Is there any woman in America who could have beaten Trump, or any other white male opponent? Or was Hillary really the only credible hope?
There was talk a decade ago about Oprah. Could Trump have been beaten by another non-political celebrity? Is that what our presidency has come down to?
Elizabeth Warren.
Yup, I think Elizabeth Warren could have mopped the floor with him. She’s progressive enough to appeal to the Bernie fans, and doesn’t have the taint of corporate elitism or scandal (real or imagined) that followed Hillary. She’s inspirational in a way that Hillary wasn’t.
Without the tremendous lead time the hate machine had to work with, I think Clinton could have done it easily. Unfortunately they had years to focus on her and demonize her.
It’s not so hard to imagine after you get past the fact it’s just a popularity contest with unwritten rules based on political attitudes. The whole country could use an attitude adjustment.
Ronda Rousey?
Oh, I guess you didn’t mean ‘in a fight’.
No, no-I like where you’re going with this. I think Leslie Jones could take him with one arm tied behind her back.
I’d love to have seen Ana Navarro against him in the Republican primaries. Except she’s not U.S.-born.
And then there’s Michelle.
Elizabeth Warren immediately jumped to my mind, as did Michelle Obama.
Pretty much any woman, except maybe that one who sold her kid to get raped to death on her 10th birthday.
I can only think of two that couldn’t beat him.
Clinton and Trump were the only two candidates so bad either one only really had a snowballs chance in hell of winning because they were running against the other one.
I find it hard to believe there isn’t some female candidate out there that has better charisma than Clinton, a decent resume’ of accomplishment that isn’t just ridding the coat tail of her husband or being given a Senate seat or SOS (with dubious “success” in either one) and without a buttload of personal/professional bagage (whether deserved or not)).
She’d be torn to shreds in a national election. The fact that she is so beloved here is the best evidence I can think of that she’d be a disaster of a candidate.
If that is indeed the best evidence you can think of, then I’ll give your opinion all the attention and respect it deserves.
If you think the sentiment of this MB is well aligned with the sentiment of the American electorate, I know of a casino for sale in Atlantic City that you might be interested in.
No kidding.
Roughly HALF the people that voted voted for Trump. If you look at the county by county map probably 90 percent of the American land mass voted more for Trump than Clinton. All I see are islands of blues along the very edges of the coast and around a few big cities.
Yet, the vast majority of what I read here is NOT just people JUST bit unhappy about the results. But posters that are besides themselves. They can’t sleep or eat or work. They have literally cried and bawled. They have to swear off the news for now. They have to stick their heads in the sand. They are ready for the next liberal revolution (though those guns they hate might help more than they would like to admit). They are sure the orange Hitler is coming to take their gay marriages away.
They can’t even imagine why someone would vote for Trump. Hell, most of them seem to not hardly know anyone that did/would vote for Trump. Certainly not anywhere near about the half the voting folks that did.
Yeah, SOME folks are living in a bubble. And many of them post here.
The ghost of Ann Richards.
Tammy Duckworth, Kamala Harris, and Tulsi Gabbard would need a lot more experience in a normal year, but maybe one of them could take Trump.
I think the democrats should find a similar candidate to Hillary, spend the next four years pretending s/he’s going to be the 2020 candidate, let Trump and the GOP demonise him/her, then at the last minute yell “psyche” and bring out Warren/Sanders/someone else who they haven’t got the time to obliterate.
I am under no illusion of the slant of this MB. But that’s a terrible reason to say Elizabeth Warren would lose. There might be some legitimate reasons and I’d be interested in hearing what you feel they are, but “because Dopers like her” is not one of them.
Warren is similar to Hillary in policies, but very different in a campaign. I think she’s much closer to Bernie in terms of how she can speak to frustrated people and energize them. I originally thought Bernie was unelectable because of his relatively extreme progressive views and socialist label, but after seeing what was important to voters and what wasn’t, I think message and inspiration were more important than policies.
Hillary came very close to winning. If one out of every hundred Trump voters went for Hillary instead, that would have put her over the top in the EC. I think Warren certainly could have captured 1 out of 100 from all the people who hated Hillary, felt she was a liar and corrupt, and were sick of Clintons. Warren doesn’t have any of that baggage.
Warrren is also very popular among Hillary supporters, so she wouldn’t really lose anyone. Keep those who voted Hillary and add in all the people who weren’t big on Trump but hated Hillary, and I think Warren wins easily.
I don’t even understand why this is a question. Why make the demarcation male vs. female? The best person for the job is the best person for the job, that’s equality. I don’t believe voters supported Trump because Hillary is a woman - I think her persona and policies were her downfall. That’s my humble opinion.
Condi Rice could have beat him in the primary. She would have been a formidable opponent to this rather hapless Republican field. Might not be the angle the OP is looking for.