Jeff Flake is much more likely to be a one-termer than he is to go on to anything…he has the lowest net approval rating of any Senator, and could plausibly lose either the primary or general election this year.
Most of the rest of the OP’s list I’m not super familiar with. Tammy Duckworth is my Senator and seems to be doing OK. I like what I’ve heard about Harris and Gabbard. Cory Booker has close ties to Wall Street, which is probably necessary to be elected in NJ, but I don’t think he’s the direction the party is (or should be) going in. Al Franken seems cool, and I guess he could start getting on more talk shows or something, but in terms of actually becoming President, I don’t see why you’d like his chances better than that other elderly white guy who actually seems to want the job and already has an organization and a track record of winning 13 million primary votes.
My early 2020 Presidential pick is Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin. She’s lesbian, so you get the double glass ceiling appeal, she’s reliably progressive, and if she is re-elected in 2018, she will further prove her ability to win in purple states. Also, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, although his potential national appeal is less well demonstrated.
When you brought up Baldwin in the other thread, I fought you were talking about Alec Baldwin. Who certainly would be a more likely president than a lesbian. Sorry, it’s unfortunate, but it’s not going to happen in 2020 or several elections after that. And I say that as someone who is gay.
You think the national electorate is more homophobic than Wisconsin? It may turn out that it’s an insurmountable barrier, but I’d like to see some polling data before I write her off.
The national electorate includes the South, while Wisconsin does not (though I am surprised to see that Wisconsin has typically had Republican majorities in its legislature; I assumed the current GOP ascendancy was an outlier).
The South is one barrier (Florida, Virginia, North Carolina), but a gay person as the nominee would even drive down Democratic turnout. The party has apparently found itself in the position of being unable to win the presidency without higher than 90% support among black voters, & slightly lesser but still majority support among Hispanics. Since these groups tend to be more socially conservative than other Dem voting blocs, some of them would conceivably feel uncomfortable voting for a lesbian. Coupled with the surely record-high turnout of white evangelicals voting to keep the sinner outta the oval office, even a slight dip in turnout among solid Democratic voters would be a major issue.
The topic is *your *claim that Harris is “too militant”, and *your *claim that interrupting a witness proves it. Is Graham, of all people, too militant as well? How about any other Senator who has ever interrupted a witness?
I’ve lived in Wisconsin. There are a LOT of serious Bible-thumpers there, as well as a lot of black Democrats. It may be that homophobic attitudes are less prevalent in Wisconsin than in purple Southern states like FL and NC, but I’d like to see numbers before making that assumption.
One thing that Baldwin has going for her is that she’s single iirc. If she doesn’t have a partner alongside her at campaign events & on TV, that probably makes her more palatable to slighly homophobic voters.
I’m the wrong person to ask about Graham. I hate his greasy ass.
Aspenglow made a point about his being a not-freshman…in fact, he’s a fixture in the Senate, which might be a motivation not to interrupt him. Also, there’s the fact that Grassley (another Republican) is highly unlikely to want to piss Graham off. But I’m not going to make excuses for every Senator who’s ever interrupted a witness.
I’d suggest you watch both questionings (Harris of Sessions and Graham of Wray) and tell me which appears more ‘militant’ to you.
Or you can think I’m some kind of utter sexist, or Burr is. Whatever, I’m not going to bother to correct you in my case. Believe what you want.
I can’t speak of a consensus, but yes, definitely. The problem with guys who fall short as he did is that they could also just end up being the next Paul Hackett. For those who don’t remember, he was a very highly touted Iraq vet who challenged a hated GOP incumbent in 2006, became perhaps the most famous Democratic candidate of the cycle, appearing on the Daily Show and Real Time, lost, and then was pretty much forgotten.
I’d also note that Kander had his best chance in 2016. Now he has to win statewide in a midterm, in a state that’s gone from purple to red. He’ll need to be a star to pull that trick off.
…what exactly did she do wrong at the Sessions hearings?
You call that militant? You don't think Sessions was being "militant" in evading answering the question? Do you expect that elected representatives are supposed to just let people spout talking points and get away with it?
I don’t understand your objection at all. Sessions was being evasive, not answering the question, Harris had a limited amount of time and was drilling down to clarify a point. I would have thought that this is what you would have expected your elected representatives to do for you.
I actually went back and rewatched videos of both Harris/Sessions and Graham/Wray, and you’re right, maybe I was being too judgmental. I ascribe it more to the fact that she comes straight from being a prosecutor (she was the California AG) than that she was a woman. However, if you want to picture me in my wifebeaters (which I don’t own, btw), feel free. As for Burr’s motivations, I submit that her being a woman probably didn’t have anything to do with it.
I made my opinion of Sessions clear at the time, even posting here that his righteous indignation about even being questioned as to his connections with Russians was instructive. But this time I noticed something I hadn’t before; at the end of Harris’ questioning and Kaine starting up his five minutes, C-SPAN cut to Sessions with this shit-eating grin on his face, presumably because she’d been slapped down.
Graham’s little political statement about Hillary/the Ukraine was clearly self-serving, but at least he found the scruples or political opportunism to question Donald Jr.'s emails. And he did interrupt Wray quite a bit, but look at the situation: this wasn’t questioning a witness about possible wrongdoing, it was grilling a nominee about his appropriateness for the job as the top cop in the land. I saw it more as a rector-student exchange, whereas with Harris it was far more adversarial (Sessions also having been well-known among most of the Senators in the room where Harris wasn’t).
Anyway, I hope that’s enough explanation and debate over one word. I tired of it a while ago.
I think what could make her a good candidate for 2020 is that not only is she female but she is also a double ethnic minority. That’s three opportunities for Trump to say something offensive and alienate people.
Having just read Franken’s book, and having heard him on NPR lately, I agree with those who regretfully think he doesn’t want to be president. And his long history of joking would be painfully twisted by the opposition if he did run - it might be excruciating to watch.
OTOH, I believe Franken when he talks about being a Senator as a form of service. I’m wondering if he could be talked into a presidential run if the Democrats can’t field anyone more appealing - would he do it to serve his country, despite his personal desire not to? I dunno. But I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.
Thank you for mentioning Senator Merkley. He and Ron Wyden are both superb champions for progressive causes and have worked very hard since Trump’s “election.” Both have been aces for Oregon and for the nation. Merkley is the younger, so better suited for the job.
Unfortunately, he’s not going to rustle up any barn burner speeches. He’s a thoughtful wonk and clever, but probably a little too understated for the national stage.
I’d vote for him as president without hesitation, though.