Which 2020 Democrat CAN defeat Trump?

[Lamoral]

Much harder!

One, Warren is a woman and a lot of people are sexist.

Two, Bernie had a good persona going for him. I am talking about all of his attributes combined, including the way he looks, the sound of his voice and his body language, and his name. “Bernie Sanders” happens to be a great-sounding name, the syllables of the name flow well and the first name Bernie is really memorable because it’s uncommon, but it’s also easy to pronounce - look how he became primarily known by his first name. The name Bernie became a brand. Bernie is a character. He looks and sounds like a cartoon character, and has a name like one, and my point is that this is a good thing from a marketing standpoint, not a bad one.

Remember the thing with the bird? Birdie Sanders, instant meme. His name became another meme, Feel the Bern. He had the persona down.

Elizabeth Warren doesn’t have any of that; she does have a nasty nickname that Trump created for her and which will immediately become HER persona if she were the candidate.

[DrDeth]

@foolsguinea

Do you think Elizabeth Warren would have as hard a time as Bernie did?

Doing what?

[Happy_Lendervedder]

I don’t know where she fits into 2020, but I’ve been reading a bit on Cheri Bustos (IL-17), and I like what I see. Maybe vice presidential material, maybe even gets her way onto the big stage. Or, perhaps she just ends up in House leadership, which would be a-okay too.

But look at Bustos; she’d be great running mate for a crusty old white guy Dem (like Biden, Landrieu, Sanders, McRaven), or even a young east/west coast whippersnapper (Garcetti, Inslee, Moulton, Booker):

She’s Midwestern, the granddaughter of an Illinois hog farmer and state legislator.
She’s a former journalist who also worked in healthcare communications.
She’s a she, at a time when women seem to be the most energized demographic.
She went from city politics (Moline alderwoman) to Congress, six years ago, so she’s an “ousider” but with solid DC experience.

But most important: She’s a Democrat that won re-election in 2016 by 20 points over her Republican challenger, in a Congressional district that Trump won. That’s insane! She represents blue collar and rural voters, and they love her. She goes out and one-on-ones her constituents like an interviewer, and seems to actually give a shit. She’s been a harsh critic of Trump in recent months, while at first giving him the “benefit of the doubt.” She focuses on meat and potatoes issues, like jobs, healthcare and wages, while pivoting-- very smoothly-- away from issues like transgender bathroom use, gun reform and abortion (while still largely voting the Democratic line on them).

She’s Catholic, in her 50s, married to the Rock Island County Sheriff, has three sons, she’s solid on the mic* and photogenic, and she actually represents in Congress the archetypal Middle American city of freaking Peoria! She is what 2020 is all about!
*So that’s Amy Klobuchar doing the introduction? People actually think she’s a 2020 contender? I was embarrassed for the entire planet watching her talking. For pete’s sake, people, just because you’re a Senator doesn’t make you presidential material!

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@foolsguinea

I don’t want to vote for “a loopy hick,” but we already had Bill and Hilly from the Ozarks, and Dwight Eisenhower, Ronnie Reagan, and those Dutch guys did all right.

I’m way behind reading this so maybe somebody already mentioned this: neither Eisenhower nor Reagan were Dutch.

[ElvisL1ves]

I assume he meant the Roosevelts, not Van Buren.

[Quartz]

@Happy_Lendervedder

I don’t know where she fits into 2020, but I’ve been reading a bit on Cheri Bustos (IL-17), and I like what I see. Maybe vice presidential material, maybe even gets her way onto the big stage.

She does look impressive. And she’s a repeat success. If I were an American Democrat I would want to know more about her.

[DrDeth]

@Happy_Lendervedder

I don’t know where she fits into 2020, but I’ve been reading a bit on Cheri Bustos (IL-17), and I like what I see. Maybe vice presidential material, maybe even gets her way onto the big stage. Or, perhaps she just ends up in House leadership, which would be a-okay too.

But look at Bustos; she’d be great running mate for a crusty old white guy Dem (like Biden, Landrieu, Sanders, McRaven), or even a young east/west coast whippersnapper (Garcetti, Inslee, Moulton, Booker):

Yes, a woman from a rustbelt or Southern state would make a good Veep, and she would be good, I concur.

Better that Harris, altho Harris might energize the black vote. (She’d also bring in CA, but CA is pretty much a given, while IL is not)

[Bijou_Drains]

Mike Bloomberg would do well in a lot of states but probably not enough to beat Trump. Probably his biggest problem area would be the south where a southern candidate could win a few states. It should not matter but the fact that he’s relatively short, 5-8, won’t help. Most candidates now are 6 ft or over.

[Thing_Fish]

Wow, this thread is still going on?

Unless there are major shifts in public opinion between now and 2020, my answer to the OP’s question is still “the one who has a pulse”. Both in terms of winning the election and in terms of governance, I would be perfectly happy with any of the Sanders/Warren/Booker/Harris/Gillebrand group. Or Merkley, or Baldwin.

Many of the posters here seem to be under the impression that we need to adopt a candidate and platform that would appeal to the electorate of 1992 rather than to the one that actually exists.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@Thing_Fish

Wow, this thread is still going on?

Unless there are major shifts in public opinion between now and 2020, my answer to the OP’s question is still “the one who has a pulse”. Both in terms of winning the election and in terms of governance, I would be perfectly happy with any of the Sanders/Warren/Booker/Harris/Gillebrand group. Or Merkley, or Baldwin.

