Which Dem can win general election in 2020?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beto-Klobuchar (either one could head a ticket and win independents).

I like Kamala Harris, but recognize that a non-white woman candidate may be too much for the Trumpy side of the country. Tammy Duckworth has been quiet lately, but I love her too.

Klobuchar will top the ticket. She kicked ass in rural Minnesota yesterday, is midwestern nice but firm and strong, and she was the standout democrat in the Kavanaugh hearings.

I thought she appeared weak with the way she bit her lips and let Kavanaugh steamroll her. She did have a nice come back at the end though ... "I don't have a drinking problem."

[Anonymous]

Amy Klobuchar. Just look at those numbers in Minnesota - she won 60-36 yesterday. This in a state that Hillary only won 46-45.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm flippantly calling her a girl to underscore my frustration with our misogynistic society.

Question: are your liberal friends who say America isn't ready for a female president women? Because...no offense, Buddy...us girls have a better sense of how America treats women than our male counterparts.

And yes, everyone realizes that HRC was far from the perfect candidate. But does that mean she should lose to Trump? Because, that's what happened. And you should ask yourself why that happened.

Nikki Haley??? Wowza.

PP here. Do you actually think I'm a man because I spoke the truth about why HRC lost? Sorry, no. I'm a woman and frankly, every woman I know - regardless of political affiliation - agrees that she lost due to her own failures, not due to her gender. I think it's convenient for liberals to blame her loss on "sexism" because then you can continue putting anyone and everyone who didn't vote for her into your convenient little boxes of "racists" and "sexists". Anything to promote your narrative that those who don't march in lockstep with liberals, in every way, are "Nazis". This is why no one takes you seriously anymore.

Should she have lost to Trump? Doesn't really matter - she *did* lose to him. Yet none of you are willing to examine why that might be, and instead blame it on every possible excuse, other than squarely on her own shoulders - and those of you who, along with her, smugly believe you know what's good for the rest of the country. Hasn't it occurred to you yet that you were wrong? Very, very wrong?

And as for those I was referring to who claim America "isn't ready" for a female president - I'm talking about the many far-left liberals who populate this site. Not anyone I know IRL. It seems only here in DCUM-land are liberals so sure of themselves that they truly believe they know how the rest of the country is going to vote and why. The hubris scale here is off the charts.

You have quite a bit of hubris yourself.

I know many women who think she lost because of sexism. Not SOLELY because of it, but it's part of the equation. There are lots of reasons. She lost by about 80,000 votes in 3 states that skew to older blue collar workers. Is it so hard to believe that 100,000 old white male factory workers out of millions won't vote for a woman? No harder than it is to believe that an extra 80,000 people picked Trump because of his zingy insults, his focus on immigration, his promise to bring back coal, his stupid wall, or that they thought he really was a successful businessman.

And then there are the 130,000 far left loonies who vote for Jill Stein. Obviously not sexist if they voted for another woman, and not Trump fans, so they must have really hated Hillary. We can add in a lot of other Hillary weaknesses if you like. She has plenty. I am sure that there are at least a few thousand voters in each of those states that were concerned about each of them. But surely there are at least a few thousand real sexists that wouldn't vote for a woman.

If a tiny number of people in 3 states had voted differently, we'd be having a very different conversation today.

Sexism had nothing to do with HRC losing. She received more votes even. She wrote off those factory workers you mentioned in those states. That is why the older factory worker didn't vote for her. So by your estimation 100,000 old white men didn't vote for her because she is a woman. I wonder how many voted for her solely because she is a woman?

Less than the number she needed.

What kind of "woman" smears her husband's rape victims?

One whose husband didn't rape anyone, except in the slimy wet dreams of the right wing smear machine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amy Klobuchar. Just look at those numbers in Minnesota - she won 60-36 yesterday. This in a state that Hillary only won 46-45.

That’s what I’m talking about!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beto-Klobuchar (either one could head a ticket and win independents).

I like Kamala Harris, but recognize that a non-white woman candidate may be too much for the Trumpy side of the country. Tammy Duckworth has been quiet lately, but I love her too.

Klobuchar will top the ticket. She kicked ass in rural Minnesota yesterday, is midwestern nice but firm and strong, and she was the standout democrat in the Kavanaugh hearings.

Klobuchar did a fine job, for the most part, during the Kavenaugh hearings, but she did not stand up to Kavenaugh when he was at his most obnoxious when being questioned by Klobuchar ('Do you drink, Senator?'). That was totally unexpected, but the President has to be handle those types of curveballs, especially in this type of toxic environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beto-Klobuchar (either one could head a ticket and win independents).

I like Kamala Harris, but recognize that a non-white woman candidate may be too much for the Trumpy side of the country. Tammy Duckworth has been quiet lately, but I love her too.

