Who is your dog in 2024?

I fully support Biden running again....if by some chance he decided not to I would probably get behind Pete Booty-call.      And that would be a great campaing slogan:  "This country needs a Buti-call"    Just sayin.

"You may not be able to spell his name, but..."

I was also wondering if Pete might galvanize the LGBTQ vote, and how much effect that might have. I think that might include some straight people who are sympathetic to the movement. I'd also love to see Mother Tucker, the evangelicals, etc. sputter endlessly in outrage.

Biden's old, but that isn't an impediment as such. What hobbles him is that he's a child of an earlier age that has vanished. And I say that despite his recent efforts to be more combative.

Well done, Kevin.  Thank you.  Three people you would consider and why.  Yes, predictably, this devolved into...not much.  But these give me three to look into.  I think PJ also suggested Pete B. as a possibility, so thanks PJ.  

And, BTW, I'm pretty sure gender conversion therapy fizzled in the long run.  A co-worker of mine spent/wasted a lot of money (books, seminars) trying to hetero-ize her gay son.   Her successful, educated, owner and operator of a successful eatery in Nashville, son.   Thankfully she does love him very much anyway.

I was amused more than anything by my father's dread that I might be gay or have gay "urges." He was a child of his time (grew up during the Depression); he was actually pretty tolerant about things like race and politics. He was concerned when I made two male friends in my junior year in high school. One played the violin and the other was a ballet dancer. The joke was, the violin guy had a steady girlfriend and the ballet guy got laid more often than a rock star. After all, he was always in a ballet class with twenty lithe young women and no other guys!

I was initially surprised when soon after, my father caught me and my girlfriend in flagrante delicto in the back seat of the family car, and his reaction was more relief than anger. 

"The only real obstacles to her candidacy would be that she's a WOOMUN (sad to say, but even now, being female costs you 5% of the vote),"

Huh? That's nonsense for 2024 as it was even in 2016.

Hillary got more than 7 million votes than her opponent even though in the fall of '16 and continuing right up to just 48 hours before Election Day, the FBI Director announced he was not going to -- wait a minute maybe he was going to, no actually he wasn't going to after all -- seek to indict her. Hillary, by her own admission, had not-so-great electioneering abilities and she made tactical errors. Even with all that, she only lost due to the vagaries of the Electoral College.

In fact, in the post Dobbs world, including this November,  women are key to Democrats' success and everything else being equal, female candidates would fare better than men.

Republicans could be looking at one of their female prospects for POTUS, or if Trump is the candidate, would likely field a female vice presidential candidate to try to offset the fallout from Dobbs on their party.

Elizabeth Warren isn't a centrist. Whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing vis a vis electability depends on whether energizing her left-leaning base would more than offset the loss of independents whose votes are up for grabs. Mainly, though, she's not "relatable." Her personality reminds one of school teachers they hated. Also, she's old, and the electorate, after Trump and Biden, will be looking for someone much younger. She'd lose.

Pete Buttigleg would be on my list. He is just so damn smart and has Bill Clinton-level political chops. He's young. He's comfortably center-left. He could win and could be a great president. If not in 2024, I think he will be a presidential candidate at some point. He's got decades ahead of him.

Amy Klobuchar would also be at the top of my list for the same reasons as Buttigleg. She's got it all. She's unflappable. She could wipe the floor with Trump. She's got a great personality that would connect with voters. She's from a battleground state and is a centrist Democrat. Being  female would bring out the female vote bigtime, especially in the post-Dobbs world. I really like her.

The one dark horse I would put at the top of my list is Sherrod Brown, the Senator from Ohio. He'd deliver Ohio and therefore the election to the Democrats.

I was hoping he'd run in 2020, but he chose not to. He'd wrap Trump around his little finger. He's smart, with mainstream views and could both win and lead the country well.  Whatever his reasons were for not running in 2020 would probably hold for 2024, though.

But here's the big problem: Kamala Harris. She'd be an awful candidate. Her personality sucks, and that counts hugely even though it shouldn't. She comes across as inauthentic, similar to Hillary's public persona, but much worse. If she were nominated she would lose.

But if Harris were not nominated many Black voters would feel they were robbed of *their* rightful candidate and would stay home. For a Democrat to win the presidency, he or she must have strong motivated Black support. So that's a huge problem as I see it, and I don't have an answer.

Hillary would have all but swept the Electoral College if she were male. Many of her best qualities are things that are praised when men have them but condemned when women have them.

As far as getting the black vote is concerned--a black candidate would help, but I don't think it's necessary. The RepubliQ have made it abundantly clear that they hate black people and keeping them from voting, or making their votes not count, is at the core of their agenda. The black vote will go heavily Democratic no matter what. I do like Brown as a candidate though.

Warren used to be a teacher, so your assessment of how she comes off is probably correct. I call her centrist because much of her platform is pretty moderate. But I don't think the party apparatus wants her anywhere other than right where she is now.

I agree that Hillary actually won in 2016, and yes, the dumbass Electoral College, together with absurd gerrymandering, means that the Democrats start every election down by a touchdown. They win by a little, they lose. They win by a lot, they barely win.

And Harris? Yeah: blecch. But she does have the two advantages of being black and female. I think she'd actually make a fair President, but she has all the charisma of a tree stump.

Now, the question is, will Biden retire gracefully...

JMHO, but K. Harris strikes me as probably a pleasant person who would make a good next door neighbor, and that's about all.  Not presidential material by a long shot. 

Liberals who talk about replacing Biden are very politically naive. (I thought that was a nice way of putting it.)

In the last 125 years, do you know how many Presidents who sought to be elected for a second time were rejected by the voters? Four. And if Ross Perot hadn't run in 1992, it probably would have been only three, and if Reagan hadn't connived with the Ayatollah to hang onto the Iranian hostages, it might have been two.

Two. That leaves the guy who presided over the Great Depression, and Trump.

Incumbent. Presidents. Get. Re-elected. Almost always.

So shut up, helpful liberals. (Not so nice that time.)