Accomplishments in the past mean little if you aint electable.
Sigh. Too many people who are otherwise smart seem to think this is like hiring an IT guy.
The fundraising, or lack of it, will start to thin the herd starting sometime next summer. It’ll be interesting to see which candidates are able to raise money by the time the pre-debate “debates” start.
Voting for Trump doesn’t make him Palin-level stupid. Irrespective of how terribly wrong he was in voting for Trump -and I acknowledge he was - Ojeda was voting in line with many of the constituents he serves. He acknowledged his regret and life goes on.
To clarify, I’m not predicting Ojeda will win and I’m not saying that he’s necessarily my favorite candidate at this point - we don’t really know who’s in the game yet. But regardless, Ojeda absolutely does have some of the qualities that I think a democratic candidate is going to need to compete with a Trump campaign nationally. As impressive as some of the other candidates are, Ojeda is one of the few - perhaps the only one at this point - who can tout his bona fides in actually organizing a successful grassroots campaign to strengthen unions. Bernie Sanders naturally gets a lot of credit for reshaping the political environment so that Democrats feel more confident and comfortable having open discussions about returning to their working class roots as a party. But Ojeda has actually helped implement that policy in significant ways.
I would have to acknowledge that one knock on Ojeda is that it’s not clear what his overall grasp of the issues is. Whatever might endear me to him as a veteran and fighter for unions, we don’t need an ignorant populist - we’re already paying a pretty steep price as it is. The other potential problem is that I could see him being a little too much like a Trumpian candidate, which would be a big turnout, regardless of how I feel about his command of the issues. I don’t want to see a Democratic populist who campaigns on the idea of fighting in the sewer with Trump. I agree with comments made by David Axelrod in a recent article (published by Vanity Fair), which is that a lot of Americans are going to be exhausted by Trump in 2020, and the last thing they’ll be looking for his the left’s version of a demagogue.
I’d also offer that Beto is a flavor-of-the-week. Right now he’s an infatuation and may not last. Let’s not commit to him before we see how he ages.
I think getting arrested for domestic violence kinda nix’d his chances.
You know, I’d have normally thought that. But recent events have shown me I was wrong.
I’m still waiting to see what evidence there is to support the arrest.
A bigger problem for Avenatti is $213K is his spotty record of managing his finances, as in $213K in unpaid rents. His showmanship and wanting to take on Stormy Daniels as a client is starting to make sense.
Nobody really knows who’s “electable” and who isn’t, so debating that seems a little circular. I would have thought that Trump was totally unelectable, but he won. I would have thought that Obama was unelectable, but I was wrong on that too. Romney seemed like the classic “electable” Republican but he lost.
It makes a lot more sense to discuss more specific merits rather than “electability”.
Whoever is the best at prevailing in the face of anti-intellectualism should be most electable in the general. I usually don’t get hung up on or take much stock on location, but hailing from California or much of the northeast is a disadvantage to begin with considering the continual disdain for perceived elites!
And add he is a Democrat from Ohio who has won statewide elections 4 times, twice each as Ohio Secretary of State and to the U.S Senate. Ohio is one of the states, along with Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, crucial to Democratic success in 2020.
Everyone is creaming their pants about East and West Coast liberals like Harris, Warren and Sanders. I doubt they will connect with the Obama voters in those states who were turned off by HRC and fell for Trump or stayed at home.
Brown deserves serious consideration but he isn’t sexy or exciting enough for most Democrats, particularly not the Beto fans.
'Tis a pity because I think a Brown/Harris ticket would have a decent shot at winning.
I suggested this very ticket about a year ago somewhere on this board. I still think it would be a great one.
I caught Senator Brown making an impassioned speech just a couple nights ago. That guy can barnstorm. I was very impressed – he definitely dispelled any “Columbo” vibe.
I think you may well be right.
Brown has certain mannerisms in common with Bernie Sanders - mannerisms, not policies - but I’m convinced Bernie’s appeal actually had more to do with his mannerisms and sense of conviction, than his policies. He has one big advantage over Bernie, he’s much younger. But like Bernie, his voice is super distinctive and I believe this is a big asset. It’s gravelly and grumpy-sounding and it goes along with his disheveled appearance, and all of this is good, not bad, in that it turns him into a character and PEOPLE LIKE CHARACTERS. People want to listen to characters talk. They want to make memes about them. They want to follow them on social media. These are all assets to a candidate. I daresay they matter MORE than that candidate’s political platform.
