Well, the reason you can’t find Mallory is because I goofed with her last name. It’s McMorrow. Sorry. She’s awesome.
Shades of Michael Bennet who thought a great speech meant he could run for the Big Chair. I did like him and her, but she hasn’t been tested. If she seems like she can do it-more power to her.
I haven’t heard that she’s even considering it, I just like her a ton.
Speaking of Buttigieg, he’s moving to Michigan. They say it’s for family reasons, but I think he’s got his eye on the 2026 governor’s race. Whitmer will be term-limited then, so I think he sees an opening.
She might have a chance if this morning’s article on Trump losing support is accurate.
Booker asked for door to door gun confiscations. No chance. Warren is okay, but if you are wanting younger…Brown could work but is not that well known, Cooper looks okay, but I had to wiki him, and they do not say much about his politics, Duckworth could work. Buttigieg- we have explained over and over that a openly gay man can NOT win. It is sad, but that is the way it is. Might as well nominate Mickey Mouse. Since two of them are virtual unknowns nationally, and two are impossible, that leaves only two “with broader appeal than Harris”.
Harris was chosen to balance the ticket, and at that she did very well. Few could have done better.
I heard this for all of 2007 regarding a black man too. People that won’t vote for Buttigieg because he is gay, probably aren’t voting for any democrat.
And “People won’t vote for a gay man” then becomes “See, people didn’t vote for a gay man” if folks don’t turn out for him. I know a white male is the “safe” choice, but there’s gotta be someone to give it a try. I know he’s not the only gay candidate out there and this isn’t likely borne out by the facts and polls or even reality, quite possibly. It just feels frustrating sometimes. Not directed at anyone, just me venting a bit.
We just had a primary two years ago and she didn’t come close to winning then. The only thing that’s changed is that she’s more closely associated with the very unpopular Biden.
I wish I could say I had a better idea. I will say that I’m not worried about nominating a woman or minority, that attracts at least as many potential Dem voters as it repels at this point.
I mean, people keep saying this like it’s 1972, but in the last five Presidential elections, the only time the Democrats lost the popular vote was when they ran a ticket of two white men. In the last six elections, we’re 2-0 in the Electoral College with Black candidates, 1-3 with white ones. Put another way, we’ve only elected one white Democratic President in this century. The evidence points pretty strongly at this point against the “stick with white guys” strategy.
Thank you for this information!
This is going to sound kinda CT, so bear with me. Do we know she’s a lousy organizer, ran a bad campaign, etc or have we been told that’s true? Maybe I’m just being contrary and she really is terrible.
I didn’t follow her campaign close enough to have an opinion. But in general, opinions about the quality of campaigns are easy to form after the votes are counted. Like, the number of people howling that Hillary should have spent more time in Wisconsin in December 2016 was several orders of magnitude greater than the number saying that in October.
(Another example: very likely someone will soon attempt to rebut my above posts by saying that Obama’s wins shouldn’t count as precedent because he was a uniquely gifted political genius. The evidence that he was a genius? Well, he got elected twice, despite the obvious horrible disadvantage of being Black!)
In general I think the Vice-Presidency sucks as a political stepping stone. It’s almost impossible to do anything in office that will get you noticed in a positive way, and though you do have a good shot at being next in line for the Presidential nomination, you’ll be running in a cycle where the voters have just had eight years of your party and are ready for a change.
Another thing has changed: she has the experiences of running a failed presidential primary campaign and a successful vice-presidential general campaign. I don’t know if that’ll make a difference, but it’s plausible that her next campaign will make use of what she’s learned and the connections she’s made.
I think she and Biden will decide that it’s better for her and the party that he doesn’t endorse her in the primary. I don’t think it’ll be a big factor.
I put her in the category of, “Can’t we do better?” Which, frankly is the same bucket I put Biden in, so maybe that means she has a good chance? She impressed me as a Senator in her committee work, questioning witnesses (maybe it was questioning SCOTUS nominees? I don’t recall.) In any case, I would have liked to see her remain in the Senate and become a prominent figure there (a “Lion”).
I agree that by running a failed primary campaign provided a great learning experience, if she can leverage it properly. But I do see weaknesses with the Progressive wing, and the Labor wing, and the African American wing. I think Presidential Primaries are won at the State retail level, making good relationships with all of the state level party apparatuses - I don’t have a sense that she is strong in that lane.
As for the charisma thing, she certainly isn’t Obama, or even Biden, or even Hillary (oh stop, you guys!)
So, what does that leave us with? “Experience”? What exactly, aside from lines on her resume? Being a Female of Color? That might land a few percentage points in her favor. But she’s not been a leading figure in either of those lanes.
In conclusion, I think she would have a hard battle in the primaries. If she prevailed, I would vote for her as the D candidate, and hope that the Rs put up an objectionable creep (DeSantis, etc.).
I don’t think Kamala would be a viable candidate to win because I don’t think she has the kind of charismatic personality that would appeal to a broad voter base. She’s competent and good on paper, but so are many other politicians. The only chance I could see her having of winning would be if she was up against a terrible candidate and people voted for Kamala to prevent the other person from winning. I feel this is why Biden won in 2020. Biden in the past did have a winning personality, but I felt he lost a lot of that and was dull and sedate in 2020. I think a major part of his win came from people wanting to kick Trump out of office rather than being passionate about electing Biden. If Kamala was up against a Republican who was not totally repugnant, I don’t think she would have a chance.
Is there such a person? I’m asking semi-seriously.
A lot of the traditional Republican candidates would be viewed as acceptable by the Republicans. They are supporting the traditional Republican values of financial and social conservatism. Certainly you may have a problem with that platform, but lots of people support it and they would support those candidates. I mean more the candidates who are total clown shows, embarrassing, openly going for the money grab, etc. So someone like DeSantis or Abbott would be a well-supported, but Giuliani would not. Even if they were 100% the same on all policy issues, Giuliani is too much of a mess and people wouldn’t be able to just hold their nose and vote for him. But they’d have no problem voting for DeSantis or Abbott. The only way I see Kamala winning is if she’s running against a Giuliani-like candidate.
That was apparent in her debates for the POTUS run. She had a smirking, who cares demeanor that was really off-putting for me. At times I wondered if she was actually listening. Biden picked her to court the minority vote; it was that simple. He had much better candidates he could have picked, (like Stacy Abrams) but Harris ticked more boxes.
I won’t say he’s perfect, but I find Kasich likeable, although we disagree on a number of issues. And he’s one of the few that again, was willing to speak against Trump, and is now relegated to RINO, most likely a secret Democrat by his own party. But if you’re asking if the modern ‘Republican’ party that is all-conspiracy and Bible-thumping all the time, no, they probably don’t consider him one.
Back to the OP… I’m of many minds about Kamala, but while she doesn’t charm me, I’d find her competent, and after the Trump years, that’s a big thing for me. And I’d vote for Pete in a heartbeat, but they both have enough baggage that I suspect DeSantis or other non-Trump crazies could use to edge out a win (I suspect DS could get Trump’s support with enough ass-kissing and kickbacks).
Right now, in all honest, all I’m looking for in a (D) presidential candidate is the ability to win. We absolutely, considering the gridlock in congress (and the nation, let’s be clear) cannot afford to lose opportunities to regain sanity in the SCOTUS and mitigate the damage already done.