That name thing again.
Not gonna happen.
On this I sorta agree. If I don’t know immediately how to pronounce it when I see it, it’s probably not gonna be an asset.
Side note on Obama: I get sent to Chicago in late '03 for work, and kept hearing about this amazing state senator who was gonna run for Senate, an Irishman named Brock O’Bama. At least that’s what I thought people were saying.
Relatively obscure names can easily gain a surge of momentum, especially with crunch time still more than two years away. If we had this same conversation 14 -15 months from now and she had made no traction by then, sure, I’ll concur with “not gonna happen”, but only then.
I’m certainly not stating those choices are absolute ringers, but neither would I say they’re absolutely out of the race either, by any means.
But that tricky name eventually did turn out to be an asset.
On unpronounceableness - WE SHALL OVERCOME! 
I am a really, really big believer in the importance of psychology in marketing and names are a part of that. The president is a product that is marketed. A product needs a marketable name. We have not had a single president in the history of this country whose name has been difficult to pronounce or spell, and that includes Obama. (I did see Barack spelled as “Barrack” numerous times, but that was rare, and I never heard it mispronounced, at any rate.)
Can’t we just all agree that Steve Rodgers needs to run?
“President America is the president America needs.”
I guess we’ll have to retire to our respective hills, then, because I’m not at all convinced the name Klobuchar will be a stumbling block if she went for it.
Mentioned earlier in the thread and I’ll bring up again - Stewart and Franken. (Hey - who can’t have back-up choices, especially if I’m not a US citizen?)
Stranger things have happened, like our current president.
ETA - not them as Prez and VP, per se, but one of them as either a prez or VP?
Uh, there should be a “y” in front of the “our”.
:smack:
If [del]Dwite David Izenhowa[/del] [del]Dweiht David Eisenhauer[/del] Dwight David Eisenhower could run as “Ike,” I think Amy Klobuchar can run as “Amy.”
Also, I think “Reagan” only seems easy to spell in hindsight. “Ronnie Raygun,” anyone?
Pierce was Brig.-General in the Mexican War. The other five 19th-century General Presidents served in the Civil War: Johnson, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur and (although his highest rank was Brevet Brig.-Gen. of Volunteers) Tippecanoe’s grandson. Of the 12 General-Presidents, only Jackson and Pierce were Democrats.
I think a 4-star Admiral would be superbly qualified to be President, but it isn’t his superb qualifications that attract me to McRaven. The four most important qualities in a Presidential candidate are (1) electability, (2) electability, (3) electability, and … [what was that 4th one?, oh yeah] (4) ELECTABILITY.
Can you imagine a Gopster trying his “Whine … whinge … pussy … Benghazi” flim-flam against the Seal commander who took down bin Laden?
No, I cant. But does he even want to run?
Also, Washington was a general.
Sure he can. If Kerry, a Silver Star combat veteran with commendations and endorsements from virtually everyone he served with, could get swiftboated, then so can anyone. All it takes is barefaced lies, and an audience that wants reasons to denounce a Democrat.
I don’t care one way or another if a candidate has military experience. The people who flutter their eyelashes and gush “ooh, golly golly golly… the troops” as they get the vapors and swoon always voter for Republicans anyway. Give me a solid progressive over a soldier any day of the week.
Wow, that’s a broad brush. And I don’t think the military/progressive thing is necessarily mutually exclusive, especially when you factor in running mate.
I’m as solid progressive as they come, but my biggest concern-- even over specific policy stances-- is whether the candidate can win. I’m no “ooh, golly the troops” kinda guy, but military people do get respect from broad sections of the voting populace. Not everyone who has respect for “the troops” votes Republican every time. There are a whole helluva lot of middle class suburban moderates who may skew slightly conservative on some things and liberal on others, who would vote for a Democratic war hero over Donald Trump any day of the week, but might be hesitant to vote for a progressive firebrand. Hell, my Trump loving brother-in-law (whose son is currently in the Navy) and father (a conservative Vietnam vet) might even think about pulling the lever for McRaven.
Given the choice between Bernie or McRaven representing the Dems in the 2020 general, I’d take McRaven most every time*, even though I line up pretty close to Bernie on policy.
*Unless McRaven ends up being a complete bust on the stump or a real douche.
Given that you’d probably dig your own liver out with a butter knife and eat it raw before you’d vote for a Republican, this doesn’t exactly mean a whole lot in a debate over who can beat Trump. 
A solid progressive will lose.
Look, a general or admiral is not that exciting to me, either. But they would be perfect vs trump.
True enough, but Republicans would simply turn the admiral’s military experience against him. Look at what the Swift Boat Liars For Bush did against Kerry. I think you win with turnout and to get turnout you’ve got to excite the base and to do that you’ve got to be sincere and you’ve got to be vocal. If there’s a military man who can do that for the Dems, great. But I still want to check the merchandise before I buy.
Yes, they did. But I dont think that trick will work twice.
The fake news thing is already weakening, altho still a tool. Many people, such as on Facebook, are either reporting Fake news or pointing it out.
The Swiftboating of Kerry would not work on McRaven. It’s really simple, actually. Kerry’s military service, one, could be spun as being opportunistic. It was quite common at that time for sons of the aristocratic class - which Kerry most definitely was - to take a commission in the military just as a part of the building of their overall pedigree. Because Kerry came from that background, his military stint could be spun this way. Secondly and far more importantly, Kerry turned against the war when he returned. He became an active part of the anti-war movement, which was rightly or wrongly seen by many people including other veterans, as a “blue falcon” move - throwing other servicemen under the bus by promoting the image of American atrocities in Vietnam. Yes, of course, the situation was a lot more nuanced than that. Nevertheless - this context is what enabled the Swiftboating to take place.
None of that applies to McRaven. None.
OK, let’s assume that is true. But what are McRaven’s politics? How liberal or not is he? It isn’t much good to win the office if we won’t be reaping any progressive fruit.
Sounds like you’re letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I would rather have McRaven be president than Trump, full stop.
But again - we don’t even know if McRaven wants to run. I’m just saying, he would be very electable if he did.
Do we even know if [del]McLovin[/del] McRaven is a Democrat?