Cory Booker is a closeted gay man. How does that affect his chances?
(It sinks them.)
Cite?
My cite is he is a longtime confirmed bachelor at 49.
Also as a gay dude myself, my gaydar is another cite.
The US may elect a gay person president. Unlikely, but not unimaginable… but electing a possibly closeted single man? No, sorry.
The same was true of Lindsay Graham and his doomed run in 2016, btw.
I didn’t love the way he sucked up to Grassley the other day (and went on, and on, and on…)
Regarding Deval Patrick, I worked for him (indirectly) for eight years. Not a fan.
I don’t follow the news well enough to know if Cory Booker is a hero. (I did think that naming some of his D colleagues in his ‘I am Spartacus moment’ went against the nature of a suicidal Spartacus claim.)
But, heroic or not, Booker is NOT a candidate who will find it easy to beat Trump or Pence. That he’s being seriously touted puts me in grave doubt (and not for the first time) about Democratic wisdom.
I am an equal-opportunity doubter. I’m worried that Sanders, Warren or Harris would also have difficulty winning. The country is starting to hate Trump and time is ripe for a Democratic victory in 2020 but they don’t have a winning candidate yet.
ETA: Booker or Harris might be OK for the Veep slot.
if he’s gay then he should run for NJ governor. 
I get less and less interested in the two-party horse race as time goes on, but as the OP didn’t say that only Democrats can answer, I’ll give my two cents anyway. I would tell Democrats that you want to beat Trump in 2020, there is one name by which you must be saved: Bernie Sanders.
First of all, we may as well acknowledge that Bernie’s surge in 2016 from complete unknown to almost winning the nomination happened because he wants what Democratic voters want. They want the federal government to pay for health care for all, and so does Bernie. They want the federal government to pay for college education and so does Bernie. They want to double the minimum wage and so does Bernie. They want a bundle of pro-union legislation and so does Bernie. They want to shrink the military and so does Bernie. etc…
Mainstream Democratic politicians do not actually want these things, though a few have recently tried to grab hold of a small part of Bernie’s platform. But does anyone take them seriously? Booker is now in favor of Medicare for all, after previously being opposed, but does anyone take that seriously? Supposing that Booker did become President, does anyone think that he wouldn’t walk back that promise and start looking for a health care compromise that would please the insurance companies?
Bernie, on the other hand, is a dyed-in-the-wool true believer. He will not walk back his positions or seek squishy compromises on anything and he’s spend decades proving that fact. And deep down, that’s the kind of candidate the Democrats want. Ever since Bill Clinton, they have been tired of all the compromises that their party has made while trying to court the political center and bring in big corporate donations. They want a candidate who will plant a flag and challenge the insurance companies and banks and other big corporations to fight.
People are tired of politicians who seek the squishy middle. Whether in the USA or Britain or Italy or Germany or India or elsewhere, they’re turning to support politicians who sound genuine and tough and will put up a fight. For the Democrats, that means Bernie. It’s no surprise that he’s the most popular Senator.
Also, he’s smart enough to know what issues matter to people. When people are polled about what issue is most important, negligible percentages answer with gun control or abortion or forcing nuns to pay for birth control or other culture war issues that New York Times editorial writers go batty over. Bernie focuses on the issues that actually matter to working class people.
Looking at these maps, we can see that in 2016, Bernie already shown strength in the key midwestern battleground states. He’s a total flop in the South, but he wouldn’t need the South to beat Trump if he could restore the Democrats’ strength in the Midwest.
On the downside, if Bernie, that article he wrote in 1972 is sure to resurface.
Bernie would be 79 years old when inaugurated. Trump was only 70 when inaugurated.
Bernie’s hugely expensive social spending may be a good vision, and may appeal to the Democratic base, but it’s not practicable in the near term and would lead to ridicule in the general election campaign.
I touted a Biden-Harris ticket 3 weeks ago in this thread, and that’s still a good choice if Biden stays in good health. But Biden is only a year younger than Bernie, so a ticket headed by Kamala Harris might be the best choice among the top contenders.
The battle for the 2021 Presidency begins in November 2018. :smack: Time is running out for the knight on a white horse to ride up and save us.
Sure he’s old, but he doesn’t look or act like it. Plainly he is healthier and more active than a typical man of the same age. As for the idea that young voters won’t be interested in supporting an old candidate, I’d say he’s proven that wrong already.
