View Poll Results: Who's your pick to beat Trump:
Gabbard 9 8.65%
Gillibrand 4 3.85%
Harris 46 44.23%
Klobuchar 4 3.85%
Warren 41 39.42%
Voters: 104. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-02-2019, 09:40 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,093

Which female candidate is your choice to beat Trump?


Let's say all of the male candidates for president die in a tragic campaign bus accident in rural Iowa tonight (I mean, holy shit, what are the odds they were all at the same poorly-lit intersection at the exact same time?!), and the only remaining candidates are Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren. Marianne Williamson was out licking crystals in a teepee in the dessert and died when one got lodged in her windpipe, so she's out too.

Which of them would you pick as having the best chance for beating Trump? I'm going to put up a poll in a minute, but I'm also interested in comments as to why you picked who you picked, and also who you think would be the perfect running mate for your nominee.
  #2  
Old 07-02-2019, 10:32 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 216
I voted for Gabbard. She is a bit of a nutjob and possibly a Russian plant, but in a general election against Trump she would beat him handily. She is a young, photogenic veteran and political outsider who would attract Never-Trump Republicans, low-information Independents and disaffected Bernie voters, alonside the roughly 40% of voters who will vote for anyone with a "D" next to their name.

Not my ideal female candidate- that would be Liz Warren. I just don't see how she's able to beat Trump. He would just call her Pocohantas every day until most American voters see her as just another Rachel Dolezal.

Gillibrand has the voice of squeeky preteen girl and to the average voter that sounds like nails on a chalkboard. She wants to be the #MeToo candidate, but there is already a backlash against that movement and it's a bit of a joke these days.

Klobuchar would make a fine Republican candidate for president. The Dems should nominate her if they really want to increase the Green Party's vote share to historic levels on Election Day.

If Kamala Harris wants to make the election about reparations, forced busing and eliminating private health insurance, then she'd probably be beaten by Trump the worst out of all of them.

TBH, if you had included Williamson in the poll, I'd probably choose here. You think her legion of devoted fans is insignificant? These people are in every state and they are mostly suburban moms who vote often and influence others to do the same. And while the mainstream media may consider her a bit of a joke, she became a viral sensation on social media after the debates. That's valuable. She'd also have the backing of her big shot friends like Oprah, Gwyneth Paltrow and the Kardashians. She is basically a leftwing Trump, and while that is certainly awful, in this day and age it might be a selling point.

Last edited by pjacks; 07-02-2019 at 10:35 AM.
  #3  
Old 07-02-2019, 10:38 AM
blindboyard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Newark
Posts: 2,199
I would also choose Williamson. It's possible she's antivax, but when she speaks i feel so motivated.

I chose Gabbard. Too obscure to have a chance now, but against those women, with a smaller pool of candidates, she's the man.
__________________
This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organizing genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time.
-- Nye Bevan, Daily Herald, 25 May 1945
  #4  
Old 07-02-2019, 11:07 AM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,535
Honestly, for me all five have merit, but I'll I'll go with Harris as a narrow favorite over Warren. She's the right age, seems to have a sharp, analytical mind, probably is the best speaker of the bunch, has a policy record that I can mostly support, and can at least simulate empathy effectively, which is certainly more than one can say for our beloved current President.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks
If Kamala Harris wants to make the election about reparations, forced busing and eliminating private health insurance, then she'd probably be beaten by Trump the worst out of all of them.
Agreed, but I suspect those positions will 'evolve' a bit as primary season grinds on.

Last edited by El_Kabong; 07-02-2019 at 11:09 AM.
  #5  
Old 07-02-2019, 11:30 AM
Twoflower's Avatar
Twoflower is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: South Oregon
Posts: 1,413
Warren and Harris are my favorites regardless of what happens at a poorly-lit intersection in Iowa. I'd pick Warren first, but I think Harris will be a stronger candidate again Trump, so she gets my vote in this poll.
  #6  
Old 07-02-2019, 11:53 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twoflower View Post
Warren and Harris are my favorites regardless of what happens at a poorly-lit intersection in Iowa. I'd pick Warren first, but I think Harris will be a stronger candidate again Trump, so she gets my vote in this poll.
They're my two favorites too. I'd really like Warren to be President, but like you, I suspect Harris might be the more deadly candidate against Trump.