Klobuchar will top the ticket. She kicked ass in rural Minnesota yesterday, is midwestern nice but firm and strong, and she was the standout democrat in the Kavanaugh hearings.

Klobuchar did a fine job, for the most part, during the Kavenaugh hearings, but she did not stand up to Kavenaugh when he was at his most obnoxious when being questioned by Klobuchar ('Do you drink, Senator?'). That was totally unexpected, but the President has to be handle those types of curveballs, especially in this type of toxic environment.

Umm...you're suggesting that Americans want a President to "stand up" to Kavanaugh. Judging by last night's returns, that is not the case.

[Anonymous]

Well, all I can tell you is that others perceived it differently, and she just crushed it in a very white and rural state. She is carefully laying the groundwork and building a lot of goodwill and support, but not in a flashy, Cory Booker type of way.

I’m a Gillibrand and Harris and Duckworth fan too.

[Anonymous]

Keep it up, 15:14! Keep that Hillary hate alive. It’s working out for you guys!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, all I can tell you is that others perceived it differently, and she just crushed it in a very white and rural state. She is carefully laying the groundwork and building a lot of goodwill and support, but not in a flashy, Cory Booker type of way.

I’m a Gillibrand and Harris and Duckworth fan too.

I'm fine with that. It's just that men interrupting and talking over women really gets under my skin. She seems like a good candidate. I'm excited that there are a number of promising candidates for 2020 and look forward to the primary run up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, all I can tell you is that others perceived it differently, and she just crushed it in a very white and rural state. She is carefully laying the groundwork and building a lot of goodwill and support, but not in a flashy, Cory Booker type of way.

I’m a Gillibrand and Harris and Duckworth fan too.

I cannot see Gillibrand being remotely successful with the general electorate. Harris, probably not. Duckworth is a possibility. Klobuchar as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, all I can tell you is that others perceived it differently, and she just crushed it in a very white and rural state. She is carefully laying the groundwork and building a lot of goodwill and support, but not in a flashy, Cory Booker type of way.

I’m a Gillibrand and Harris and Duckworth fan too.

I'm fine with that. It's just that men interrupting and talking over women really gets under my skin. She seems like a good candidate. I'm excited that there are a number of promising candidates for 2020 and look forward to the primary run up.

I completely agree. But she played it pretty carefully for her constituents. She’s a very substantive person and very likable. The first woman president is going to need to be very likable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, all I can tell you is that others perceived it differently, and she just crushed it in a very white and rural state. She is carefully laying the groundwork and building a lot of goodwill and support, but not in a flashy, Cory Booker type of way.

I’m a Gillibrand and Harris and Duckworth fan too.

I cannot see Gillibrand being remotely successful with the general electorate. Harris, probably not. Duckworth is a possibility. Klobuchar as well.

I love a Gillibrand but you may be right. She’s been pretty skillful so far in NY and has the advantage of having said Bill Clinton should have resigned. That may come in handy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, all I can tell you is that others perceived it differently, and she just crushed it in a very white and rural state. She is carefully laying the groundwork and building a lot of goodwill and support, but not in a flashy, Cory Booker type of way.

I’m a Gillibrand and Harris and Duckworth fan too.

I'm fine with that. It's just that men interrupting and talking over women really gets under my skin. She seems like a good candidate. I'm excited that there are a number of promising candidates for 2020 and look forward to the primary run up.

I completely agree. But she played it pretty carefully for her constituents. She’s a very substantive person and very likable. The first woman president is going to need to be very likable.

Yes! It's a careful threading of the needle to be strong, but not strident and likable but not a pushover. I will fully admit I could never thread that needle and I admire women that pull it off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, all I can tell you is that others perceived it differently, and she just crushed it in a very white and rural state. She is carefully laying the groundwork and building a lot of goodwill and support, but not in a flashy, Cory Booker type of way.

I’m a Gillibrand and Harris and Duckworth fan too.

I cannot see Gillibrand being remotely successful with the general electorate. Harris, probably not. Duckworth is a possibility. Klobuchar as well.

I love a Gillibrand but you may be right. She’s been pretty skillful so far in NY and has the advantage of having said Bill Clinton should have resigned. That may come in handy.

Not really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, all I can tell you is that others perceived it differently, and she just crushed it in a very white and rural state. She is carefully laying the groundwork and building a lot of goodwill and support, but not in a flashy, Cory Booker type of way.

I’m a Gillibrand and Harris and Duckworth fan too.

I cannot see Gillibrand being remotely successful with the general electorate. Harris, probably not. Duckworth is a possibility. Klobuchar as well.

I love a Gillibrand but you may be right. She’s been pretty skillful so far in NY and has the advantage of having said Bill Clinton should have resigned. That may come in handy.

Not really.

Oh, I think it will. This was an Achilles heel for Hillary.