I heard that interview – the first I’d heard anything about him, including how to pronounce his name. I came away extremely impressed.
I like her fine. But I would advise against her running again (if she asked me)
Same here. Still, she could win vs trump. IMHO, the only way she should come in is being drafted at the last moment if something horrible is revealed about the front runner. Otherwise, no.
But I’d back her vs Harris or maybe even Warren. My choice is Biden, actually. He’d be a slam dunk vs trump. Tulsi Gabbard is a no-go and Marianne Williamson is laughable.
Julián Castro would be interesting.
Well, that’s a fairly embarrassing number of errors for one post. Dukakis, of course, was actually a Governor! So
Senators 1-5
Governors 3-2
Presidents 6-3 (not 6-2 like I said above)
Vice-Presidents 1-2
Pussy Grabbers 1-0
I’m close.
If it’s a mid sized or larger state I really do value that executive experience when deciding who I want to lead the federal executive branch. That’s a big chunk of the job IMO. Senators who have Armed Services, Intelligence, or Foreign Relations committee time can balance that out if their foreign policy views aren’t wildly different than mine. I heavily weight foreign policy issues when selecting a president. Just a random Senator without that type of committee assignment or some similar experience* is fighting uphill if they want my vote. Most Senators don’t have that other experience.
- Something like Clinton’s time as Secretary of State or Webb’s time in two senior DOD positions including Secretary of the Navy are good examples.
I think that, all else being equal, I’d actually prefer a senator over a governor (though of course, it’d be even better to have someone with both kinds of experience). On the one hand, yes, governor is an executive position, and that is relevant experience… but on the other hand, senator is a federal position, and that’s also relevant. Federal issues are, in many ways, completely different from state issues, and many of the President’s powers (like commanding the military) are firmly in the federal-only category. Plus, a president will very seldom have to interact significantly with governors, but he has to interact with senators and representatives all the time. It’s better to have someone who has both the experience of how that works, and active networking with a number of other members of the chamber.
I think it’s safe to say you’re way off on that one.
I would rather have someone who’s worked in Washington on foreign policy than someone who hasn’t.
As an example, to name two persons who don’t appear to be running, I’d take a Bill Richardson, who at least had a little State Department experience, over a Steve Bullock, who’s only had posts in Montana state government. And people at State didn’t seem to like Richardson that much, but it’s something.
There’s no such thing.
Booker is expected to announce soon, motivated by Harris’ spectacular roll-out and the start of Black History Month. He’s calling around for support from people in Congress.
Booker and Harris appear to be battling over CBC support, but I imagine many CBC members won’t endorse until they know what Biden’s doing. He may be an old white dude from Delaware, but I reckon it’ll be hard for Booker and Harris to grab CBC endorsements if he’s in.
Booker joined the race today
Booker appears to me to be the most clearly charismatic of the Democratic candidates announced so far. Plus, he has a great breadth of experience, including mayor of a large city (Newark).
I’m still leaning Klobuchar, but there’s a lot to like about Booker, IMO.
Klobuchar seems like a solid candidate but there’s been some concerns over her apparently draconian law-and-order stance, which disproportionately affected blacks and minimized accountability for police. Not sure how much meat there is to this story, though.
I’m still wondering who’s going to be the focus of infatuation by the Infatuatables this time. Obama is out, Sanders is ineligible (unless he declares party membership, something that would offend them), so who is going to get all the adoring posts in this forum from people who want to have a baby with them? Booker is positioning himself as an Obama rerun, Warren as a Sanders/Hillary blend but with more backbone, so … Harris?
And now that Hillary is gone, who will the teeth out defenders of “the electable candidate” choose? Who will be candidate X in the phrase “If you don’t support X, you’re helping Trump!”?
His last name is hard to pronounce, but he impressed me too. So smart and sensible and calm. I hope he gets some more attention.
Whoever it is who wins the Democratic nomination.
With this big of a field splitting it who that person is might not be clear for much longer than it was last time, but once it is then it is time to circle the wagons and unite and if you do not support X then, as strongly as possible, then whoever X is you’re helping Trump. (Unless maybe we are talking some third party person on the Right.)
Absolutely. You need to unite your people and divide the opposition’s. Anybody still pouting over their pet candidate losing, or who does not quite understand why the perfect is the enemy of the good, *should *only need to be told “President Trump” and “President Dubya” to remind them why they need to cut the shit and grow up this time. But that still won’t be enough, of course.
Before the convention, the threat is meaningless. After the convention, if Democrats unite behind the candidate, the threat is meaningless. Supporting the non-Democrat is helping Trump, but that’s about all you can say.
It wasn’t last time. Sanders, and his acolytes, continued to try to damage Clinton during the primaries even after the nomination had been effectively decided, his endorsement was late and painfully reluctant, and that damage certainly persisted into November.