I'm thinking a Harris/Castro ticket might be the perfect Dem ticket.
  #7  
Old 07-02-2019, 12:24 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,098
I'm only familiar with Warren and Harris. I would not vote for either of them, so it's either write myself in or go third party.
  #8  
Old 07-02-2019, 10:57 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,485
Best chance of beating Trump? I think Harris, barely, followed by a tie between Warren and Klobuchar.

If the question were my favorite candidate, I would have said Warren (barely), followed by a tie between Harris and Klobuchar.
  #9  
Old 07-02-2019, 11:15 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,884
I'd go with Gillibrand; she seems to be the likeliest to have a foreign policy, having previously lived and worked abroad. All the other Democratic female candidates seem to be entirely 100% about domestic policy.
  #10  
Old 07-02-2019, 11:30 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
...I'm thinking a Harris/Castro ticket might be the perfect Dem ticket.
I am leaning in the same direction.
  #11  
Old 07-02-2019, 11:49 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,774
It's funny how Warren is leading the poll yet I'm the first poster in the thread to actually say Warren is (definitely) my top pick. I interpreted this poll to be asking who *my* choice would be among the female candidates to beat Trump. I didnt take it to mean who i thought was most likely. I love Elizabeth Warren. By *far* the most substantively solid, policy oriented candidate.

ETA: ugh. Thats what i get for skimming the OP. I guess i need to change my vote to Harris.

Last edited by Ambivalid; 07-02-2019 at 11:52 PM.
  #12  
Old 07-03-2019, 12:28 AM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
If Kamala Harris wants to make the election about reparations, forced busing and eliminating private health insurance, then she'd probably be beaten by Trump the worst out of all of them.
This is not an accurate description of her campaign's central message. It may be a right wing misinformation claim, but it is not an actual fact.
  #13  
Old 07-03-2019, 12:31 AM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
I'd recommend taking a look at this when deciding which candidate best serves your interests;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...ary_candidates
  #14  
Old 07-03-2019, 02:11 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,512
I dunno. Which one of them has the best upper body strength?
  #15  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:12 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
I dunno. Which one of them has the best upper body strength?
  #16  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:26 AM
panache45's Avatar
panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 45,383
Warren comes across (at least to me) as very angry. That may do well in the primaries, but in the general election that would turn off a lot of voters.
  #17  
Old 07-03-2019, 07:29 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,620
None of them have much chance against Trump, but Harris is black and might get more black turnout. OTOH she would spend a lot of campaign time backing away from whatever she said earlier, as in the "when I said Yes I would eliminate private insurance I didn't understand the question" and "why didn't you support forced busing" that are her break-out moments so far.

No matter who she picks for a running mate, it won't help. So she might as well swing for the fences and pick somebody like Tammy Duckworth.

Regards,
Shodan
  #18  
Old 07-03-2019, 08:26 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
This is not an accurate description of her campaign's central message. It may be a right wing misinformation claim, but it is not an actual fact.
So? That will be the exact misinformation campaign that will be used by Republicans/Russia/Facebook trolls/Twitter bots during the general election, and she is frankly making their jobs easy lately.

Last edited by pjacks; 07-03-2019 at 08:28 AM.
  #19  
Old 07-03-2019, 08:33 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I'm thinking a Harris/Castro ticket might be the perfect Dem ticket.
This is craziness to me. Doubling down on identity politics against Trump of all people is the worst strategy imaginable. Yes, 2 white people on a Democratic ticket is too many, but none at all is suicide.

Harris/Buttitieg or Warren/Castro would be much more palatable to the average white voter.

Last edited by pjacks; 07-03-2019 at 08:34 AM.
  #20  
Old 07-03-2019, 09:20 AM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,455
I don’t see Warren beating Trump. Gillibrand would have an uphill battle under the best of circumstances, and being at one percent in the polls is not the best of circumstances. Gabbard—just plain No.

