there are a number of reasons why democratic coalitions have more trouble with turnout than republicans. for one, it's a significantly broader coalition, so it's less likely that a democratic candidate will appeal to a voter on the fringes. for another, liberal personalities tend not to be as motivated by fear, which means they're less dependable and more subject to outside conditions (weather, convenience, lack of inspiration, etc.). for a third thing, democrats are more likely to be in urban centers, which for whatever reasons tend not to be as smoothly run, and are more subject to changes and confusion in polling location, longer lines, broken machines, and other conditions that make turnout less likely. fourth, and the last thing i've thought of off the cuff, is that people of color tend to vote reliably democratic, and are incarcerated at a significantly higher rate, which in many states means the limitation or loss of voting rights.

this is anything but an exhaustive list, but it should at least be a start. unless of course the question was intended to be rhetorical.

JL

It [won't be]. Haley or Cheney.

Hillary Clinton was the first female Republikiller candidate for president but she ran as a Deathocrat.

You're absolutely right. I had a helluva tough time voting for Hillary in '16 -- I almost voted for Jill Stein but, as I couldn't imagine America inflicting Trump on itself, I wanted to be able to say, "I voted for the first female 'Murican President.

Again, I'm in complete agreement with you about the Dims and Repugs being owned by big money. They encourage us commoners fight over social issues while they hoard the money.

Old:
"You can boss the n*goers
We'll boss the money."

New:
"You can own the Libs
We'll own the money."

If only there was a CREDIBLE solution to this problem!

"Are you saying that the Democrats aren't capable of winning a filibuster-proof number of senate seats ... running against THIS Republican party!!!???"

YES EXACTLY. Remember, more than half the states still voted for Trump even knowing exactly who and what he was.

Look at any recent map of which states voted for the Democrat in the presidential election. Those are the same states that are going to have Democratic Senators. (Which party that state voted for in the electoral college is now the single biggest and best predictor of what party both that state's senators are now going to be from..it tracks almost precisely.) Red states have Republican senators. Blue states have Democratic senators. Purple states can have a mix of either. The exceptions prove the rule.

At most there will be between 25 and 29 states. You need 60 Senators, or 30 states, for a filibuster proof majority. Neither party is ever going to get that anytime in the near future.

Just like all this talk of persuading the undecided or the other side or the American voter is pretty much all bunk too. It doesn't matter. What determines elections now is turnout, turnout, turnout, of your own base or already committed supporters. Democrats simply start from a larger pool than Republicans do.

When the Republican base is in a frenzy, they win, but when Democrats turn out in high numbers, Democrats win. Persuading people to cross party lines be damned. It's all about turnout stupid. (To modify an old phrase about the economy.) It's that simple.

*smh*

Not too long after Dubya left office I read a quote from one of his advisors that said they decided to invade Iraq, "because we wanted to kick some ass."

Thousands of dead and wonderful Americans. Untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties, and the rise of ISIS in the vacume left when we killed Saddam. All because Dubya and the Republicans warmongers "wanted to kick some ass."

Trump has nonetheless made me long for that kind of, er, considered statesmanship.

i find it strange to be on the other side of this issue from you; as disastrous as the iraq war was, i've come to have a bit more respect for george II. as more of the 'inside baseball' details come out about how he made his decisions as president, it seems to me his main mistake was being too trusting of his advisors, including but not limited to his VP. but even dick was principled, such as he is.

by my estimation dubya is still in the bottom third of presidents, but not nearly as horrible as we thought at the time.

JL

Sho' yo right, Amigo! And so we have with this column.

We really have a 3-3-3 court, with 3 conservative institutionalists, 3 conservative “four corners” justices and 3 liberals.

...But don’t look for clear-cut wins for one or another political side: With this new court, it’s likely both sides will be dissatisfied with the outcomes.

Nikki Haley might take exception but I think Liz Cheney will be the first female Repug candidate for President.