Which Dem can win general election in 2020?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea if any of these could win, but I like

Tammy Duckworth

When I've seen her on TV, she's looked really reasonable.

Mazie Hirono

She has Stage 4 kidney cancer. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazie_Hirono) I know she's running for re-election to the Senate, but I don't think running for president would be good for her.

Michelle Obama (she wouldn't ever run, but)
..
Maybe Corey Booker

I think they would both irritate swing voters.

I once saw Booker speak live, and he was natural and hilarious. But, when he's on TV and trying to be senatorial he sounds like a Ted Baxter. I think that, if he's going to be a serious presidential contender, he has to figure out to give the impression that he's cutting through BS, not spouting BS.

Another idea: John Hickenlooper of Colorado. Maybe he and Kasich could run together on a unity ticket?

[Anonymous]

It won’t matter. Trump is getting re-elected. If they go with a safe candidate trump annihilates them. If they go radical leftist the independents move to trump. And trump annihilates them.

[Anonymous]

Joe Kennedy.

[Anonymous]

Joe Kennedy.

Biden is too old.

Bernie is too old, not a real Dem, and has baggage.

Hilary is too old, a girl, and has way too much baggage.

Cory Booker sounds like a Repub on many issues. If you've heard him speak at conferences (I have, numerous times), he sounds like he's spinning because he can't articulate clear solutions/strategies.

Warren is equipped, but she would be crucified. America isn't ready for a lady president. Period.

People love Tammy, Kamala and Gillibrand, but I don't see it. Smart and articulate? Absolutely. Charismatic Alpha males? Nope. And that's what it ultimately comes down to: charismatic alpha male.

Joe Kennedy is our best bet. Sure, he will have to deal with critics who call him a rich boy from a political dynasty. But I feel like he has the street smarts and ability to deflect any attack in a strong way. We need a fighter. I think he can do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea if any of these could win, but I like

Tammy Duckworth

When I've seen her on TV, she's looked really reasonable.

Mazie Hirono

She has Stage 4 kidney cancer. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazie_Hirono) I know she's running for re-election to the Senate, but I don't think running for president would be good for her.

Michelle Obama (she wouldn't ever run, but)
..
Maybe Corey Booker

I think they would both irritate swing voters.

I once saw Booker speak live, and he was natural and hilarious. But, when he's on TV and trying to be senatorial he sounds like a Ted Baxter. I think that, if he's going to be a serious presidential contender, he has to figure out to give the impression that he's cutting through BS, not spouting BS.

Another idea: John Hickenlooper of Colorado. Maybe he and Kasich could run together on a unity ticket?

He's got to do something about the name. President Hickenlooper doesn't fly.

[Anonymous]

Warren is equipped, but she would be crucified. America isn't ready for a lady president. Period.

People love Tammy, Kamala and Gillibrand, but I don't see it. Smart and articulate? Absolutely. Charismatic Alpha males? Nope. And that's what it ultimately comes down to: charismatic alpha male.

Disagree. America is ready--just not for those women.

Maybe, Tammy. Not the others. And, definitely not Hillary. The problem was Hillary--not the fact that she is a women. In fact, that was her main platform. A candidate needs to run as a candidate--not an "identity."

Obama ran as a candidate--not, "Let's elect the Black Man." (Although, many voted for him because of that.) In fact, I did not vote for him, but thought when he won that it would be a good thing to have a Black president. I was wrong--he was a disappointment. I didn't vote for him because of his lack of qualifications and support of policies I did not like, and he lived up to my expectations. If he had performed as he spoke at that speech in 2004, I would have been pleased. He did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Warren is equipped, but she would be crucified. America isn't ready for a lady president. Period.

People love Tammy, Kamala and Gillibrand, but I don't see it. Smart and articulate? Absolutely. Charismatic Alpha males? Nope. And that's what it ultimately comes down to: charismatic alpha male.

Disagree. America is ready--just not for those women.

Maybe, Tammy. Not the others. And, definitely not Hillary. The problem was Hillary--not the fact that she is a women. In fact, that was her main platform. A candidate needs to run as a candidate--not an "identity."

Obama ran as a candidate--not, "Let's elect the Black Man." (Although, many voted for him because of that.) In fact, I did not vote for him, but thought when he won that it would be a good thing to have a Black president. I was wrong--he was a disappointment. I didn't vote for him because of his lack of qualifications and support of policies I did not like, and he lived up to my expectations. If he had performed as he spoke at that speech in 2004, I would have been pleased. He did not.

The fact that you think Hillary did not run as a candidate and instead ran as a woman underscores the fact that you and America aren't ready for a female leader. Hillary was perhaps the best politically equipped candidate ever, yet all you saw was baggage. You didn't hear her when she literally pointed out how and why Trump was Putin's public during the debate, right? Instead of appreciating her well articulated case based on facts, all you heard was a shrill, privileged woman who felt entitled to be president, right?

And that, my friend, is precisely why we can't have a lady president: you and America can't get past your misogynistic bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Warren is equipped, but she would be crucified. America isn't ready for a lady president. Period.

People love Tammy, Kamala and Gillibrand, but I don't see it. Smart and articulate? Absolutely. Charismatic Alpha males? Nope. And that's what it ultimately comes down to: charismatic alpha male.

Disagree. America is ready--just not for those women.