I think either Harris or Klobuchar could beat him. I lean to Klobuchar, though I’m not sure how she gets out of the primaries... among other things she has a deft and pointed sense of humor which I think he’d have a hard time dealing with.
  #21  
Old 07-03-2019, 09:50 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,425
Harris by far and away. Warren just sounds too preachy. She's like the kid in class who has her hand up and answers every question to show us how smart she is. I think Harris has a much higher probability of being liked by the voters. I put stock in the "who would you rather have a beer with?" theory. Gillibrand left a sour taste in my mouth for pushing Franken out the door and Klobuchar is nice enough but I don't think tough enough to take on Donald. I can see Harris loading up for bear against Donald to a much greater degree than she did against Biden. She'll bring up the rape charge, the treatment of migrants, his fellating of Putin and Kim, all that stuff. She will come to kick ass and chew bubblegum.
  #22  
Old 07-03-2019, 10:27 AM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
... Gillibrand left a sour taste in my mouth for pushing Franken out the door ....
I see this sort of thing a lot, often from people who then express their support for Warren or occasionally Harris. The odd thing is that both of these senators quickly fell in line behind Gillibrand in calling for Frankenís resignation (as did, I believe, both Sanders and Booker). Yet somehow the blame is on Gillibrand alone. I donít get it.
  #23  
Old 07-03-2019, 10:42 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
This is craziness to me. Doubling down on identity politics against Trump of all people is the worst strategy imaginable. Yes, 2 white people on a Democratic ticket is too many, but none at all is suicide.

Harris/Buttitieg or Warren/Castro would be much more palatable to the average white voter.
We don't want the average white voter. We want to maximize turnout of people who will vote Democratic. Our base is bigger than their base, but our base is younger, more diverse, and includes way more intermittent voters.

Sure, a Harris/Castro ticket would lose us a few steelworkers in Ohio. (But wait, aren't those guys being told by the GOP that Harris is really white anyway?) It would also turn out a shitload more LatinX voters than usual, and boost African-American turnout as well. The college-educated whites that have increasingly moved into the Dem column (as the GOP has increasingly rejected the very notion that knowledge is good) by and large won't care that there isn't a white guy on the ticket.

That ticket would kick Trump's sorry ass.
  #24  
Old 07-03-2019, 11:09 AM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
This is craziness to me. Doubling down on identity politics against Trump of all people is the worst strategy imaginable. Yes, 2 white people on a Democratic ticket is too many, but none at all is suicide.

Harris/Buttitieg or Warren/Castro would be much more palatable to the average white voter.
You realize that Republicans are just as much based on "identity politics", don't you?
  #25  
Old 07-03-2019, 11:11 AM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post

That ticket would kick Trump's sorry ass.
That's what pretty much everybody thought about Hillary, too.
  #26  
Old 07-03-2019, 11:11 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulf the Unwashed View Post
I see this sort of thing a lot, often from people who then express their support for Warren or occasionally Harris. The odd thing is that both of these senators quickly fell in line behind Gillibrand in calling for Frankenís resignation (as did, I believe, both Sanders and Booker). Yet somehow the blame is on Gillibrand alone. I donít get it.
As I recall, she was the one that pushed the snowball down the mountain. Others joined in, but after it was already proceeding downhill.
  #27  
Old 07-03-2019, 11:29 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
We don't want the average white voter. We want to maximize turnout of people who will vote Democratic. Our base is bigger than their base, but our base is younger, more diverse, and includes way more intermittent voters.

Sure, a Harris/Castro ticket would lose us a few steelworkers in Ohio. (But wait, aren't those guys being told by the GOP that Harris is really white anyway?) It would also turn out a shitload more LatinX voters than usual, and boost African-American turnout as well. The college-educated whites that have increasingly moved into the Dem column (as the GOP has increasingly rejected the very notion that knowledge is good) by and large won't care that there isn't a white guy on the ticket.

That ticket would kick Trump's sorry ass.
I don't believe this for a second. Not only would you lose the rust belt, but you would endanger the Dem chances in purple states like Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia. Arizona, Georgia and Florida would be lost causes. But hey, maybe you'd still win the popular vote without an EC victory by boosting your margins in California, New York and Illinois- wonderful!
People have been trying to boost Latino turnout for years, and it never works. Trump got more Latino support than Romney anyway, and his approval rating among that demo isn't that much worse than the average Republican's. Relying on black turnout is also a fool's errand. They are around 13% of the population and clustered in states that are either safely blue already or stifled by voter suppression. Anyway, if the Democrats can't win a national election without somehow juicing massive turnout from a tiny demographic that already supports them by over 80%, then they are an unhealthy, obsolete political party. Something has to change. The identity politics game has run its course. Trump and the Republicans have weaponized white identity politics, and that will currently beat whatever group Democrats may cobble together.
The Democrats had a decent midterm in the House by not focusing on identity politics. The economy and healthcafe are what people care about.
  #28  
Old 07-03-2019, 11:32 AM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
You realize that Republicans are just as much based on "identity politics", don't you?
As is Bernie Sanders.

