suppression, media chicanery -- and very small margins. 2016 all over again.

We really hope, and expect, that younger voters are now motivated to vote in more than their historically relatively low numbers. We think we're seeing that now, and just a few percent will make a huge difference. But we did in 2016, a seminal election if there ever was one, and that young wave failed tragically to materialize. Propagandists foreign and domestic are very busy trying to minimize it this time also.

Plus, and this huge, most of our strongest and most impressively experienced candidates in the primaries are going to be older ones. Of course. Also of course, many of those are incumbents, and everywhere it exists we need the typically strong incumbent advantage working for us in the general elections.

At this point in history, with both secular and religious fascism increasing on the right and determined to take control, we need to commit to those Democrats who are most able to defeat their Republican opponents on November 6. In some cases those will be younger, as we're already seeing. Every election sends new young people to congress.

Resist Republicans for real. 2018 needs to be the year, to rephrase that horribly apt poem "The Second Coming," that "the best refind their conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

[Demsrule86]

23. Younger candidate could excite young voters and we have always had better luck with young

presidential candidates...Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack obama. I believe we need to have fresh faces in this election...young candidates would be refreshing and no no candidates who ran in 16. Let's put that disaster behind us.

[Hortensis]

26. In spite of everything I pointed out no change at all?

Wishful thinking by 70,000 voters, basically transferring all that power to the Republicans via third-party candidates, lost us the White House and congress in 2016, with everything that is meaning. We should have made great advances in national wellbeing by now, not be waking in the middle of the night afraid of what the future may hold.

Again, I suggest we do not have the luxury of voting for some hopeful experiment but rather with fierce commitment to gaining control of congress.

Resist Republicans.

[Demsrule86]

38. +10000...I could not agree more. While we re-arrange the chairs on the deck of the

Titanic ...the ship is sinking. If we lose in 20 by nominating a losing candidate, progressivism is dead for a generation at least. Those who think Sen. Sanders should run should read up on McGovern and Dukakis.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. "Neither Sanders, Clinton nor O'Malley should run in 20."

O'Malley is 21 years younger then Sanders and 16 years younger than Clinton. I.e., he is in my (& Obama's) generation and is not with the oldest of the baby boomers (or the WW2 era babies).

There are a couple tail-enders who are governors...

[Demsrule86]

10. It has nothing to do with age. He ran in 16...no candidates from 16.

[BumRushDaShow]

18. But in your OP you wrote

We need to unite as a party behind younger candidates.

and O'Malley is one, in a relative sense, and didn't really last through the primaries.

I get what you are saying but you can't just randomly throw a candidate out there who has not at least made some inroads in a state (as governor, state legislator) and/or at the federal level as a U.S. Senator, etc.

One who has made some noises and impact over time is Corey Booker, and he is a "younger" one.

[Demsrule86]

29. I would not throw anyone out...it is my preference that no candidates who ran in 16 run again.

I doubt O'Malley could win anyway...he has been out of office quite a while now. He was born in 63...later baby boomer. I would prefer to see a millennial run.

[BumRushDaShow]

32. I think the oldest millennials

would be just barely old enough to meet the Constitutional requirement for President by just a few years (assuming those born 1981 and later).

I think you need to look at younger Gen-Xers.

[Demsrule86]

34. You are right...I meant Gen-xers.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. Too many generations!

[Demsrule86]

39. Isn't that the truth...now we have Generation Y which my youngest daughter has

informed me is her generation. This means I have a younger gen-xer daughter, a millennial daughter and son...and finally a gen-y daughter...how can one woman give birth to three generations?

[BumRushDaShow]

40. LOL

Lots of "generation gaps" there!

[Demsrule86]

41. That is the truth!

[Demsrule86]

37. I did, but I also noted we needed to leave 16 behind us...O'Malley ran in 16. Maybe it is not fair

but that is how I feel.

[Rorey]

5. Absolutely agree

"We need to unite as a party behind younger candidates and move into the future leaving the divisions of 16 behind............"

I've been saying this for a long time.

[Demsrule86]

30. It is time. We need to move on. 16 was a disaster for us.

[lark]

6. Agree about Hillary and Bernie but not O'Malley.

He's much younger and wasn't involved in any shenanigans at all while he was running- that I remember anyway. i like Joe Kennedy, Adam Schiff & Raul Grivajala (sp?) at this point in time. Kamala Harris was my top choice until she jumped aboard the "stab Franken in the back, truth doesn't matter train" and removed herself from my good list. Warren removed herself from the list, saying she would not run for president in 2020. She was #2 and is still my fav if she changes her mind and decides to run. Of course, this is just totally preliminary dreaming at this point.

[Demsrule86]

12. I don't doubt O'malley is younger but he has been out of office now for years which hurts his

chances and he ran in 16. I don't think any candidates from 16 should run.

[lark]

14. I like him a lot, but don't think he would win.

No harm in him running, though. Don't want Bernie to run at all, he helps drumpf too often and isn't a real Democrat, but he will do it anyway. Just hope others will generate so much buzz that he will drop it quickly.

[Demsrule86]

28. I hope we can get Sanders out fast...or we lose again I fear. I hope he doesn't run.

[Demsrule86]

24. He ran in 16. Perhaps that is not fair but I simply won't vote for any who were involved in 16.

I want to put that horrific election behind me.