Maybe, Tammy. Not the others. And, definitely not Hillary. The problem was Hillary--not the fact that she is a women. In fact, that was her main platform. A candidate needs to run as a candidate--not an "identity."

Obama ran as a candidate--not, "Let's elect the Black Man." (Although, many voted for him because of that.) In fact, I did not vote for him, but thought when he won that it would be a good thing to have a Black president. I was wrong--he was a disappointment. I didn't vote for him because of his lack of qualifications and support of policies I did not like, and he lived up to my expectations. If he had performed as he spoke at that speech in 2004, I would have been pleased. He did not.

The fact that you think Hillary did not run as a candidate and instead ran as a woman underscores the fact that you and America aren't ready for a female leader. Hillary was perhaps the best politically equipped candidate ever, yet all you saw was baggage. You didn't hear her when she literally pointed out how and why Trump was Putin's public during the debate, right? Instead of appreciating her well articulated case based on facts, all you heard was a shrill, privileged woman who felt entitled to be president, right?

And that, my friend, is precisely why we can't have a lady president: you and America can't get past your misogynistic bias.

http://fortune.com/2016/10/19/presidential-debate-donald-trump-puppet-putin/

See?

She wasn't taking about girl stuff. She was presenting facts which everyone now realizes were spot on. But all you saw was a privileged lady.

Until you and everyone else admits you were wrong about her---admit that she was right and more than equipped to be president---we will never have a female president.

Why is Tammy better suited than HRC? Because her last name isn't Clinton? Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary. She can get majority votes again.

No way. Look at how many people voted for trump simply because they hated Hillary. we can’t risk this again. And I say this as someone who thinks Hillary would be a great president.

But Hillary was such a graceful loser. Certainly she has won over some independents and a few Trump supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are liberals so smug? Do they not realize majority does NOT like extreme, left-wing nutcases, this is seen by polls and popularity vote. How far up your own ass are you to think YOUR view represents majority of America when everything shows otherwise. I can’t wait till you all get off your high horse.

FIFY. Though I left your poor grammar untouched.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are trump supporters so smug? Do they not realize majority does NOT like trump, this is seen by polls and popularity vote. How far up your own ass are you to think YOUR view represents majority of America when everything shows otherwise. I can’t wait till you all get off your high horse.

Totally agree, but I am gratified to hear Democrats acknowledging that Trump could win in 2020.

I think our biggest challenge is a repeat of 2016 -- thinking there's no way America would (re)elect that idiot.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate.

Of course he can win. The bolded above is my in-laws, who I can barely speak to anymore. All they want to do it tell me how awful Hillary is, like I give a shit. She lost, I'm over it, so should you. I repeat, she is NOT running in 2020. That little fantasy of the right can die now.

DP. I think you're wrong and I'm bookmarking this post to trot out when she announces she's running again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Joe Kennedy.

Yeah.

Either that or Chelsea Clinton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It won’t matter. Trump is getting re-elected. If they go with a safe candidate trump annihilates them. If they go radical leftist the independents move to trump. And trump annihilates them.

As an independent, I can attest that you are absolutely right. I would never vote for a radical leftist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Joe Kennedy.

Biden is too old.

Bernie is too old, not a real Dem, and has baggage.

Hilary is too old, a girl, and has way too much baggage.

Cory Booker sounds like a Repub on many issues. If you've heard him speak at conferences (I have, numerous times), he sounds like he's spinning because he can't articulate clear solutions/strategies.

Warren is equipped, but she would be crucified. America isn't ready for a lady president. Period.

People love Tammy, Kamala and Gillibrand, but I don't see it. Smart and articulate? Absolutely. Charismatic Alpha males? Nope. And that's what it ultimately comes down to: charismatic alpha male.

Joe Kennedy is our best bet. Sure, he will have to deal with critics who call him a rich boy from a political dynasty. But I feel like he has the street smarts and ability to deflect any attack in a strong way. We need a fighter. I think he can do it.

First of all - you're calling Hillary "a girl"? Wow. I keep hearing, only from liberals, that a female candidate would never win because "America isn't ready." I think that's BS. I find it interesting that only liberals keep saying this, as if it's fact. And they're clearly basing this on HRC losing the last election. What you won't admit is that HRC didn't lose because she is a woman. She lost for so many other reasons, that have been laid out ad nauseum but which none of you will acknowledge. It seems liberals are the worst sexists of all.

I would absolutely vote for a female candidate, but not because she is female. Nikki Haley or Susan Collins would get my vote, if they ran. But of course, they're not Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Warren is equipped, but she would be crucified. America isn't ready for a lady president. Period.

People love Tammy, Kamala and Gillibrand, but I don't see it. Smart and articulate? Absolutely. Charismatic Alpha males? Nope. And that's what it ultimately comes down to: charismatic alpha male.

Disagree. America is ready--just not for those women.

Maybe, Tammy. Not the others. And, definitely not Hillary. The problem was Hillary--not the fact that she is a women. In fact, that was her main platform. A candidate needs to run as a candidate--not an "identity."

Obama ran as a candidate--not, "Let's elect the Black Man." (Although, many voted for him because of that.) In fact, I did not vote for him, but thought when he won that it would be a good thing to have a Black president. I was wrong--he was a disappointment. I didn't vote for him because of his lack of qualifications and support of policies I did not like, and he lived up to my expectations. If he had performed as he spoke at that speech in 2004, I would have been pleased. He did not.

+1,000,000