Gabbard is probably a nut, and – IMO, after hearing her speak on multiple subjects – intellectually unserious.
Here’s a Jacobin writer detailing one left-wing case against Gabbard: Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend
Of course :eyeroll: it is possible that what the Democratic Party really needs to win elections is to get rhetorically tough on Islam.
I liked your list until I hit 7 and 8 and then the brakes went on.
Paul is simply too disliked and self-marginalized in his own party to make the kind of headway you describe. I will grant Ted Cruz is hated as well and has made it pretty far but his Presidential bid failed and he was kind of an early adopted of the Tea Party wave.
Al Franken is a better Senator than I think a lot of people thought he would be, but at 66 years old it seems exceedingly unlikely to me that he will make a lot more headway in his career. The problem with comparing him to the likes of Ted Kennedy - aside from the fact that people in Minnesota are not eternally obsessed with people named “Franken” the way the people of Massachusetts are eternally obsessed with Kennedys - is that Franken got a late start to his career; he was elected Senator at the age of 57. Kennedy was elected at the age of THIRTY - literally as young as it’s legally possible to be, and of course that’s part of the Kennedy obsession I just mentioned. By the time he was 57, Kennedy was one of the most senior members of the Senate.
I agree with your dismissal of Paul Ryan and Elizabeth Warren. Ryan I think could still stage a comeback but depending how the Trump fiasco goes it may besmirch him too much to rise past his current post, and as John Boehner demonstrates, just doing Ryan’s job can be a man’s undoing. Liz Warren is, like Al Franken, probably too old to advance past her current job, and is facing questions as to how good she is at it.
Of all your candidates I think the likeliest to end up President are Kamala Harris and Nikki Haley, to pick one from each party. Neither is likely in 2020, but I like them for 2024 or 2028. In those years they will both be a good age for a President (Haley will be 49/53, Harris will be 56/60) and that’ll give Haley time to recover from being associated with Trump - and being ambassador is a mild association - and Harris time to build a reputation in the Senate, which she’s off to a strong start on.
Al Franken will, in other words, be younger than Trump was in 2016? Don’t see that as a disqualifier. I also think that the fact that the last few Presidents have been relatively youthful* (till Trump) has skewed the views on “too old”. And he certainly has charisma, unlike Mrs Clinton.
3/4 the last four Presidents have been outsiders, Trump, Obama, and Clinton, so that might be a factor
*Trump is a month older than W, who is a month older than Clinton (June, July, August 1946).
“Well, he’s younger than the oldest person ever elected President” is still old, especially in a guy who has shown no inclination to, you know, run for President.
Franken is an interesting guy in that you’d kind of expect him to ALREADY be the “go to Senator for talk shows” as adaher puts it, but he’s not really any more a go to guy than anyone else - despite the fact that, obviously, he is much more qualified to speak on camera and put on a good show than any Senator alive. Putting on a good show was literally the man’s job for the better part of his life. He seems to have made a conscious effort to be very much NOT the class clown in an effort to ensure everyone super duper understand he’s not kidding around. Inasmuch as he’s in his second term I think we can all accept he’s the real deal now, but it doesn’t appear to be his style.
After reading Franken’s book (well, having it read to me; I bought the audio version), I can’t believe he would ever want to run for president. I think he’ll remain a solid, though not legendary, senator for however many terms he wants the job.
That’s an odd thing to say, since neither of them are Senators. :dubious:
I’ll throw in my two cents on this one since most of the other ground has been covered.
I think Cory Gardner has a short future not a bright future. He won in 2014 with less than 50% of the vote so a decent candidate could knock him out pretty easily in 2020. I’ll even throw a potential name out there. Ken Salazar has won a couple of state wide races in CO, he’s active in CO Dem politics, he’s got free time, and he’ll be youthful 65 in 2020.
Of course lots could change between now and 2020 and the political winds could be filling the sails of Republican candidates by then, but in a Dem favorable or even neutral political environment I think Gardner is toast.
I live in Colorado and it seems like he only makes the news when he pisses people off. Furthermore, he has pissed people off across the political spectrum with his no-stand stand on the current health care bill (e.g. this article from the Denver Post).
Misspoke. I was tired. When you get older, you’ll understand.
Why limit her to the VP spot? I think she could kick ass and chew bubblegum as a presidential candidate. Love to see a gun control advocate in the mix.
I think he’s past his sell date. 2016 was his chance. He blew it. And “let’s not think that Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing…” will fly again.
Oh sure. Eddie Haskell in 2020. He still acts like he has never met a soul who disagrees with him.
