Let’s say all of the male candidates for president die in a tragic campaign bus accident in rural Iowa tonight (I mean, holy shit, what are the odds they were all at the same poorly-lit intersection at the exact same time?!), and the only remaining candidates are Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren. Marianne Williamson was out licking crystals in a teepee in the dessert and died when one got lodged in her windpipe, so she’s out too.
Which of them would you pick as having the best chance for beating Trump? I’m going to put up a poll in a minute, but I’m also interested in comments as to why you picked who you picked, and also who you think would be the perfect running mate for your nominee.
I voted for Gabbard. She is a bit of a nutjob and possibly a Russian plant, but in a general election against Trump she would beat him handily. She is a young, photogenic veteran and political outsider who would attract Never-Trump Republicans, low-information Independents and disaffected Bernie voters, alonside the roughly 40% of voters who will vote for anyone with a “D” next to their name.
Not my ideal female candidate- that would be Liz Warren. I just don’t see how she’s able to beat Trump. He would just call her Pocohantas every day until most American voters see her as just another Rachel Dolezal.
Gillibrand has the voice of squeeky preteen girl and to the average voter that sounds like nails on a chalkboard. She wants to be the #MeToo candidate, but there is already a backlash against that movement and it’s a bit of a joke these days.
Klobuchar would make a fine Republican candidate for president. The Dems should nominate her if they really want to increase the Green Party’s vote share to historic levels on Election Day.
If Kamala Harris wants to make the election about reparations, forced busing and eliminating private health insurance, then she’d probably be beaten by Trump the worst out of all of them.
TBH, if you had included Williamson in the poll, I’d probably choose here. You think her legion of devoted fans is insignificant? These people are in every state and they are mostly suburban moms who vote often and influence others to do the same. And while the mainstream media may consider her a bit of a joke, she became a viral sensation on social media after the debates. That’s valuable. She’d also have the backing of her big shot friends like Oprah, Gwyneth Paltrow and the Kardashians. She is basically a leftwing Trump, and while that is certainly awful, in this day and age it might be a selling point.
Honestly, for me all five have merit, but I’ll I’ll go with Harris as a narrow favorite over Warren. She’s the right age, seems to have a sharp, analytical mind, probably is the best speaker of the bunch, has a policy record that I can mostly support, and can at least simulate empathy effectively, which is certainly more than one can say for our beloved current President.
Agreed, but I suspect those positions will ‘evolve’ a bit as primary season grinds on.
Warren and Harris are my favorites regardless of what happens at a poorly-lit intersection in Iowa. I’d pick Warren first, but I think Harris will be a stronger candidate again Trump, so she gets my vote in this poll.
I’d go with Gillibrand; she seems to be the likeliest to have a foreign policy, having previously lived and worked abroad. All the other Democratic female candidates seem to be entirely 100% about domestic policy.
It’s funny how Warren is leading the poll yet I’m the first poster in the thread to actually say Warren is (definitely) my top pick. I interpreted this poll to be asking who my choice would be among the female candidates to beat Trump. I didnt take it to mean who i thought was most likely. I love Elizabeth Warren. By far the most substantively solid, policy oriented candidate.
ETA: ugh. Thats what i get for skimming the OP. I guess i need to change my vote to Harris.
Warren comes across (at least to me) as very angry. That may do well in the primaries, but in the general election that would turn off a lot of voters.
None of them have much chance against Trump, but Harris is black and might get more black turnout. OTOH she would spend a lot of campaign time backing away from whatever she said earlier, as in the “when I said Yes I would eliminate private insurance I didn’t understand the question” and “why didn’t you support forced busing” that are her break-out moments so far.
No matter who she picks for a running mate, it won’t help. So she might as well swing for the fences and pick somebody like Tammy Duckworth.
So? That will be the exact misinformation campaign that will be used by Republicans/Russia/Facebook trolls/Twitter bots during the general election, and she is frankly making their jobs easy lately.
This is craziness to me. Doubling down on identity politics against Trump of all people is the worst strategy imaginable. Yes, 2 white people on a Democratic ticket is too many, but none at all is suicide.
Harris/Buttitieg or Warren/Castro would be much more palatable to the average white voter.
I don’t see Warren beating Trump. Gillibrand would have an uphill battle under the best of circumstances, and being at one percent in the polls is not the best of circumstances. Gabbard—just plain No.
I think either Harris or Klobuchar could beat him. I lean to Klobuchar, though I’m not sure how she gets out of the primaries… among other things she has a deft and pointed sense of humor which I think he’d have a hard time dealing with.