Many of the posters here seem to be under the impression that we need to adopt a candidate and platform that would appeal to the electorate of 1992 rather than to the one that actually exists.

Huh?

*You *would be happy with any of the Sanders/Warren/Booker/Harris/Gillebrand group? Are you the only one picking the next president?

[Thing_Fish]

@DrDeth

Yes, a woman from a rustbelt or Southern state would make a good Veep, and she would be good, I concur.

Better that Harris, altho Harris might energize the black vote. (She’d also bring in CA, but CA is pretty much a given, while IL is not)

Of course Illinois is a given. We haven’t gone Republican since 1988, and the GOP hasn’t even gotten the margin into single digits during that streak. We’re about as deep blue as you can get without being DC.

[Thing_Fish]

@Happy_Lendervedder

Huh?

*You *would be happy with any of the Sanders/Warren/Booker/Harris/Gillebrand group? Are you the only one picking the next president?

Um, no. Are you? What the hell are you talking about?

[Thing_Fish]

Or are you just objecting to the fact that I look at polling data and election results instead of roboticallt repeating “We need a moderate Southern white man”?

[Thing_Fish]

I haven’t seen Klobuchar speak, so maybe she’s no more charismatic than your average Minnesotan. But on paper she sure seems like she checks a lot of boxes: Midwestern, moderate, and a woman. I mean, I personally don’t consider “moderate” a positive, but seems like a lot of people here do.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@Thing_Fish

Um, no. Are you? What the hell are you talking about?

I’m talking about the fact that you’re surprised people are still discussing this despite the fact that you’ve apparently declared your answer to the question.

You essentially stopped by to say, “Why is this still thread still going? I’m perfectly happy with XY&Z.”

I’m saying, I don’t think you’re the only one whose opinion matters on this, and that’s why people are still discussing it.

[Thing_Fish]

Oh, I see. Those weren’t really connected thoughts. I hadn’t checked out the Elections forum in a few weeks and was somewhat surprised to see this was still going on. But that’s just because of the typical lifespan of threads, not because I had expected everyone to agree with me once I had issued my opinion.

[foolsguinea]

@DrDeth

Doing what?

Do you not know what thread you’re in?

OK, it’s three things:
[ol]
[li]Winning office. She can do this if she wants the job. Progressives already want her to lead the party, and Democrats will largely accept her. Swing voters are going to respond, on balance, to the economy, absent a highly offensive candidate, which she (unlike Hillary and possibly Trump himself) is not.[/li][li]Leading the party. She’s better positioned for this then an avowed independent like Bernie.[/li][li]Leading the country. This is the question. Is she prepared to be commander-in-chief, and are various institutions prepared to accept her as such? I don’t know.[/li][/ol]

[DrDeth]

@foolsguinea

Do you not know what thread you’re in?

OK, it’s three things:
[ol]
[li]Winning office. She can do this if she wants the job. Progressives already want her to lead the party, and Democrats will largely accept her. Swing voters are going to respond, on balance, to the economy, absent a highly offensive candidate, which she (unlike Hillary and possibly Trump himself) is not.[/li][li]Leading the party. She’s better positioned for this then an avowed independent like Bernie.[/li]
[/ol]

Well, maybe be more clear next time.

She won’t win. Too far left too open to attack. She is more open to attack and less likely to win that Hillary was.

True, but do we want the tail to wag the dog? Far left progressives are the minority.

[Thing_Fish]

@foolsguinea

Do you not know what thread you’re in?

OK, it’s three things:
[ol]
[li]Winning office. She can do this if she wants the job. Progressives already want her to lead the party, and Democrats will largely accept her. Swing voters are going to respond, on balance, to the economy, absent a highly offensive candidate, which she (unlike Hillary and possibly Trump himself) is not.[/li][li]Leading the party. She’s better positioned for this then an avowed independent like Bernie.[/li][li]Leading the country. This is the question. Is she prepared to be commander-in-chief, and are various institutions prepared to accept her as such? I don’t know.[/li][/ol]

4. And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. Wait, four things…

Seriously, I think Warren is a strong possibility. Based on primary results so far this year, it certainly seems like Dems are in a mood to nominate women. I think she is generally acceptable to both progressive and establishment wings of the party. The question marks in my mind are charisma and speechmaking chops, but that’s what we have primaries to sort out. Also, she would be 72 at her inauguration, which isn’t great.

[septimus]

@foolsguinea

Do you not know what thread you’re in?

OK, it’s three things:
[ol]
[li]Winning office. She can do this if she wants the job. Progressives already want her to lead the party, and Democrats will largely accept her. Swing voters are going to respond, on balance, to the economy, absent a highly offensive candidate, which she (unlike Hillary and possibly Trump himself) is not.[/li][li]Leading the party. She’s better positioned for this then an avowed independent like Bernie.[/li][li]Leading the country. This is the question. Is she prepared to be commander-in-chief, and are various institutions prepared to accept her as such? I don’t know.[/li][/ol]

I can see what thread I’m in by looking at the top of the page. What I can NOT do is see whom you’re talking about without some extra clicks.

“She … she … her … her … she … She … she … her.”
Her who? Oprah? Maxine? Nancy? Gal Gadot will be 35 by then, but I don’t think she’s American. I hope I don’t seem over-pedantic to suggest that you throw in an antecedent every half-dozen pronouns or so.

No problem! I’d spend the extra clicks if I were really concerned about mystery woman’s identity. I’m just offering friendly advice about paragraph design.