• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

New Yorker: 13 women who should think about running for president in 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ElectricBlanketFire

Member
Article assumes Trump would be their opponent.

1. Amy Klobuchar, senior senator from Minnesota.

2. Elizabeth Warren, senior senator from Massachusetts.

3. Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. representative from Hawaii, combat veteran.

4. Kamala Harris, attorney general and senator-elect from California.

5. Claire McCaskill, senior senator from Missouri.

6. Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer.

7. Kirsten Gillibrand, junior senator from New York.

8. Maggie Hassan, governor and senator-elect from New Hampshire.

9. Val Demings, U.S. representative-elect from Florida.

10. Tammy Duckworth, U.S. representative and senator-elect from Illinois, combat veteran.

11. Tammy Baldwin, junior senator from Wisconsin.

12. Susan Collins, senior senator from Maine.

13. Nikki Haley, governor of South Carolina, U.N. Ambassador-to-be.
 
W

WillyFive

Member
HStallion said:
Tulsi Gabbard would be an interesting case as certain Republican attack points would not work very well against a woman who was shot in the head.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, Republicans will have a field day lovingly accusing Gabby Giffords of being brain damaged for no reason. Not her though.
 
D

Darryl M R

Member
Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden (I don't care what position) is one dream ticket of mine.

I really want to see Kamala flourish in her career.

Ivanka<-->Chelsea 2024 is going to happen--deal with the emotions now
 
H

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
I will say I had no clue Tulsi Gabbard was born in American Samoa though now that I look at it, her name does give it away.
 
K

Keri

Member
Kamala Harris is definitely prepping for an eventual presidential run. She's moving her way up, for sure. But I think a 2020 run is too soon. I don't know that a woman with such little political experience can really have a chance.
 
G

GurgleBot20

Member
Keri said:
Kamala Harris is definitely prepping for an eventual presidential run. She's moving her way up, for sure. But I think a 2020 run is too soon. I don't know that a woman with such little political experience can really have a chance.
Click to expand...

Serious question: Does elected legal experience not count as political experience, and does it really matter when the president elect has never held public office?
 
H

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
GurgleBot20 said:
Serious question: Does elected legal experience not count as political experience, and does it really matter when the president elect has never held public office?
Click to expand...

You know those hypocritical fucks would call out any woman without overwhelming political experience as unfit for the job of the President despite the cheeto with the bad hair in the white house.
 
G

GurgleBot20

Member
HStallion said:
You know those hypocritical fucks would call out any woman without overwhelming political experience as unfit for the job of the President despite the cheeto with the bad hair in the white house.
Click to expand...

Yet they rejected a woman with overwhelming political experience. I feel like we should strive towards someone who has experience, yet little baggage (not saying that Clinton's baggage was justified), and someone who can potentially energize groups that came out for Obama, but not Clinton.
 
C

Crocodile

Member
  1. LOL at "liberal icon" Gabbard being included
  2. I don't know too much about Masto but I've heard good things, she probably should've made this list
  3. I also assume most of those Republican women won't be running for shit unless Trump REALLY caters (which is possible I guess)
BigDug13 said:
If they want to win: white man.
Click to expand...

Sou Da said:
Yeah.
Click to expand...

This is not a good "hot take" to take away from this election. Limits our options too much and Clinton (with her baggage) barely lost. Like who seriously would have thought a Black Man was the right person for the job after the Bush years? I'm going to guess nobody. If the best candidate the Dems can field in 4 years is a Woman and/or Person of Color, so be it.
 
V

Viewt

Member
As a Chicagoan, I'm really hoping Tammy Duckworth gets in the ring eventually. She just got elected to her first term as a Senator after a stretch in the House, and she's really popular here. She's tough, she's a combat veteran, and she can debate. 2020 might be a little soon for her to make a bid, but it worked for Barack, so you never know, I suppose.
 
K

Keri

Member
GurgleBot20 said:
Serious question: Does elected legal experience not count as political experience, and does it really matter when the president elect has never held public office?
Click to expand...

I don't think her years as a state Attorney General will be useful. I think she, herself, recognizes that the path to the presidency requires senatorial or congressional experience, and she's only just beginning to acquire that. Also, the rules are not the same for men and women. A qualified woman lost to a man with no experience in public office. That hardly means a woman with little experience can win.
 
