What I find most distressing about the Democratic Party (and I mean EVERYONE, not the DNC) is that this cycle we got nothing but flawed candidates. There are plenty of popular Democratic Governors, Senators, Representatives, public figures, etc. who could have run. But instead we got some women, a gay Mayor, some very old guys, a socialist, a billionaire party-flipper, etc. A regular sitcom cast! Yang was the closest to a viable candidate except for no political experience and being Chinese-American.
Are Democratic primary voters so politically correct now they won't consider a White Male Democrat with real political experience? One who could actually go on TV and win over a majority of Democratic Primary voters and still win the general election?
My wife and I are both mixed race ourselves, and I think there are a lot of very competent women in politics, so I don't say this out of racism or sexism. But a whole lot of Americans are racist, or sexist, or both. Men AND women. Democrats tend to be less racist and sexist, but still you have to win the election if you want to change anything. I guess we get "points" for being pure, but we do lose. I would rather win.
BTW, I would not count on Biden, Sanders, Trump, Pence, McConnell, and Pelosi still all being alive by November. We could end up with George Clooney or Andrew Cuomo on the second ballot.
My first choice was John Hickenlooper, the Governor of Colorado. But he dropped out pretty quickly. He will be going to Washington in January as Senator Hickenlooper as he will Defeat Gardner fairly easy.
If you follow numbers, I think you'd find the progressive wing makes up between 30-35% of the Democratic Party. The rest are much more moderate which this primary season has shown.
And yes, first you must be able to win an election in order to get anything at all accomplished. In order to win one must not only be able to attract Democrats, but independents and some Republicans. Nominating an ideological pure candidate from the progressive wing has many obstacles to overcome that someone, say from the center left doesn't. The Republicans tried the ideological pure candidate back in 1964 with Goldwater, we all know the results from that.
As for a woman, I have no doubt a woman can win the presidency. But it depends on who that woman is. Hillary came across as aloof, an elitist and I'll add my own word as I viewed her, fake. She was also lazy and ran a very inept campaign and still won the popular vote.
She also lost the independent vote. It doesn't matter whether your candidate is a man or a woman, whoever it is must be able to attract the independent voter. With both major parties shrinking, independents rising, choosing a candidate attractive to independents is of utmost importance. In 2006 independents made up 30% of the electorate, today they make up 40% give or take a point or two. That is if one believes Gallup and Pew Research.
Of course I'm not very ideological, so I'm more interested in finding a candidate that can win than one who is ideological pure. Little steps forward are fine with me, as long as we keep moving forward. Nominating someone who promises gigantic leaps forward, usually can't win and loses in Goldwater fashion. Then even little steps forward cease.
I've been saying for a couple of years now that this election cycle that the Democrats needed a fresh young face, if from flyover country so much the better. Now we ended up with two 78 year old white men which it seems no one is happy with except their avid supporters.
That's my two cents anyway.
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.