I absolutely believe McRaven could be as credible a contender as Elizabeth Warren if he decided to get in. The name recognition Warren has is as much a liability as it is a benefit at this point.
Which is what I’m talking about. Anyone who declares this early will get the same treatment. Two full years of Trump’s insulting nicknames and lying tweets, two years of being “The second most liberal person in Congress”. Two years of “gun grabbing” from the NRA, two years of “Tax and spend socialist” from the GOP, two years of “Death panels and socialized medicine” from the insurance industry.
Is there anyone who could withstand that?
Put up a few scapegoats to take the hit for the real candidates.
This is the thing that irritates me most about how the 2016 Presidential race was reported. That’s certainly the impression consumers of political media quite reasonably got from the HRC campaign coverage, but I don’t believe it’s accurate.
If you look at transcripts of any random speech she gave or presser she held, before and after Trump started locking up the GOP nomination, you’ll find 80% campaign narrative and policy talk (if not a higher percentage), with the rest of her time spent dealing (as she was forced to do) with the faux scandals and a smaller bit of time delivering criticism of her opponent. Her campaign website was broad and explicit regarding policies and issues, and focused on her inclusive message.
Unfortunately, the ‘scandal’ talk, the [accurate] put downs of Trump and provocative phrases vigorously separated from their contexts like “we’re going to put a lot of [coal workers] out of work” and “basket of deplorables” got significantly more reporting attention than her boring detailed policy positions and that trite “Stronger Together” stuff she was undeniably trying to ‘get out’ to the public.
Blame HRC if you must for failing to deliver her message strongly enough for the press to spend time on, or for not making it interesting enough for the consumers of political news, but I don’t see much evidence that was through any lack of focus or effort on her part.
Moving on, I’m a bit more hopeful about political coverage for 2020. I don’t know if the Democratic candidate will actually face a similar problem. I’m pretty sure many commentators and analysts will be tempted to frame the Democratic message as an “anti-Trumpism” backlash regardless of whatever the campaign has crafted, and they’ll look for the campaign soundbytes and random comments from supporters and surrogates that support this narrative. They’ll also over report any Dem misstatements and faux pas while giving less coverage to DJT for his usual lies and blatherings, as those are just expected.
But I suspect that the press in general will not be easily be goaded or baited into snowballing the manufactured scandals sure to be thrown at whoever becomes the 'too radical for America" liberal criminal the Dems eventually nominate.
IMO Hillary’s glaring failure was not instilling any confidence that she viewed herself as someone who should have accountability while serving in a public office. She did not put her ethical red flags in proportional perspective versus Trump’s because she did not come down to earth to address her own. Many people seemed confused about the weightiness of Trump’s alleged sexual misconduct and known boorishness in relation to her baggage in allegedly covering for her husband.
While substance should be what matters most, something I’d like to see in a 2020 Democrat is someone who exhibits some humility, admits some errors if relevant, and more importantly emphasizes continual improvement.
Trump is like this guy born into money who goes around town doing 3x or 4x the speed limit all the time on a whim. The sheriff and law enforcement have come to look the other way on it. Then he gets on his social media bully pulpit and ridicules people he saw making improper turns and breaking various traffic laws while he was out. Sometimes there is truth to what he’s saying, sometimes it’s largely fabricated, other times it’s completely mistaken or a complete fabrication.
If you’re running against Trump and he says you were going 5 mph over the speed limit and there is video evidence to strongly suggest this can be corroborated, do you think pretending it didn’t happen works in an arena where there is such a disconnect between Washington and the people? Own it so it uses up little time and space in the minds of those who are rational and make the distinctions between your objectives and his, between trying to improve and his medieval morality.
The conflicts of interest Trump has and treatment of the office are too severe to by and large ignore in campaign messaging. You can still run a campaign that is more about what you said than anti-him, yes, and I think drawing a line that avoids crassness and all the ad hominem stuff would be strongly preferable in a candidate and his/her running mate.
…and I meant to say “Tammy Duckworth,” but either way. Seriously, Bill Clinton was not well-known.
Yes, exactly.
What I find really interesting about this is that if you look at the last 8 Democratic nominees, you can divide them pretty neatly into two categories–four who had plenty of stature and experience and name recognition going into the nominating process, and four who really didn’t.
The four “with”:
Mondale, a former state attorney general, a senator for twelve years, a vice president.
Kerry, a war hero, a lieutenant governor, a senator for twenty years.
Gore, a House member for 8 years, a senator for a term, two terms as VP.
HClinton, among other things a senator and a secretary of state, and probably the best known woman in the US.
What they had in common was that they were all favorites going into their races (with the possible exception of kerry), but mainly that not a single one of them won the presidency.
The four who weren’t:
Jimmy Carter, former state legislator and obscure one-term governor of a state few people paid much attention to.
Bill Clinton, governor of another obscure state few people paid much attention to, who managed to lose the governorship for four years, and known for a disastrous speech alluded to in earlier posts.
Michael Dukakis, former state legislator and like Clinton, a governor who was voted out before being voted back in.
Barack Obama, a state legislator and a first-term senator who truly lucked out when the opposing candidate had to drop out because of a sex scandal and was replaced by Alan Keyes.
None of them, with the possible exception of Dukakis, was a favorite going into the nomination process, yet all of them, with the exception of Dukakis, won not only the nomination but also the presidency.