L

Lenardo

Banned
some decent choices- warren imo has turned a bit too "washington" recently.

as for the "experience" needed to be president,

remember these are the only qualifications needed to be president.
per the US constitution:

35yrs old or older
born in a US territory/natural born citizen

that is it.
 
H

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
Lenardo said:
some decent choices- warren imo has turned a bit too "washington" recently.

as for the "experience" needed to be president,

remember these are the only qualifications needed to be president.
per the US constitution:

35yrs old or older
born in a US territory/natural born citizen

that is it.
Click to expand...

Yeah and men and women are often judged to very different and unfair standards.
 
E

El Topo

Member
Crocodile said:
This is not a good "hot take" to take away from this election. Limits our options too much and Clinton (with her baggage) barely lost. Like who seriously would have thought a Black Man was the right person for the job after the Bush years? I'm going to guess nobody. If the best candidate the Dems can field in 4 years is a Woman and/or Person of Color, so be it.
Click to expand...

Simply pretending that gender or race do not factor into the decision (possibly severely) is unreasonable as well though. Women and minorities face (different) obstacles. Diversity in politics is not too great in the US.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Winning Dem pres candidates win when they are young. Experience is a negative. Harris will run. Warren will sit out again.
 
E

Eidan

Member
Experience means fuck all. All that matters is charisma and personal narrative. I'm hoping Harris can bring both.
 
K

Keri

Member
Eidan said:
Experience means fuck all. All that matters is charisma and personal narrative. I'm hoping Harris can bring both.
Click to expand...

I think it matters a lot more, if the candidate is a woman.

Female candidates have to be more qualified than their male opponents to succeed in an election because many voters have a hard time seeing women as leaders, according to research conducted by Dr. Cecilia Hyunjung Mo, an assistant professor of political science at Vanderbilt University.

“Based upon my research, Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina have the challenge of clearly demonstrating to voters that they are more qualified than their male counterparts,” she told The Huffington Post. “And they have the additional challenge of figuring out how to be more qualified in the ways that matter to most voters today.”

Even if voters explicitly say that they are happy to have a female president, the research shows that their unconscious biases still can influence their candidate preferences, Mo said in the video below, released by the university on Monday.
Click to expand...

If anything, this last election just shows that even being more qualified, isn't enough for women.
 
C

Crocodile

Member
El Topo said:
Simply pretending that gender or race do not factor into the decision (possibly severely) is unreasonable as well though. Women and minorities face (different) obstacles. Diversity in politics is not too great in the US.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they don't matter, I'm saying "we gotta run a white dude or we are going to lose" is a line of thought that can only lead to disaster. You'll miss out on some awesome candidates that way - maybe even winning ones. It's a line of thought that would have prevented Obama from becoming president. It's a line of thought that would impede more diversity in politics (its a problem that the government is more White and more Male than the country as a whole). Just let the primary processes do their due diligence. Ideally the best candidates will rise to the top. If they are white dudes? Fine! If they aren't? Also fine!
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
Yeah, Tulsi Gabbard can go away. She's more fit to run as a republican.

Never understood the obsession with her on the left.
 
I

Ishan

Junior Member
Tulsi gabbard doesn't make sense

1) too Hindu essentially for the religiously inclined
2) too hawkish for liberals
 
I

Iksenpets

Banned
BigDug13 said:
If they want to win: white man.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think this is true, and may even be the opposite. Obama was able to sell himself to white men because he could focus himself on talking about their issues. Minorities were able to assume he had their back. Hillary had to spend time actively selling herself to minority communities, which in turn alienated white men. The majority of whites, even the still kinda-racist ones, are now at the point where they're perfectly ok with a minority so long as they're our minority. But they still harbor racist views that talking about racism or trying to address it is pandering. That's how they could be more turned off by Hillary than by Obama (also, of course, because of sexism). If you want the demographic profile most likely to win for the Democrats, it's probably a black or Hispanic male who can code switch really well to sell themselves to whites. Basically, Obama 2.0.
 
B

Blader

Member
Some of the names on this list are pretty absurd. Claire McCaskill, Maggie Hassan, and Susan Collins are never running for president, much less in three years.

Warren may. Kamala will in eight years, if not in 2020. Nikki Haley will almost definitely run in 2024; her gig as UN ambassador is practically tailor made to give her some easy foreign policy cred ahead of a presidential run. But she's not going to primary Trump unless he's some incredible disaster.
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
The only good to great politicians on the list are Harris and Haley. Haley isn't running against her own party's nominee. Harris is the best politician democrats have but probably not the best to face off with Trump. Unless he's an utter disaster as president.
 