Yes, kids, ďstraight white menĒ is an identity too.
  #29  
Old 07-03-2019, 11:37 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
You realize that Republicans are just as much based on "identity politics", don't you?
No shit- and when Republicans succeed in making white voters think that they are on their side, Democrats lose. The easiest way to make the case for them is to run a ticket without a white person on it.

I was actually flabbergasted when HRC chose Kaine as her running mate. A PoC would have been a far more sound selection, and may have helped in a few states that went red. But the inverse is true too- a nominee like Harris, Booker or Castro would be wise to pick a white running mate, like Obama did. He certainly wouldn't have won states like Indiana, Virginia or Ohio without one.

Last edited by pjacks; 07-03-2019 at 11:37 AM.
  #30  
Old 07-03-2019, 12:04 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
That's what pretty much everybody thought about Hillary, too.
Good point. I don't recall any Democrats at all in 2016 suggesting that any other candidate might be more electable than Hillary.
  #31  
Old 07-03-2019, 12:08 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,371
Anyway, to the OP, Gillebrand and Gabbard clearly aren't going anywhere, Klobuchar can't win the primary (thank Og), and Warren can't win the general. Gotta be Kamala.
  #32  
Old 07-03-2019, 08:33 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
If Kamala Harris wants to make the election about reparations, forced busing and eliminating private health insurance, then she'd probably be beaten by Trump the worst out of all of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
So? That will be the exact misinformation campaign that will be used by Republicans/Russia/Facebook trolls/Twitter bots during the general election, and she is frankly making their jobs easy lately.
...if you participate in the exact same exact misinformation campaign that will be used by Republicans/Russia/Facebook trolls/Twitter bots during the general election, and if you repeat the exact same exact misinformation that will be used by Republicans/Russia/Facebook trolls/Twitter bots during the general election, it becomes indistinguishable from the misinformation campaign that will be used by Republicans/Russia/Facebook trolls/Twitter bots during the general election. You become part of that campaign.

So stop doing that already.
  #33  
Old 07-04-2019, 12:48 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
We don't want the average white voter. We want to maximize turnout of people who will vote Democratic. Our base is bigger than their base, but our base is younger, more diverse, and includes way more intermittent voters.

Sure, a Harris/Castro ticket would lose us a few steelworkers in Ohio. (But wait, aren't those guys being told by the GOP that Harris is really white anyway?) It would also turn out a shitload more LatinX voters than usual, and boost African-American turnout as well.
The people who don't know what "LatinX" means are the voters we desperately need to flip.
  #34  
Old 07-04-2019, 08:17 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
I voted for Gabbard. She is a bit of a nutjob and possibly a Russian plant, but in a general election against Trump she would beat him handily. She is a young, photogenic veteran and political outsider who would attract Never-Trump Republicans, low-information Independents and disaffected Bernie voters, alonside the roughly 40% of voters who will vote for anyone with a "D" next to their name.
I feel like you kinda yadda, yadda, yaddaed over some important issues here. She may be a Russian plant, but yadda, yadda, yadda, photogenic?
  #35  
Old 07-04-2019, 08:54 AM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
I feel like you kinda yadda, yadda, yaddaed over some important issues here. She may be a Russian plant, but yadda, yadda, yadda, photogenic?
I like the phrase "yadda, yadda, yaddaed." You're right, of course.

Not only that, but the "political outsider" claim in pjacks's post is quite peculiar. Gabbard's a US House member who despite her youth is already in her fourth term in Congress. She was elected to the state House at the age of 21. She was chosen to serve as vice chair of the DNC. She comes from an intensely political family. In short, she is in no sense whatever a "political outsider." Marianne Williamson is a political outsider. Andrew Yang is a political outsider. Gabbard? Just the opposite.

BobLibDem -- You're correct that Gillibrand was the instigator of the get-Franken-out-of-the-Senate push. If you think that Franken should have remained a senator, then it makes sense that she should get the brunt of your anger. But if it had just been Gillibrand, her efforts never would have gone anywhere: one lone senator crying in the wind doesn't get things done. It was the support offered her by Warren and Sanders and Booker and Harris (and others) that ultimately led to Franken's resignation. I'm just intrigued that I've heard at least a dozen people say they'll never vote for Gillibrand because of the Franken issue, but I have literally never heard anyone criticize any of these other folks for following along.