[NewJeffCT]

7. The GOP had no real leader in 2010

and they picked up what, 60 or 70 seats in the House? They were just anger and rage and repeal Obamacare.

I would prefer a younger candidate in 2020 - Democrats do better with young charismatic candidates - JFK, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. However, I would hope that plays out during the process with Sanders and Biden dropping out because they lost.

Democrats should have an agenda to run on, though, not just hatred of Trump.

1) Repeal the Trump/Ryan tax scam
2) Raise the minimum wage
3) Fully Fund Planned Parenthood
4) Act as a co-equal branch of the government.
5) Expand gun background checks

Things like fully investigating Trump corruption and Trump Cabinet corruption can be brought up on an individual basis, but does not need to be a focal point.

[Blue_true]

13. In you first sentence, you hit it on the head.

GOP voters are motivated by fear and rage and hatred of something. That get them out to the polls. Demo voters are motivated by policy and clear statements of policy prescriptions.

[Demsrule86]

15. I hope Sanders does not run as if he loses...we will have the usual attacks against the party.

They will call it rigged and unfair. If Sanders runs in 20, we lose...no matter what the ultimate outcome. If Sanders wins the primary which I consider unlikely, he loses the general. There is a reason why the GOP and Russians wanted Sanders to be the nominee. If Sanders loses the primary, his supporters blame Democrats...If Sanders runs, we are in a no win situation. I want the politics of 16 behind us and for that we need new candidates...and I think younger candidates.

[NewJeffCT]

20. While I would prefer Sanders to not run

I think signs are pointing to him running again in 2020. If he decides against it, I can see some of his supporters saying he was forced out by "The Establishment"

I did not consider Sanders a viable GE candidate in 2016 in the vein of McGovern, Mondale and Dukais and he won't be in 2020, either, because he doesn't turn out minority voters. Plus, he'd have gotten hammered to dust by some event from his past - praising Castro and Daniel Ortega, Remember, Obama knowing somebody from the Weather Underground was an issue in 2008.

However, I do think he has a good chance at winning the Democratic nomination - If nobody challenges him on the left (Warren?), he will have a solid block of voters in each primary, while more "establishment" Democrats like Booker, Harris, Kennedy, Murphy, Castro and others may divide up the remainder of the votes.

[Demsrule86]

25. Then God help us if he helps Trump win in 20...Sen. Sanders will truly have destroyed the

progressive agenda for a generation at least.

[NewJeffCT]

42. Just by having far righ Neil Gorusch on the SCOTUS

in place of moderately left Merrick Garland has set back the progressive agenda years - not to mention the record speed with which the Republican senate is confirming judges for the lower courts.

[Demsrule86]

45. Yeah...we are hanging by a thread here which is why I wish Sanders would go away. If he runs, I

hope Dems get him out of the primary fast so we have time to fix the damage he will surely do to the Democratic party.

[Demsrule86]

19. You have to make the 'message' work in all states and districts so it won't be the same.

For example gun checks...will work in most but not all districts...and we have to remember that unless we get elected gun control is dead.

[NewJeffCT]

21. If Democrats can win the Senate

though, I think that would take a miracle, they do have a plus that Trump is so weak and wishy washy on the issues that they may be able to get some things to his desk for signing.

[Demsrule86]

27. It would be a miracle...and I know people talk about a blue wave but folks we still have a

gerrymander...it is going to be tough.

[NewJeffCT]

43. the gerrymander won't affect the Senate

though, voter suppression and hacked voting machines will affect all races.

However, the senate map for Democrats has been called the worst in history. Republicans only have to defend 8 seats while Democrats need to defend 25, including 10 in states that Trump won. In a normal year, Republicans could expect to net 5-7 seats in the Senate.

[Demsrule86]

44. I know I was talking about the house...the Senate would be the miracle.

Let's hope this year is anything but normal for the evil GOP and the Dumpster.

[Demsrule86]

31. Also, I think we can use the ACA to win this year...wouldn't it be wonderful to take back the house

using the issue they lied about in 10? Where are you from in CT...I went to high school in Ridgefield.

[mercuryblues]

8. Sure Joe

Not only are you a republican, you are a sleazy one.

You loved trump, you gave him enormous amounts of free airtime. The only reason that you are anti-trump now is because of a personal slight. Not because he is a stupid, easily manipulated, conman. Not because he doesn't know what he is doing, or when he does do something it is out of pure spite. No. you don't like him because he dissed you and your.


Excuse me, I don't take your "sincere" anysist seriously. You, in a way, are just like trump. No depth to your knowledge and no desire to learn, Just repeat everything over and over again. In a way that makes it seem like it is your original idea and not the republican party line.

[Demsrule86]

17. He helped elect Trump.

[dsc]

11. It should be noted that generic usually does better than a specific candidate of the same party

there are some exceptions (Manchin in WV and Heitcamp in ND for example) but for the most part a generic D will do better than an actually D in polling. that said, I don't think the difference will be all that much in this case.

[Demsrule86]

16. That is not true. Generic is always weaker.

Using such a small sample with a almost 50% by landline weakens this poll and it is in the margin of error...so they say 3 points but the margin of error is 3.5 which makes the results useless.

[WhiteTara]

33. FU Dead Intern Joe. Once again

you are trying to harm the Democratic Party with your underhanded bullshit.

[Demsrule86]

35. Of Course he is...and we know it!