B

BruinsMtB

Banned
Ishan said:
Tulsi gabbard doesn't make sense

1) too Hindu essentially for the religiously inclined
2) too hawkish for liberals
Click to expand...

What makes her hawkish? I don't know anything about her and but her voting record has been anti-intervention from what I've seen. Against Iraq and Afghanistan, against Iran without clear goals, against Syrian intervention, voted against Saudi arms deal, against CIA arms deals. She definitely doesn't seem to be a friend of Grumman.
 
I

Ishan

Junior Member
BruinsMtB said:
What makes her hawkish? I don't know anything about her and but her voting record has been anti-intervention from what I've seen. Against Iraq and Afghanistan, against Iran without clear goals, against Syrian intervention, voted against Saudi arms deal, against CIA arms deals. She definitely doesn't seem to be a friend of Grumman.
Click to expand...

General impression I've got on gaf is an Strong anti Islam stance haven't researched much on her myself .
 
L

Linkura

Member
Tammy Duckworth pls. I love how she didn't even give Kirk the time of day after he said some racist shit in the middle of a debate.
 
B

BigDug13

Member
Iksenpets said:
I honestly don't think this is true, and may even be the opposite. Obama was able to sell himself to white men because he could focus himself on talking about their issues. Minorities were able to assume he had their back. Hillary had to spend time actively selling herself to minority communities, which in turn alienated white men. The majority of whites, even the still kinda-racist ones, are now at the point where they're perfectly ok with a minority so long as they're our minority. But they still harbor racist views that talking about racism or trying to address it is pandering. That's how they could be more turned off by Hillary than by Obama (also, of course, because of sexism). If you want the demographic profile most likely to win for the Democrats, it's probably a black or Hispanic male who can code switch really well to sell themselves to whites. Basically, Obama 2.0.
Click to expand...

You're failing to address sexism which is more entrenched IMO than racism. There are probably more minority male CEO's than women CEO's. I guess I'll revise my original statement then. If they want to win: make it a man.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
I don't know a ton about her, but Tammy Duckworth could do well.

I love Baldwin (she's my Senator), but president might be a bit much for her to run for now.

I'd love Elizabeth Warren, but she probably does more good in the Senate than as president anyway. And she'd be getting pretty old by then.
 
C

Carpe Libertatem

Member
BronsonLee said:
Yeah that worked out spectacularly for them

I honestly wonder how Tammy would do in a debate with Trump, Clinton had kid gloves
Click to expand...

I bet Trump couldn't hold himself back from doing or saying something completely inappropriate and offensive, way worse than anything he said in a debate this year.

It's actually one of the reasons I'd like to see her run. That and I think she has wide appeal.
 
G

gutter_trash

Banned
Kamala Harris has a Canadian connection and that may make her the best qualified to take a serious stance on Healthcare.... real public Healthcare
 
T

TestOfTide

Banned
Keri said:
Kamala Harris is definitely prepping for an eventual presidential run. She's moving her way up, for sure. But I think a 2020 run is too soon. I don't know that a woman with such little political experience can really have a chance.
Click to expand...

Normally I would agree, but I think the last 5 POTUS elections show that democrats need to run New Blood Democrats to win the whitehouse.

Kamala Harris would be a perfect pick to be the next Obama. Her career makes her PERFECT as someone to run on Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Reform, she is connected to a VERY popular governor of California, AND she would be the first Indian American major party nominee and first minority woman major party nominee, which could energize the Obama Coalition.

I'm disappointed that the list doesn't include Catherine Cortez-Masto. She has Harry Reid's political machine and she would also qualify as a new blood democrat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Okay, what are YOU going to do about the Midterms 2018
2 3
142
12K
Fades replied
  • Locked
GAF Elects: Help Elect a Democratic Senate
2 3
101
12K
jiggle replied
  • Locked
The US Senate 2016 Election: Who to Vote/Donate to in Downticket Races
2
74
10K
ivysaur12 replied
  • Locked
Official NeoGAF US Mid-term Elections 2006 Thread
47 48 49 50 51
3K
90K
JayDubya replied
  • Locked
Politics: More Bolton Misbehaves & More Damning War Mongering Evidence
34
2K
Azih replied
Top Bottom