(Besides which, "It was Kirsten's idea to get drunk/go joyriding/vandalize the statue/cheat on the test; I just went along for the ride" isn't the kind of explanation that tends to be viewed as principled or ennobling. Again, I'm intrigued that the non-Gillibrands aren't even being asked to provide this excuse.)
  #36  
Old 07-04-2019, 10:08 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
I feel like you kinda yadda, yadda, yaddaed over some important issues here. She may be a Russian plant, but yadda, yadda, yadda, photogenic?
I assumed this was a poll about which female candidate would be most likely to beat Trump. Basically, if I were an omnipotent being who could magically place any current female candidate in the role of Democratic nominee, based solely on their electability vs. Trump, who would it be.
In that case, it's Gabbard. I don't like her- she is a member of a creepy cult and has an anti-LGBT record that would make the average Republican blush. Out of the female candidates she is probably my last choice to vote for. However, the Russian ties are probably an asset. Russia has propped up candidates in elections before- often on both sides to mantain an illusion of choice- and they would definitely tip the scales for Gabbard to get Democrats off their backs during the next administration. That, and the other reasons I mentioned, are why she'd have the best chance against Trump in this hypothetical and unlikely world where she became the Dem nominee.
A lot of people are just voting for their favorite female candidate, it seems. How boring... or perhaps I misunderstood the poll.
  #37  
Old 07-04-2019, 10:20 AM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,584
I want it to be Warren. It's likely to be Harris.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #38  
Old 07-04-2019, 11:22 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I want it to be Warren. It's likely to be Harris.
Seconded, though with the caveat that we are talking specifically about female candidates. I think it is actually likely to be Biden.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #39  
Old 07-04-2019, 10:20 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,821
Warren is a strong candidate in a lot of ways, so I picked her. Not so much because she is "strong against Trump" but because she has a serious following.

If I'm picking someone just to fight Trump, maybe Gillibrand, to whom he has been particularly vile. But look, he's going to be awful to any one of them.

I like Gabbard a lot; thought about her. She is a veteran, maybe she can beat up on him from that angle. But if you're looking for a veteran to throw down with him, maybe Tammy Duckworth would make more sense.
  #40  
Old 07-07-2019, 11:43 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,093
I still haven't voted in the poll yet, but my two favorites are Harris and Warren. I'm on the verge of pushing the button for Harris at this point for two reasons: I think there are better options for running mates available to her, and she's just got more swagger.

As far as running mates for Harris go: Buttigieg would be a solid pick, as would a career military guy (McRaven, Stavridis). There are also a couple of really-outside-the-box picks I wouldn't mind seeing: former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (an impossible long-shot, I know. But damned if Harris-Trumka wouldn't be a killer ticket).

I don't see as many winning running mate options out there for Warren, even though I personally like her better. I would think it would need to be a male and a person of color. But who is there? Booker? Anthony Foxx? Julian Castro? Andrew Gillum? Luis Gutierrez? I just don't see anyone that could make it a real solid ticket for voters in the Industrial Midwest.

Personality-wise: Harris has a swagger Warren doesn't, and you can't underestimate swagger in these things. Trump (God help me) had more swagger than Hillary. Obama had more swagger than McCain and Romney. W had more than Kerry and Gore. Clinton had more than Dole and HW. I mean, Harris has smoked weed, listens to Tupac, has thrown some motherfuckers in jail over the years, is pretty damned impressive on the mic. At the end of the day, it kinda is just a big ol' popularity contest, and I think Harris has the potential to be more popular than Trump, but not Warren. I do wish Harris would stay away from race issues in this campaign though.

And personally, I think my two-person focus group of Uncle G and Cousin D (briefly described here) would be more likely to vote for Harris than Warren. TBH, an attractive prosecutor from California would get more votes from union halls than an older, frumpy Harvard professor from Massachusetts.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 07-07-2019 at 11:46 PM.
  #41  
Old 07-08-2019, 01:16 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
In that case, it's Gabbard. I don't like her- she is a member of a creepy cult and has an anti-LGBT record that would make the average Republican blush.
A creepy cult? I read about the sect of Hinduism that she follows, which is called Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and did not find anything that seemed either creepy or like a cult. Different from most Americans' religion, yes, but not in a way that rates anything more than "exotic."
  #42  
Old 07-08-2019, 03:12 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 269
Of the female candidates I think Gabbard has the best chance. Progressives complain about her but, if the other choice is Trump, they’re not going to stay home. They’ll vote for her in droves.

