Which Democrat will get the Dem. nom.? Which Dem. deserves it?

[sear]

We've already got a thread on the GOP candidates.
Many say Hillary and JEB! have locks on their party's nomination.

But the Dems. have a guy named Webb who isn't as bad as Hillary.
Where is there so little news about him?

Which Dem. will get the nomination?
Which Dem deserves the nomination?

note:
This topic inspired by rightwingerhttp://www.usmessageboard.com/members/rightwinger.20321/

 

[Uncensored2008]

I know I'm ready for Hillary to be the dim nominee.

I've said from the start that only Jeb could lose to her.

Now I don't think even he could lose to Hildabeast.

Lion killing dentists are less despised than Hillary is.....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is only one name that matters...

 

[JakeStarkey]

HRC will get it.

I don't know if she deserves it; leave that to the Dems to figure.

 

[blastoff]

I really think Hillary may be in trouble. And if so not a clue who'll get their nomination.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is only one name that matters...

Jesus?

 

[S.J.]

What does it say about her when her two main challengers are a socialist and a serial fondler? Don't count on her being the nominee.

 

[sear]

"I really think Hillary may be in trouble. And if so not a clue who'll get their nomination." #5

That's the fascinating thing.
The current mumble is:
If HRC gets bumped, then Biden can slip in to clinch it.

But Webb is already in the race.

Nothing bad about Biden. But why are they pretending Webb is invisible? He's got a pretty good résumé.

 

[Claudette]

"I really think Hillary may be in trouble. And if so not a clue who'll get their nomination." #5

That's the fascinating thing.
The current mumble is:
If HRC gets bumped, then Biden can slip in to clinch it.

But Webb is already in the race.

Nothing bad about Biden. But why are they pretending Webb is invisible? He's got a pretty good résumé.

I agree. I don't know much about Webb but he seems pretty solid from the little I've read about him.

Biden, as VP, might just slide in there as well.

I believe Hilbat is toast though. She's got way to much baggage and if the DNC is smart they will kick that bitch to the curb and support someone else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would prefer a Webb v. Kasich election.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would prefer a Webb v. Kasich election.

Honestly I would like to see some four way action:
Two strong Republicans, one conservative to appease the far right
and one Centrist Constitutionalist to include the moderates and the middle,
and Two genuine Democrats (not politico's playing for power) who can
manage the extremes from left/socialist to working with centralizing middle and rightwing traditions
without compromising either one for the other.

Get a pair from each party who can actually work together
and cover all the work and representation required to serve America.

Not sure if we could have a mixed ticket with both parties
represented, but I'd also like to see a Green Treasurer such
as Paul Glover or Ralph Nader and a Libertarian Secretary of State
to check all the military and foreign spending and making sure it's Constitutional
and/or paid back if it's loans that aren't authorized by govt and are charity or some other category.

We could really go to town cleaning up govt and paying back taxpayers
for past messes, if we compelled the major parties to work together instead of at odds.

Why not demand that of them?
Refuse to vote except for a mixed Cabinet that has a plan to pay back all
the debts racked up in our names.
Hire the best financial and management team with the best plan
for cleaning up past abuses and corruption and collecting back on debts
or else allowing taxpayers to buy out shares in property and programs if
we are expected to invest any more funds into govt.

pay us interest, pay us back, or give us collateral on our loans,
but quit taxing without representing or accounting for wherever it goes.

Why not organize taxpayers unions across the parties,
make a list of demands for respective candidates
and only vote for the teams that agree to meet the goals they promised!

 

[sear]

C #9
For me the thought of President Hillary, and First Lady William Jefferson is unthinkable.

JS #10
It sure would be better than Hillary v. JEB!

 

[sear]

PS
e #11

Indeed.
Grover Norquist is already at it.
And while it does seem to be working, I've got a few problems with it.

a) Norquist's pledge violates Art.6 Sec.2 of the United States Constitution, and SCOTUS should say so.

b) HORRIBLY: Norquist addressed tax, but not spending!

I want these %$#@ pecker-woods to BALANCE THE %$#& budget, and pay off the debt.
But they just keep diddling, and our federal debt soars ever astronomically higher:

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 05 Aug 2015 at 07:51:09 PM GMT is:

The estimated population of the United States is 321,120,903
so each citizen's share of this debt is $56,536.75.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

For context:

"What's pernicious about deficits for conservatives is this. It makes big government cheap. What we're doing, we're turning to the country, the "conservative" administration turns to the country and says: We're going to give you a dollar's worth of government, we're going to charge you seventy five cents for it. And we're going to let your kids pay the other quarter." George Will Nov 30, 2003

Wanting to sustain a balanced budget is a conservative principle.

Accepting the status quo as Norquist does, of rigidly holding the line on revenue, but continuing to let spending run wild is not.

I'd LOVE it if Norquist would change his pledge from being about tax, to being about balanced budgets. Apparently he's simply not a man of principle.