So the importance of being nationally known and being experienced and being a person of substance, if you’re a Democrat wanting to become president, is…what, exactly?
Dude, he never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. The vote for Trump wasn’t a ‘let’s see what happens’ or a ‘protest against the Democratic party’.
He’s a loon. Go let him run on the Republican ticket. He’s a non-starter. He lost a House race, FFS.
‘Message and grit’. Seriously, put down whatever you’re smoking. If he can’t win over people in his own neighborhood - after voting for Trump! - how do you think he’s going to play on the national stage?
Also, he’s a loon.
I want someone in the White House again that we can respect and look up to because of their intelligence, dignity and eloquence in speech and writing.
Not a male version of Sarah Palin.
The ads against Ojeda write themselves: Even he voted for Trump.
You can’t run for the same office where you previously and publicly voted for your opponent.
So Sherrod Brown’s possibly getting into the ring is interesting.
He’d move immediately up into my top grouping.
A heartland/rustbelt progressive with serious white rural and Blue collar voter cred who just again won Ohio and does that while being clear in his understanding of the independent impacts of racial disparities and of his support for gun control. Who knows how to get things done inside the beltway while still being a solid change from the status quo.
Not as powerful of a speaker as Kamala Harris but he has a lot going for him. Not much of a question that winning those “Northern Path” states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan) is key for a D victory. He’d be very strong in all and is the best shot the party has at getting Ohio too.
Of course it would hurt to lose him in the Senate.
Ojeda? The far best choice for the WV House seat. Very sorry he lost. And I hope he’ll work hard in WV for whoever is on the top of the Dem ticket in 2020. It most certainly will not be him.
I have heard her speak. Not Impressed.
I concur on two out of three.
But Barack Obama did gain quite favorable national recognition for his 2004 keynote speech. And he had enough stature by 2006 that, the Sunday after the midterms, the Washington Post turned the front page of their Outlook section into a big “Hillary v. Obama” spread. And that was already a completely reasonable way to view the battle for the 2008 nomination.
The reason why I remember that spread is that it was literally the Sunday just five days after the 2006 midterms, when the Dems had captured both houses of Congress after 12 years of Republican control. And the WaPo opinion section couldn’t be bothered to spend one Sunday on that, before jumping ahead to 2008. I opened my paper to the Outlook section, looking forward to seeing what they had to say about this momentous election, and was pissed that the answer was “we’d rather talk about the election two years away, rather than the election five days ago.” This is off topic, hence the small print, but this is why I remember it a dozen years later.
Sherrod Brown spoke at the 2016 Democratic Convention. He is not a fan of Donald Trump.
Senator Brown gave a victory speech election night.
He seems OK. I’m telling all my delegates to switch their votes to Sherrod Brown! 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
On another matter, any further mention of Ojeda is a hijack and will be reported to the Mods.
What does “credible contender” mean to you? The main difference between McRaven and Warren is that the former would probably win in November in 2020; the latter would probably lose.
And over fourteen hours later, we see:
Does “came out of nowhere” mean “had well-established national stature and name recognition two years out” ?? 
One of us definitely needs a new dictionary.
And, speaking of dictionaries, perhaps my **charisma(“a special power that some people have naturally that makes them able to influence other people and attract their attention and admiration”) wasn’t the very best word. But my impression was that Carter exuded a sense of serenity, sincerity and integrity much different from most politicians. Listen to Jimmy Carter speak and then tell me which of the current crop will inspire me with the same admiration when I listen to them speak.
I’m still tentatively on Team Beto at the moment, not because he’d be the best President of all the choices on offer but because he’s quite likely the best **campaigner **the Democrats have. He’s got a positive, upbeat message (a la Obama), he’s already got international name recognition, he’s shown he can fundraise extremely well without relying primarily on big donors, he’s from an increasingly purple Texas, he’s already been through a full cycle of GOP shitflinging with minimal reputational damage and his debate performances, while not stellar, were reasonably competent and not damaging either.
Yes, his experience is limited but the Republicans are hardly in a position to bitch about candidates with limited political experience. Pair him with someone who does have the policy chops and DC insider connections (as Obama did with Biden) and the Democrats could be onto a winner.
Dang I am.
This is a thread about the declared Democratic candidates for President. Ojeda is one of two declared Democratic candidates. How is that a hijack? If anything, Harris, Brown, etc. are the hijacks, not Ojeda.
(in case it’s not clear here, I’m not speaking as a moderator, as this is not my forum).
There are plenty of people whom we don’t think possess charisma now, but will when the actual numbers start coming in. And there are others whom we do now think possess it, but will later come to think of as tinhorns. That means no more than name recognition at this point.
All we do know is that the nominee will be someone we have already heard of, whether or not most voters have, and that the campaign will take on a dynamic of its own.
It is my forum, though.
Don’t tell other people what to do or threaten them with sanction. I won’t warn you for it this time, but who knows what the future holds.
I rule that Ojeda is a perfectly valid topic for this thread.
There is an old saying about running for president. That you run twice, once to get known and once to get elected. Ojeda, at this point, may simply be running to get known. Of course, sometimes you win the first time. (Bill)Clinton may have merely been running to get known in '92 but the country had other ideas.
Ditto Obama. I’m gonna go to my grave thinking he put that team together hoping that in their wildest dreams he’d end up Hillary’s VP selection. Then part way through realized, “holy shit, we can do this” and wound it up into overdrive.