Amazing how things can change in a month! Franken is now politically dead and should step down. But I agree he was a hope type.
With just 15 of 50 governors being Democratic, I think its telling.
Voters had had it with high taxes to support a human Democratic system of fat retired cats and wasteful spending and are voting for the lower tax, better business type of governors.
Jerry Brown did run for President and was a bit of a fly in Bill Clinton’s ointment, but he’s 79 years old now.
It might be premature, or it might not be, to talk of 2020, but I think you’re going to keep hearing more about Rep. Seth Moulton of North Shore Massachusetts. Harvard grad, 4 tours in Iraq with the Marines, progressive but hard to simply denounce (although they would, of course, try).
4 tours in Iraq is good for grabbing many independent voters, especially the ex-republican ones like me. He will have push back from the liberal side of the Dems as he supports the expansion of nuclear energy and he will have issues with the powerful gun lobby as he can be painted as anti-gun even though he really is not.
Who was the last Congressman to go directly to President? James Garfield is the only one I am aware of.
Trump could claim that he suddenly now DOES prefer guys who were captured, and since this guy was never a POW, he’s not a real hero and his military experience doesn’t mean much.
His Wikipedia page says he supports assault weapon bans, adopting the position of “no civilian should be allowed to own military-style weapons”. It mentions he wrote an article in the New York Daily News, with a cover “depicting Moulton from his military service during a deployment to Iraq, carrying an issued M4 carbine. The gun in the picture has never been legal for civilians to own due to the “Hughes Amendment” in 1986.” It seems like a meaningless quibble to a lot of people. But it would absolutely be spun by the pro-gun people as evidence that Moulton is an “anti-gun guy.”
In point of fact, he’s only anti one kind of gun. But I think a lot of Democrats really don’t understand how popular that gun is, and how beloved it is by shooters. The AR-15, for better or worse, is the face of the Second Amendment today. I wish the Democrats would stop openly advocating against it so much. Hell, if they want to try to restrict it, in practice, once elected, that’s their prerogative, but they shouldn’t campaign on it as if it’s some appealing thing for voters. Nobody is going to say, “hey, you know, the Democratic candidate isn’t sufficiently opposed to assault weapons, so I think I’m going to vote for Donald Trump.” Not a single fucking person thinks this way. But I think there ARE fence-sitters who care a lot about guns, who would gladly pull the lever for a Marine Corps veteran over Trump, but who would be deterred by Moulton’s position on AR-15s.
+1
Which is it? You say they vote for the lower tax, better business type of governors, but you also say that they mostly vote for Republicans.
Actually there are a lot of voters who think stronlgly about some sort of gun control. In general, the electorate is pretty evenly divied. The difference being that on the Gun side, there are a good number of single issue voters- *all of whom will vote 100% GOP no matter what. *
I know a guy, used to be quite liberal. He became a sinlge issue voter. Now he tosses casually around phrase like “the Muslim in Chief” and what a great Job Trump has done reducing the National Debt. :rolleyes:
I dont think there is any use in the Dems chasing the “gun nut” vote.
I’m just not sure we know this to be true. I’m not saying it IS or it ISN’T, I seriously don’t know. My inclination is to think that there are actually a large number of people for whom guns are very important who, if their choice was between Donald Trump and Jim Webb, (who is a former Marine and Vietnam veteran and who had explicitly PRO-gun positions) would have voted for Webb. But Webb never could have gotten the nomination in the first place. He dropped out after the first debate.
So I posted that on 11/12, almost a month ago. Franken is out, obvs. And I think Garcetti at the top of the ticket isn’t as appealing to me as it was a month ago either. Also, Biden is just too old. My whole list is gone!
I’ve been doing some poking around and reading posts in this thread, and I’ve got some new ideas/questions:
Tom Wolf on paper seems ideal. He’s from a swing/rust belt state, he’s liberal, he’s got executive and business experience. Why isn’t he getting more attention? Or is he?
Jay Inslee also seems like a real solid choice, depending on who he might tap as a running mate. I think he’d definitely need the assistance of a vet and a midwesterner and a moderate (Duckworth!) How is he as a campaigner?