No, she looks like either the woman who kills her daughter’s cheerleader rivals or the one that sleeps with the judge at the county fair pie contest.
I think Franken would be awesome, but I don’t think he wants the job. And read his books- they’re pretty good.
I’m not sold on Booker. I think he’s a little tighter with Wall Street than I’d like. I’ll take Harris or Duckworth in a heartbeat. I’ll still take Julian Castro for VP.
Booker versus Haley in 2024 (or perhaps sooner). My man-crush on Cory Booker grows stronger every time I hear something from or about him.
The electorate doesn’t care about Assad. I doubt one voter in 100 even remembers the chemical attack. But Gabbard is still never going to be president. American voters are not going to elect a Hindu from Hawaii (even if they once elected a “Muslim” from Hawaii :D).
He wasn’t ready for prime time. And all the technocrat reforms he championed in Louisiana turned out to be failures.
Why? Do you like losing elections? We need gun control, but we need the rest of the Democratic platform more, and gun control torpedoes it. The voters who want it aren’t single issue types; the voters who hate it are. The math just doesn’t add up.
Anti-gun control voters are a lost cause. If guns are the most important thing to you, there is no way you would ever vote Democratic for president. So why not give those for gun control something to vote for?
If Democrats stopped talking about guns, they sure would. Ask Bone who he’d vote for if the parties had the same gun legislation platforms, and who he actually votes for.
I think we should expand beyond the Senate for the Dems’ future, especially for 2020. Democratic governors (as few as there are) and big city mayors, imo, are the way to go.
Look at recent presidential elections: The top of the ticket that has the most executive experience seems to do the best. In 2016, the CEO beat the SoS/Senator. In 2012, the President beat the CEO/governor. In 2008 you had two Senators. In 2004, the President beat the Senator. In 2000, the governor beat the VP/Senator. In 1996, the president beat the Senator. In 1992, you had some weirdness with Perot, and you had a **governor **knock out the incumbent. The year of 1988, to me is the only real example of the executive losing-- governor losing to VP. In '84, president beats VP/Senator. In 1980, charismatic governor knocks out weak president. In 1976, governor knocks out scandal-tainted president.
The only people to have taken out sitting presidents in the past 40-odd years are governors. That being said, I don’t see why the mayor of a city of 2,000,000+ would be less qualified to run for president than a governor, especially as mayors step up to challenge Trump policies over the next four years and are often seen as leading the front line of resistance.
That’s why I’m liking Mayor Eric Garcetti. He could end up being a stinker, but for now, I like what I see (as limited as it may be).
Even knowing how he’s gone soft on health care after taking big bux from Big Pharma?
That’s been said about many women, hasn’t it?
The ones trying to show they’re sane and responsible that way may have an advantage, once the party base sees the effects of their efforts to get back at the smart kids … they think they’re so smart, don’t they?
There’s a reason his name is Flake.
Did you see her at the Sessions hearing? There was a reason Burr leashed her, and it wasn’t that she was a woman.
The reasons for those governors winning had nothing to do with their previous executive experience; that only helped them get to the Big Show.
As for Garcetti, he’s an unknown (as are most mayors, even the big-city ones, the mayor of NYC generally being the exception). That doesn’t mean he can’t become known, but it’s a much steeper hill to climb. Besides, East Coasters seldom pay much attention to what goes on in the West.
Assad is more than a chemical attack. Syria is one of the two biggest stories in the US over the past 3 years.
Senators consistently failing where governors succeeded is compelling enough that I hope the Dems nominate an executive in 2020. They have accomplishments to run on where Senators typically have good speeches and talking points and ideas. “I’ve made tough decisions and accomplished XYZ” vs. “I’ve said some impressive things and voted on some great legislation.”
The last person to go from the Senate to the White House was Kennedy over 50 years ago, and that one was a squeaker. And since then, here’s how people who have attempted to go straight from the Senate have fared:
1964: Barry Goldwater, loser
1972: George McGovern, loser
1996: Bob Dole, loser
2004: John Kerry, loser
2008: Two senators, one was bound to win
So, with that track record, I’m really hoping we don’t throw a Senator up there to defeat Trump/Pence. Yet Senators are all we’re talking about, probably because they give nice talking points and speeches and appear on cable talk shows. They just don’t do all that well when actually running for president.
There’s plenty of time to get known (for anyone) before the 2020 campaign begins.
Good thing our country is more than the coasts.
If the junior senator from California was Kevin Harris, the white men would not have “leashed” him.