EXCEPT: Who is that white man? Beto? Will lose! Booker? Non-white, also will lose. Bernie? No!! Biden? Maybe, but he’s already aging visibly and will be almost 78 on Election Day. There may be a few males that could win, but I don’t see them in the front-runners lists.
Top contenders for the D’s, especially Amy Klobuchar, happen to be women.
I know what you’re saying, and it doesn’t look good. Yet.
If no winning white male Democratic candidate emerges, we might as well get used to living in thump nation. I don’t like it. I wish it weren’t so, but I do not believe the electorate is mature enough to elect a good candidate who just happens to be a woman. Especially if the Pubbies tamper with the election, which they will surely do. Again. The Electoral College is going to fuck up the election. Again. I hate that that seems to be the case. I hope to God I’m wrong. I would love to be wrong. Seriously.
Please, GOD! PROVE ME WRONG!
I’m not convinced. Clinton was a terrible candidate, and I can think of multiple women right now who are better, and yet Clinton still lost only barely. Do you really think that Klobuchar or Duckworth or Harris can’t do better than Clinton by just a few percentage points in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania?
But this is why it almost has to be a woman.
The President isn’t some foreign prince we contract with to reign over us. We’re not hiring the French-born Jean Bernadotte to leave Italy and establish a Swedish royal house. The President is meant to come from us, to be one of us. That’s the nature of democracy.
The Democratic Party is the party of outsiders and the downtrodden, and of women. It’s the party of feminists. The voting base is mainly women. Telling them that they need to accept white male rule is telling them not to pick someone who really represents them, but an acceptably high-status outsider. Nominating a woman, especially one who has never based her career on her male spouse, is a positive for the base, not a negative.
What makes you so sure of this? Signs are pointing in favor of women Democrats.
ikr
Why are there those who keep repeating this like a thought-stopping cliché? She ran an excellent campaign. If the other side had fought fair instead of sucker-punching her, she would have won EVs by a large margin. Instead of always blaming her, read What Happened and get her side of the story, at least.
Just who is forcing whom, hm? :dubious:
I see things rather drastically different. The Democrats’ odda of winning in 2020 are so overwhelmingly good that they would be cheaping themselves out by going with some centrist candidate against Trump instead of putting all their eggs in a basket with a woman - maybe even a Hispanic woman, to break two ceilings at once.
It would be like being in a situation where you have a 90% chance of winning the lottery. Do you want the jackpot to be a million dollars or a billion?
This is a ludicrous comparison because the situation you’ve described is not possible under any circumstances. Nobody is going to be in a position where they know they have certain favorable odds for winning a lottery. This is like saying “imagine you had X-ray vision and superhuman strength and the ability to travel through time.” An election isn’t a lottery and now is NOT the time for Democrats to fuck around by gambling.
Yeah, Democrats are. But what about those much-coveted people in the middle? Those are the people I worry about with a woman at the top of the ballot. Those middle class/working class “independents” in suburban Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and Florida and Ohio.
My experience in being on the front lines of campaigns (presidential, gubernatorial and local) for 15+ years has brought me to this conclusion: There are more voters (both men and women) who would be against a candidate *because *she’s a woman than there are voters (both men and women) who would be against a candidate *because *he’s a man. I don’t think we’ve moved beyond this baked-in passive sexism just yet, 2016 midterms notwithstanding, and I’m not comfortable with testing that out against this treasonous fucking criminal in 2020.
What I mean is, Democrats are overwhelmingly likely to win in 2020. So they might as well run someone who is deeply liberal, so as to maximize their win’s effect.
I do not agree with you that they are overwhelmingly likely to win. Everyone said Hillary Clinton was overwhelmingly likely to win. Guess what happened?
Their likelihood of winning depends on which candidate they run.
This. We cannot take this election for granted. Now is not the time to take ANY chances.
And yeah, Hillary DID win the popular vote, but it did not get her elected President. I fully expect the Pubbies to tamper with the election in every way possible, legal and illegal. Again. Some states are going to eliminate primaries so thump won’t even have any Republican opponents.
Don’t get cocky, people. This needs to be bulletproof! (So to speak.)
The Blue Wall was not an excellent campaign. She identified a set of states that would guarantee her victory if she won them… and then, instead of making sure that she won them, she ignored them. She wasn’t campaigning to win; she was taking winning for granted, and then campaigning to make her win bigger.
And yes, her campaign, poor as it was, was still enough to get her the majority of the popular vote, and to get her close to winning the electoral vote. That’s not because she was any good. It’s because she was running against Donald Trump. Just how bad a campaigner do you have to be to lose to Donald Trump?
Of course the Republicans didn’t play fair, and turned the full force of their attack machine on her, and so on. They’re going to do that for any Democrat. The candidate we need is one who can withstand that. Clinton was not that candidate.
Holy fuck. Before Thump & crew corrupted and subverted the election process, nobody had ever had to confront such electoral evil on such a massive scale. The full extent of it didn’t become known until after the election. You blame Hillary? but she was the one who stood up and took the slings & arrows and fought back hard. Credit and respect to her.
Ahem.
A “bad candidate” is a candidate who, if selected to fill the position, will NOT perform the functions of the position adequately.
This does not describe Mrs. Clinton. It DOES describe the America-hating fuckstick who WAS selected.
They can always create a lie that will be believed by the people who want to believe a lie.
We’re never going to convert Trump believers. We just need to figure out a way to work around them.
Trump is helping with this. He’s been a disaster in office. He could run on his lies in 2016 but he’ll have to run on his record in 2020. He came in second place in 2016 and I can’t imagine he’s won over a single voter he didn’t have then. So he’s almost certain to get less votes than he got in 2016. Trump has no chance of winning an open election.
The issue is whether we’ll have an open election. The Republicans have been making an ongoing effort of fixing the outcome of elections.
The crucial thing is getting out the vote, not the candidate’s gender. Just get out the vote and don’t let them suppress it.
No, that’s a bad president/governor/mayor/senator/etc.
A bad candidate is one who runs a bad campaign or is otherwise outmatched by his or her opponent.
What exactly are you referring to? Mueller? Because we’re all still waiting for a forthcoming report about maybe the Trump Tower meeting, or something else, that demonstrates that Trump and Co. subverted the election process. Everything we know so far has been tax crimes, lying, etc.
The best case you could make right now is maybe the hush money payments, but ignoring the argument about whether that should have been paid with campaign money or not, that’s not “electoral evil on a massive scale.”
Yeah. Trump is a source of constant scandal and consternation, he has now alienated the Defense Department, and the economy isn’t going to be so great in the middle of deglobalization from Brexit and Trump’s tariffs. This far out it looks like this is going to be a bit like 2008, when the Democrats could have run anybody or anything and won.
If you can even win with a pair of moldy socks, never mind pulling toward the center, or gimmicking in. Just get the most progressive, most hardline environmentalist, most reformist Congressional caucus and President you can find, and have an electoral “revolution” like 1932 or 1980. And remember, if you don’t, the East Coast and the Gulf coast sink into the sea forever.
You don’t need electability. You need revolution, and in 2020 you can have it.