Steve Bullock also seems like a solid choice, being as popular as he is from a red state.
Seth Moulton, as mentioned by ElvisL1ves, also seems promising, possibly as a veep pick at this point. Although, white male progressive vet does sound like a safe and sound choice against the trolls that put Trump into place. Just wish he had either swing/rustbelt state or executive experience on his resume.
So my updated list (with Richard Trumka still leading the way):
Richard Trumka-Tammy Duckworth
Tom Wolf-Tammy Duckworth
Steve Bullock-Tammy Duckworth (not necessarily exciting for the far left, but could grab a lot of burnt Trump voters, moderates and maybe even some Republicans)
Tom Wolf-Eric Garcetti
Cory Booker-Seth Moulten (diversity + white guy, executive experience + vet, both fairly liberal)
Jay Inslee-Tammy Duckworth
Tom Wolf-Seth Moulton
Seth Moulton-Tammy Duckworth (vets all around! mix of progressive-moderate, midwest bona fides with TD, but alas no executive experience)
Any of those stick out as potential trainwrecks or winners?
I see nothing in Wolf, Bullock, or Inslee that would suggest to me that they have what it takes to capture the imagination of America. That is what the Democratic candidate needs to do. We need someone who can generate the same excitement that Obama did. We need that very badly.
I like Booker a lot. Booker-Moulton could work.
There’s a part of me that thinks America will be hungry for a return to normalcy by 2020. We got our imaginations captured (well, not all of us) in 2016, and I think there’s some regret-- either about voting for Trump or sitting the election out.
I also think the Racist Trolls of the Patriarchy (RTP) have gotten really good at vilifying anyone that isn’t a white dude, so perhaps we should just put a white dude at the top of the ticket, and diversify the ticket with a woman/person of color as a running mate. I don’t know if 2020 is the year to throw a Tammy Baldwin or Elizabeth Warren or even necessarily a Cory Booker out there at the top. I do think Booker could do well, that’s why he’s on my list, but my gut says to take away the RTP’s weapons of mass destruction-- racism and sexism.
Now I don’t know anything about Wolf’s, Inslee’s or Bullock’s personalities or campaign styles, so if anyone could enlighten me on how they might do with a broad audience…
ETA: Just watched snipets from a couple Inslee speeches…seems “normal.” Nothing flashy, but maybe he could be groomed?
ETA: Just watched some Wolf stuff: Total snoozefest. that’s unfortunate.
I really try to avoid judging people by their appearance, but one look at the guy (I had to look him up) and I could have predicted that.
I think it’s a mistake to focus on race, although there do seem to be advantages for Democrats in a black candidate. Black voters will probably turn out for a black candidate and black voter turnout decides a lot of important states. Women and Latinos don’t really help as much.
But the problem with Clinton wasn’t the fact she was female, it was that she was a perfect foil for Trump’s antics. She was a politician-y as they come and her responses to Trump were focus grouped and polled to death and she didn’t have the authenticity to respond to Trump like an actual human being. Put someone against Trump with his level of fire and you’ll get a different result.
If there are no promising newcomers the Democrats could always try an old retread (other than Clinton). What are Al Gore and John Kerry doing these days?
“If” there are no promising newcomers? There ARE promising newcomers. We’ve been discussing them in this very thread. The Democratic Party leadership needs to be coordinating and strategizing with these people right now. The Democratic primary should have a deep bench of young blood, and the voters will choose the one who can best stomp Trump’s ass in 2020. Al Gore and John Kerry are not feasible candidates to defeat Trump, in any way, shape, or form. Both of them lost to fucking George W. Bush, for fuck’s sake.
I’ll have to reread the thread more closely. Other than Cory Booker it seems most of the people being mentioned are other old folks (Jerry Brown, Joe Biden), people who have since disqualified themselves (Al Franken), or people who have already announced that they don’t want to run but who are still being mentioned as possibilities (Elizabeth Warren).
Gov. Cuomo should be a possibility.
They are already talking about Kasich/ Hickenlooper, among themselves.