Let me sum up this Washington Post 2016 Democrat speculation piece.

Their top-ten list may be described as as such:

  1. Hillary Clinton
  2. Joe Biden
  3. …The Democrats are kind of f*cked, huh?

…I had originally had about three paragraphs of tedious analysis here about how bad this list was, but then I realized that I could sum it up very, very easily: Howard Dean made the WaPo’s Top Ten list.  If that doesn’t tell you how comprehensively they scraped the barrel for this one, then nothing will.

Moe Lane

9 thoughts on “Let me sum up this Washington Post 2016 Democrat speculation piece.”

    1. Walker or Perry.( or Pence). I’m souring on Rand right now ( maybe it’s because of his endorsements for Enzi and McConnell. That and his “become Libertarian and all your problems will be solved” I’m tolerant of your views doesn’t mean I share them Rand. What’s with the whole ” Decriminalize Marijuana and get black votes” thing, sounds kinda racist?

  1. The fact that the only person on that list who has a somewhat successful record as a Governor is considered number 10 says all you need to know about the Democrat Party. When what would be considered failures ( Cuomo, O’Malley) Jokes ( Dean,Biden) and complete lunatics ( Warren) are considered good candidates, your party is scraping the bottom of the barrel. But that’s kind of what they were doing in 08, and we ended up with a do nothing Senator from Illinois. Not at all shocked to see Cory Booker on the list ( they need someone to turn out the blacks) though its a bit of a stretch for him to run three elections in the span of three years. Even Obama didn’t do that.

    1. I actually like Corey Booker, but I think he’ll suffer from being too superficially similar to Obama (young, hip African American with very scant national or international experience) when Obama fatigue will be in it’s terminal phase. He might have a shot in 2020 or 2024.

  2. A little annoyed at the Booker profile about him being the 2nd most powerful A-A in DC. Isn’t there a certain Senator from SC? Or is this just the media trying there best to ignore him?

    1. The hilarity is that the “two most powerful AAs” in D.C. are the “whitest” ones. Scott’s got more street cred than half of the Black Caucus, but you’ll never see anybody admit that. I wonder if we did run Scott how many black votes he could peal off based on his skin color alone, 15%, 20, 25, dare I think 30?

  3. 1) No John Kerry? I have to assume his absence means that (in spite of the various indignations it inspired) the Swift Boat issue is regarded by the Dems as a deal-breaker for him.

    .

    2) Likewise, it is at least a little heartening that John Edwards’ name is not mentioned.

Comments are closed.