-
as a liberal, I really hope not. She’s far more useful in the Senate
-
she’s popular, but I don’t think she will rally support the way either Hillary or Bernie did. I don’t think she’d make it past the primary.
When both sides think that the other side is serving corporate interests and spouting platitudes it is time to consider that both sides are probably right.
Sanders certainly has a bigger base than Paul, but it’s still a minority and it’s full of people still stamping their feet and shouting “IT’S NOT FAIR!” because their guy lost for reasons owing more to running an inferior campaign than due to skulduggery or favouritism, much like the Paulites.
So at best it’s only partial bullshit.
If left-wing lesbian Tammy Baldwin can win re-election to the Senate from Wisconsin in 2018, seems like we have a candidate who can check the ideological, diversity, and proven swing state appeal boxes.
Other than being a lesbian who’s not Trump, what would she run on? According to her Wiki page she had promoted single payer in the past. Will she run on that to counter Trumpcare? Would she survive the Democratic primary pushing that? This party is still run by the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, and Perez.
Winning reelection would be impressive from a political standpoint to be sure, but what else does she bring to the table?
Personally I think she’s as toasty as toast can get and still be toast.
She ain’t gonna get it done. Well, she might beat Trump, but I would hope there’s a plan beyond that and Warren doesn’t have the proven ability to either manage a government or get legislation passed. She’s just get obstructed, the Republicans would win big in midterms, and then she’d be replaced by someone worse than Donald Trump.
I’ve always been one to say that ideology isn’t that important in a President. Democrats can win with a staunch progressive and they can win with a centrist. What really matters is what the candidate can accomplish as President and if that President can change minds and make it easier for Democrats to win going forward.
I’m looking for that guy on our side too, but right now we don’t have that guy.
Trump ran on banning immigrants, bringing back blue collar jobs, and ending trade deals like NAFTA and TPP. For Hillary it wasless clear.
Neo-liberal Democrats are interested in deregulating industry, letting Wall Street and Big Pharma run wild, and throwing workers to the wolves. They would rather lose power on every level of government than cede control to progressives who actually want to help people. Why should the establishment care? The donors still give them money anyway. They still get treated like royalty in friendly corporate media interviews and get to act like they’re sage figures fighting the darkness and not the ones who left the party in a smoking crater.
Man, I’m getting bummed out just thinking who they’ll run in 2020 and what dirty tricks they’ll do to block any sort of actual change in the name of unity. Their strategy of hoping the Trump admin explodes is dangerous and short-sighted but will probably end up working. They won’t have to run on any sort of vision or big idea except “we’re not apocalyptic Christian fascists like Bannon!”
Heh really? Tell me about how Trump is cutting the EPA and forcing through projects for business, putting the foxes in charge of the henhouses, and otherwise bending over backwards for business.
The problem with your theory is that progressives can’t win. Bernie certainly wouldn’t have.
For the love of God, the Democrats should run Brian Schweitzer as the nominee.
Extremely popular former governor of a red state, speaks fluent Arabic, genuinely progressive with a few more centrist positions (i.e., energy policy), could embrace elements of Trump’s populism (e.g., universal, single-payer healthcare, which he already supports on the record) and (contra Trump) actually follow through with it via legislation, and, as a bonus, he would probably bring along Montana’s electoral votes.
I’ve only ever been to Montana once, but seriously, Brian Schweitzer is the man. I was bummed as Hell that he was MIA during the '16 campaign, but c’est la vie. If there’s any man who could bring Trump voters back into the (D) column, it’s him.
I hadn’t heard of him before, but doing a little googling he seems like exactly the sort of person I think the Democrats should run if they want to win elections. Hits lots of progressive benchmarks, isn’t rabidly anti-gun, isn’t tied to Wall Street, opposes the various globalization treaties, and so on. Of course, he did criticize the Chosen One during the 2016 elections when Democrats were supposed to fall in line supporting her, so that may be a problem for him.
His approach to global warming seems to rely on coal and CO2 sequestration - that will probably appeal more to coal miners than Hillary did, but will that play with the hard-core environmentalists?
Regards,
Shodan
He’d be fine. Or Al Frankin.
Schweitzer looks good on paper but he seems to shy away from any suggestion that he throw his hat into the ring. Whether this is out of personal disinclination or closet skeletons still unrevealed or because the DNC told him not to is not clear, but the man apparently doesn’t want the job.
I’ve seen Oprah’s name mentioned a couple of times over the past 2 months. She would get out the women’s vote, the black vote, and the liberals and progressives would go for her. She has name recognition, and plenty of money. Call herself the Washington outsider. Both of the Obamas would campaign for her. What not to love.
Dems already ran on “We’re not Trump!” and it failed spectacularly. You have to run for something of substance that helps people. The more I think of how corrupt and idiotic the Dem Party is the more depressed I get thinking about the future of this country. I thought I had reached the floor of cynicism but apparently there are whole new depths to plumb.
Trump is an imbecile and even he was still savvy enough to be anti-TPP. These clowns would bring it back from the dead if they could. They went back with Brazile, Pelosi, and Schumer; voted in Perez; and voted for taking lobbyist money. They don’t even want to pretend they’re not bought.
Maybe Dems can nominate Kaine and run on national right to work, privatizing schools, fracking, and against any minimum wage increase. I bet that would drive people to the polls in droves. Maybe Schumer can find those suburban Republicans he was looking for.
Is this the future of politics, just get a friendly billionaire who the rubes like and who won’t do anything to challenge systemic problems? We’re so boned.
Her utter lack of any experience, at all, in government?
Her willingness to shill reprehensible bullshit like The Secret?
So, the OP wants us to ignore the elections coming up next year. We need to get out in years when there are no Presidential candidates at the top of the ballot. This is especially true now.
Even if Republicans tell us to focus on 2020…
Sometimes when I read these threads I feel like the the poster must have heard someone hyperbolically say “Hillary Clinton was the worst candidate the Democrats could have run” and is now in a rush to prove them wrong by finding one who’s even less capable of winning. Since it was a big deal for Hillary supporters in the last election, how do her ‘qualifications’ stack up to the candidates last time? Or is that not actually an important principle?