correct about ALL of this.

...touting Michael Bennett-I'd be fine with Bennett but right now Biden is clogging up the right hand lane.

President and carville is raging about power.

and we should pay attention. Obviously this is an individual that knows what he is talking about.

Whether or not we agree with his individual prescriptions, his "Poly-Sci 101" mantra is absolutely correct--it is about taking and wielding power. And the fact is, if you don't win, it won't matter!

edited to add: P.S. I highly recommend you read the whole interview.

Thinking, surely someone will run an ad after trump does this or that. Surely our side will be all over the news talking about that.

But it's getting very difficult to make a splash anymore. Too much media. Info overload. Just hope to get a trend on Twitter?. No non-dem watches CNN or MSNBC...so they don't hear.

to be plastered? Besides these candidates (except Bloomberg) aren't running against trump yet. and he thinks sanders can win the presidency yet won't have enough clout to influence down ballot while admitting controlling the senate is extremely difficult for dems.

post-El Paso speech. Missed Trump the world laughingstock ad and so much else.

and tv news rarely. thanks for the link.

Link to tweet

"Falling into despair won’t help anyone, though. I mean, you can curse the darkness or you can light a candle.
I’m getting a fucking welding torch. Okay?"

Carville is right. We need people who are willing to go toe to toe with Trump and get tough about it. Republicans certainly will be tough, and untruthful, in their campaigns. I disagree with Carville’s choice of Michael Bennett, but I think he’s wrong about Sanders. With Sanders at the top of the ticket, we will lose to Trump. Independents who like some of Trump’s policies but are tired of the chaos and the theatrics will not vote for the “socialist” candidate. In reality, we know that Bernie’s policies are not true socialism, they’re just mostly good for the country, but Republicans will brand Bernie as the president who will take away private property rights and turn businesses into government communes.

I am not a Biden supporter because I have doubts that he can out-nasty Trump. And Senate Republicans are already making sure to create lots of dirt on him and his son. I’m a Warren supporter because of her ideas and her fierce fighting spirit. I think she can hold her own against Trump, BUT—and I say this sadly—too many people will just not vote for a woman. Mayor Pete is smart and has run a really great campaign, but his sexual preference will be used against him. Unfair, but likely. I also like Klobuchar, and she had a really good debate in New Hampshire, but I’m not sure about her ability to out-Trump Trump—and she’s a female in a country with a lot of misogynists.

So where does that leave us? All of our candidates have great qualities, and they’re all just smart as hell. But my number 1 criterion is this: who can beat Trump? I don’t know the answer to that question, and I can’t believe I’m going to write this, but it may be a compromise candidate—Bloomberg. He is not my first or second or third choice. I don’t care that he’s a billionaire, but I do care that he’s too conservative and started out as a Republican. If he can beat Trump, though, I’m all in. Interesting—and scary—times we live in.

They showed a clip of an Iowa caucuser changing her vote from Mayor Pete because she found out he was gay. That elephant in the room breaks my heart because he's a good man and we need his talents.

gave us good turn-out in 2008 and helped us elect an African American, much to my surprised delight. Trump's gang is even less popular than W's was

I wouldn't regard a female candidate as a long-shot but as a shot-in-the-arm: in the Grabber-Of-Pussy era, I'd bet we can get lots of women behind the idea that now's really finally time to have a woman President, over a century after the 19th amendment

Of course, what matters most is kicking the Grabber-Of-Pussy Party to the curb -- so I'll vote for the D nominee

I'm with him--no darkness, and for sure nothing so mild as a candle. Bring on the welding torches!

He provides no data that shows otherwise.

You don’t think, if enough folks turnout to elect Sanders, that there won’t be a big enough turnout to defeat Collins, Gardner, McSally, possibly Mitch and Lindsey?

were the nominee. Many house races were won by extremely narrow margins, and keeping control is doing to be far from certain no matter who our nominee is.

With a socialist populist leader promising revolution from within, it's beyond likely that voters would do the usual "balancing" of a bold presidential choice by crippling him with a congress controlled by the other party. That's what they did to Obama, and to many others stretching back into the distant past.

It seems probable that we'd lose both the house and the senate and that the increasingly fascistic Republicans would continue dismantling our progressive systems and government of, by and for the people.

People who think we need a socialist revolution need to realize that a much bigger archconservative fascistic, nationalist, Christian nation, plutocratic revolution, assisted by Russia and other enemies, is already underway.

And other issues that matter to the Democratic base. Instead try to appeal to blue collar white Trump voters who won't vote for us anyway. Sounds like a winning strategy /sarc

Carville is right -- Fat Nixon needs to be torched over his comments. No one's saying to abandon what you list, but economic issues ALWAYS top the list of what's important to voters. Make any suggestion of cuts to those programs third rail again. TORCH.

threatening cuts to SS and Medicare? It's a total fucking gift horse - the words came out of his mouth. Too many voters know he is vile and turn a blind eye, but cuts to SS and Medicare might snap some of them out of it.

Let's see.

Carville's history and personal life make his judgments questionable.

the words came out of his mouth at Davos. Why haven't Dems seized on this?

It's just that he's bit of a hay-maker.