As far as I can tell, progressive distaste for Gabbard is based on two things: Gay rights and Syria. Gabbard has repeatedly walked back her prior opposition to gay marriage. Officially, she’s been pro-gay marriage since 2012, same as Hillary Clinton. As for Syria, my understanding of Gabbard’s position is that, while Assad may be evil, the Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels are even worse, and if the Russians want that shithole then they’re welcome to it. I’ve heard people on the progressive left characterise this as “cozying up to dictators”, but I can’t figure out why, if Gabbard’s opposition to ousting Assad is “cozying up to dictators”, opposition to the Iraq war wasn't.

The progressive left’s opposition to Gabbard’s stance on Syria makes little sense to me. Based on what I’ve read, Gabbard’s position on Syria is one which a lot of people in the centre and on the right agree with. And given that progressives will vote for her anyway if it comes down to it, I think her stance on Syria is a net positive.

Plus, much, much more importantly, she’s charismatic and comes off better on camera than Donald Trump.

The only other female candidate who could beat Trump is Harris. I’m basing this purely on how well she comes across on screen. However, IMO, Gabbard comes across better so I’m voting for her.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 07-08-2019 at 03:14 AM.
  #43  
Old 07-08-2019, 04:53 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,455
I would say running an avowed non-Christian is a bad idea. Trump isn't actually a Christian, of course, but he paid lip service, and that combined with Pence was enough for many evangelicals. Sure, most of them voted on abortion, but I genuinely think that pointing out that they could at least vote for a Christian this time would be helpful.

(Then again, I tried pointing out that Clinton had taught a Sunday School class, and that didn't help.)
  #44  
Old 07-08-2019, 10:45 AM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,455
I think there are more Gabbard supporters on this board than there are in real life.

I do want to say that a comparison of Gabbard to Hillary Clinton on LGTBQ issues is really not valid. While it's certainly true that Clinton, like the great bulk of other prominent Democrats, did not support marriage equality until relatively recently, there's a big difference between "not in favor of marriage equality" and Gabbard's history of homophobia, which includes support of conversion therapy, complaints about gay people "forcing their agenda down our throats in schools," and sounding the alarm about "homosexual extremists." All of which are part of Gabbard's record within the last two decades, in some cases considerably more recent, and do set her apart from the bulk of other prominent Democratic politicos. I've never seen these perspectives from Clinton, or Obama, or most other Democratic leaders who came relatively late to the marriage-equality party. (But if you have a quote from HRC that denigrates gay people, Gabbard-style, I'd be interested in seeing it.) Yes, Gabbard says she's changed on these issues, and I give her credit for that. But I'd rather have a candidate who didn't need to pivot from such intense hostility, thanks.

And I know I've said this before...but to my eyes and ears Tulsi Gabbard is not at all charismatic. I don't know, maybe I have her mixed up with somebody else . Or maybe there's some website out there encouraging readers to go onto message boards and talk up her supposed charisma. One of those, because I sure ain;t seeing it!
  #45  
Old 07-08-2019, 04:48 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,439
It has to be either Harris or Warren. Klobuchar and Gillibrand just aren't getting much attention at all, and Gabbard is getting plenty of attention, but most of it is of the "Hell no" variety.

And of those two, I think that Harris is doing the better job of preventing the Republicans from defining her, which is going to be key. So I picked Harris.
  #46  
Old 07-08-2019, 04:59 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,342
Since only Harris and Warren are generating any kind of buzz at all, and since Trump has already branded Warren, at this point I'd say Harris.

Ask me again tomorrow.
  #47  
Old 07-08-2019, 07:53 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,774
For those saying Gabbard has the best shot, I have a question: where are you getting your drugs and can I have some?
  #48  
Old 07-08-2019, 10:39 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,593
What people tend to overlook about Harris is that she is obviously really, really good at competing in political campaigns. She has won statewide races in California; other female candidates have not. It's also quite clear that she has run a disciplined and methodical presidential campaign - arguably the most impressive so far of any candidate, moving from fourth or fifth place in the polls to a virtual tie with a formidable front runner.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017