I'm completely fine with it especially if the 37 year old is the only one who seems to truly get that political norms have been eradicated and they're not coming back.
I am much more concerned about people over 70 being President than people under 40. I don't think it's going to happen for Pete next year, but I think he has a really bright future.
“a presidential candidate will have to carry red states, win tough elections, galvanize new voters, build Dem bases in red districts, etc.”
Hillary didn’t do any of those. Bernie has only galvanized new voters. Beto, Gillum, and Abrams got very close on the first two and did the second two.
Clinton was an awful candidate. That's why she lost. The same goes for Kerry. Successful Democratic candidates win elections by doing those things and candidates that haven't proven able to do those things typically don't win elections. That supports the point that I'm trying to make regarding your man Pete.
Clinton won the nomination. Sanders didn't. Stop talking about him like he lost the 2016 general. Sanders didn't have a chance to carry red states because of mechanisms that we have discussed at length on this board, but he galvanized new voters and, via Our Revolution, has slowly built Dem bases in red districts. He's done a lot more for the party than any of the candidates currently in the race. Gillibrand and Harris still strike me as better candidates, but Sanders is about as accomplished in this field as we'll get (don't even get me started on "Uncle Joe," who has been virtually been a ghost post-election).
Abrams, O'Rourke, and Gillum could not carry red states in statewide elections. They weren't close because it's a zero-sum game and O'Rourke at least has already put whatever momentum he had on a state level towards a presidential run. It's one among many reasons that I don't respect him at all. I'll lose respect for Abrams if she does the same. Folks don't understand that part of a successful electoral mobilization campaign is being able to get those voters to come back out for the candidates that they supported. There are a lot of Democrats who voted specifically for Abrams, O'Rourke, and Gillum, not just against their Republican competitors. Of all people, Ph, you should recognize this.
Besides good old white male charisma, what else does Beto have going for him on a national stage? Real moderates aren't buying his "everything for everyone" political ideology and he's not going to bring anybody over from the right against Trump because he stands for nothing and clothes himself in tired #resistance rhetoric.
Likewise, Gillum needs to win an election in Florida before I am sold on his abilities as a national candidate. Even though the DNC has been worthless lately and candidates have been weak, Florida is still demographically a blue (at worst purple) state. It's winnable. With greater name recognition, he has the chance to win an election in the near future. Same with Abrams.
I think of the three Abrams probably has the ideal combo of competence and charisma, but I would still like to see her win a congressional or gubernatorial election before investing too much in her bandwagon.
Again, we're citing moral victories like year two in the [Redacted]-era. That's not going to beat Trump.
