I disagree with our cultures desire for ‘outsiders’ in politics, that usually means inexperienced at legislation.
But the democrats aren’t fighters. They generally don’t fight for their voters or their values, and they don’t fight to defend democracy. Republicans fight, democrats do not. Democrats beg for friendship while Republicans declare open war on democracy.
So having a ruthless fighter on our side would be nice.
Any counterarguments?
I don’t see him as being any worse than any other potential candidate right now. But we know very little about him, he arrived on the scene recently, a lot of negatives might get exposed soon.
Please God no.
I’m down with his politics but he’s still just another “personality.” He’d be better than Trump but he’d still be a pain in the ass. Give me a politician with administrative experience, thanks.
Fair enough. But Obama kept getting outsmarted because Republicans took advantage of his desire for Bipartisanship. And Hillary was criticized for saying whatever people wanted to hear. And when she was honest, like with her deplorable comment, she backed off the second she was criticized.
Are there experienced democrats who are also ruthless fighters who can run?
Plutocrats, white nationalists and Russians are doing a lot of damage to America. Begging for friendship and being scared of being criticized isn’t what we need right now.
I have no idea what his actual politics are, other than being anti-Trump, which encompasses a really wide range of the political spectrum, to be honest. I have no idea what kind of man he actually is when there’s no opportunity to get his name in the news. I’m not saying that he’d be bad, I’m just saying that just because he’s tenacious and clever on behalf of his client doesn’t mean he’d run things well.
He’s a glory hound. He’s eating up the attention. That sort of thing makes a good campaigner but a terrible elected official.
NO more amateurs.
Honestly wouldn’t be the worst idea in the world. Just look at his Twitter feed to see what a Democrat needs to sound like to take on Trump. He gets it, clearly.
Photogenic, not a politician, successful in the private sector apparently… At first glance he would make a pretty good candidate against our imbecile president. I just don’t see how he could win a single primary. He has no obvious base to appeal to, his campaign would be amateur hour, and he won’t get much support from the establishment. He also doesn’t have the celebrity status and name recognition that Trump did when he ran.
Who cares? Trump is a glory hound and a terrible elected official, but he has furthered the Republican agenda better than any president since Reagan. The GOP couldn’t be happier.
I’m fine with an obnoxious, partisan blowhard as president if he furthers the Democratic agenda. It’s clearly a winning formula, and the time to go high while they go low is long over.
I don’t want any more professionals either. What’s left?
I guess for me, when I saw he supports medicare for all that made me like him more.
Most democrats won’t touch medicare for all because they are scared of being called socialists, or scared of making rich people angry.
The veterans all seem like pussies though. Wimps who are scared of fox news and plutocrats.
Republicans are declaring war on people’s rights to vote. Where are the democrats with a national voting rights platform? Universal registration, voting by mail, abolition of gerrymandering (or use gerrymandering to our advantage), rewards for voting, mandatory voting, making puerto rico and DC into states, etc.
The GOP keeps cutting taxes on the rich. At best, the democrats will raise rates to back what they were before. They wont’ raise them to new highs like they should.
When the GOP wins they move the country to the right. When the democrats win, they move the country back to where it was before. They don’t move it further left. The ACA is about the only exception, and even that was a giveaway to the rich. Also the democrats kept begging the GOP to contribute, when they could’ve just passed a strong law and been done with it.
Democrats are pussies. At least Avenatti seems like he will fight for his values.
Avenatti / Manigault 2020?
Yes, he would be better than Trump. But if we’ve fallen so far that “better than Trump” is our standard, well, that’s really sad.
And yes, he’s a fighter, and the Democratic Party needs fighters. And we’ve already got him. Would he be any more effective a fighter as President than he is right now?
Yes. This. For some reason people think a president of the United States with no political experience is just fine and dandy, when they would never think of hiring an inexperienced doctor or lawyer. I can’t think of ANY other professional-level job where people think expertise is optional, other than maybe K-12 teaching (where the results of hiring untrained amateurs are often similarly disastrous).
So, what, Oprah’s off the table now?
Seriously, though, spare us yet another round of amateur hour and cough up the most bland, grey policy wonk one could possibly imagine. I’ve have enough excitement in my Presidential politics, for the time being.
He might not be a bad president, but the issue is whether he could win in an election. When was the last time a Northeast liberal won the presidency? And it’s not like the Democrats didn’t try. Several times.
It sounds like the OP wants him to be president by acclamation and ignores that there is a long process to get to the WH.
He is from CA.
Oops, you’re right.
But he’s from LA, which is the New York of California. 
My mistake. Shows what happens when we assume!
The experienciati also include dumbass governors of Texas and a pile of crooks and degenerates. What have we got to show the advantage of these experienced leaders?
Did you like Obama? He was among the least experienced of presidents. Political experience is pretty poor measure for president. And I don’t don’t put much stock in the promises of people who created the problems to fix them.
The problem here is the poor judgement of people who prefer personslity and image over competency.