He should acknowledge and embrace the Columbo vibe. I wasn’t even saying it like it’s necessarily a bad thing; just pointing out the uncanny similarity. Apparently I’m not the first to do so either, as I googled the comparison and found out that Ben Carson (!) said the same thing.
In fact, in debates, he should start all of his rebuttals to Trump with “Oh, just one more thing…”
No one in this thread has mentioned Andrew Yang yet. Granted that his odds of getting the nomination are about equal to the chances that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers will win the Super Bowl, it would be to the Democrats’ benefit if he at least made the debates so that his ideas could get some air time. He is focused on the problem of job losses to technology and proposes a three-pronged solution:
[ul]
[li]Universal health care.[/li][li]Universal basic income.[/li][li]“Digital Social Currencry”[/li][/ul]
In the interview that I linked to, he explains the last one as follows:
Digital social currency, in its simplest form, would be that the federal government goes into a particular region—let’s call it Mississippi—and then says, there are some social problems here, Mississippi, that we might be able to help address. Like, maybe child obesity…or educational outcomes… Then, the government comes in and says, organizations that are doing work in those areas, we’re now going to put the equivalent of the financial incentive in place for people and companies who help meet certain goals. And here’s how you can help measure their work and participation.
So, if someone were to…spend lots of time tutoring kids—that might help with educational outcomes—then, if they document what they were doing, and there’s a local nonprofit that says, yes, they did tutor these kids for X hours, then they could get this social credit that they could then exchange for dollars if they chose. But there would be other ways for them to get rewarded that didn’t involve just running to the bank to cash [the social credits] in for dollars. You could use your social credits to get experiences or discounts at certain vendors or trade them with others.
Then, let’s imagine that that’s successful and then over time that improves educational outcomes in Mississippi, then you put social credits to work for other various goals. And then, over time, you end up building a fairly robust set of opportunities for people.
This is not in response to my point, because what I was trying to convey is not the importance of experience, but the importance of charisma, especially a charismatic speaking style.
Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and, yes, even Jimmy Carter had admirable qualities apparent in their speech before they became nationally known. And whether we like it or not, Reagan and Trump won the office almost totally because of their speaking skills. (And Gore was a “perfect” candidate who lost due to his wooden delivery.)
And that’s what I’m using to motivate my search for the best candidate. I think most of us would agree that Bernie Sanders has strong charisma (though I’m inclined to reject him for other reasons). But who else has strong charisma?
I can’t do this alone: different people will have different reactions. My idea of “charisma” may not match yours, or that of the millions of swing voters. Sherrod Brown and Julian Castro are two I regard strongly right now. Other Dopers may reject these and find some other candidates charismatic. Fine.
But let’s ask the right questions about possible candidates! I fear some Dopers are touting candidates who will fall on their face for lack of charisma.
To expand on this point, many voted for Bush-43 in 2000 because “he seemed like a guy they’d want to drink beer with.” Remember: it is NOT policy wonks or even well-informed citizens who will decide the 2020 Presidential election. Just the opposite, it will be the under-informed masses, easily swayed by personal appearance and trivia.
I’ve repeatedly stressed that Electability, electability and electability are the criteria for our selection. (I could have written Charisma, charisma, charisma, but that word is ambiguous.)
Now, please re-evaluate your choices for the Democratic nomination in this light! 
Of all the people Trump selected, Stormy might be the only one who was actually capable of doing a good job at the position assigned.
It took a little unpacking to understand what you meant with “this is not in response to my point,” as I hadn’t been responding directly to you. But I got it traced back to your post #74, in which you said that “with few exceptions, everyone on this list [a bunch of presidents, but not all, going back to FDR] was a superstar of great achievement and/or charisma.” So I have no idea what you mean by not trying to convey “the importance of experience” but rather “the importance of charisma,” as you were clearly trying to do both.
My post, then, addressed the experience issue: in a very small sample of the last 8 Dem candidates, experience does not seem to have been helpful. So it was on point to what you said.
If you want now to make it all about charisma, that’s obviously your prerogative; but it wasn’t where you began the conversation.
It would be funny if Gavin Newsome was the nominee because Don Jr is now banging his ex wife.