I’d never heard of Amy Klobuchar until I was astounded during the Kavanaugh hearing. She asked the witness in several ways if he had a drinking problem. His repeated answers were paraphrases of “How about you? Do you have a drinking problem?” :smack:
If I were the Senator I’d say: "You’re supposedly a judge. What would you do in a courtroom or deposition if the witness starts questioning the lawyer, as you just did?
You make good points.
I clicked on the Senate-popularity link and found it interesting. Here are the top 10 and bottom 10 Senators as measured by popularity with interviewees in their home state:
1 BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT) +49
2 PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT) +42
3 JOHN THUNE (R-SD) +36
4 AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN) +35
5 MICHAEL ENZI (R-WY) +34
6 JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY) +31
7 MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD) +31
8 ANGUS KING (I-ME) +29
9 JOHN HOEVEN (R-ND) +31
10 JON TESTER (D-MT) +23
…
91 DEAN HELLER (R-NV) -3
92 RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL) -3
93 LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC) 0
94 LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK) 2
95 TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WI) -2
96 JOE MANCHIN (D-WV) -1
97 CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D-MO) -5
98 JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ) -7
99 JEFF FLAKE (R-AZ) -18
100 MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY) -18
(I’ve appended the [Approve minus Disapprove] figure. Some of the ranks may appear wrong; this is due to differing ‘Don’t Know’ numbers. Surprised to see McCain so low in this survey from early 2018.)
***Amy Klobuchar ***ranks as quite popular, but hasn’t been mentioned in this thread. Maybe we should be talking about her.
I love Amy Klobuchar. If I were forced to choose who to vote in the primary for now, I’d choose her. I hope she runs, but I’ll wait for the actual primary campaign to choose which Democrat to support.
Back when, the Bill Safire said he had to give Gary Hart a pass on changing his name from Hartpence to Hart, because, “Hartpence was the weeniest politician’s name since Millard Fillmore”.
But I’ve said it before about Hickenlooper and I think it applies to Duckworth as well: their weird names might be an asset, because their opponents will not be able to resist trying to make fun of them for their names, but I don’t think that would resonate outside of their base since both of them seem like no nonsense type of folks.
Even more than that: Attacks on their names are the sort of thing that might have short-term traction, but not long-term. If you say at a rally, “What kind of name is Hickenlooper?”, or ask your audience “Just how much is a duck worth?”, you’re likely to get a reaction in the moment. And so their opponent would spend more time on that sort of attack, at the expense of attacks on substance. But then folks are going to go home from the rallies and think, “wait, am I seriously voting against this person because they have a silly name?”. Especially since a lot of those rally-goers will themselves have silly names of one sort or another.
Anyone not named Hillary Clinton would have a good chance. I dare say more people voted against her in 2016 than for her opponent. So take nearly anyone that the Republicans haven’t lied about for a generation and their chances are good.
Take Joe Biden. As comfortable as an old chair. Reasonably progressive. Someone who actually cares about the people.
Or take Tammy Duckworth. She could take on Space Cadet Bone Spurs and win a good share of the military worshippers. Maybe Donald would call her peg leg- who knows?
Or take Cory Booker. He’s got that earnestness and policy knowledge of Obama.
Whoever is the winner should pick a Latino vice president. Let the Pubs have the angry old white male racist vote, we’ll take everyone else.
I’m going to pick two best tickets:
-
Biden/Booker. This is the competent, comfortable ticket. Two super smart guys, moderate to old style liberal background, totally clean, no scandals likely to come up that will stick. Booker has executive experience and now some DC experience, which would make fears of Biden’s age less of an issue since Booker is a guy you could have confidence in being a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
-
Booker/Duckworth. This is the young, exciting, rainbow coalition ticket. It would win easily given America’s demographic change and what motivates minority and young voters, provided Booker has a message and can articulate it, qualities which are in question with him.
Tammy Duckworth was born in Thailand. Is she even eligible to be either prez or VP?
IANAL, but since she was born to a US citizen parent, I think that makes her a natural-born citizen no matter where she was born.
I see. I’m definitely not excited for another round of birtherism from republicans if she does decide to run.
It’s not birtherism if it’s an argument over actual facts. As long as we agree she was born in Thailand to an American citizen parent, it’s fair to argue over whether she’s eligible.