Support NeoGAF

[Stumpokapow]

Woah wait Duckworth also has four years in the House and her military experience.

That's more than FDR or Carter and as much as Kennedy.

FDR had 4 years as governor of New York, a far more complex and ambitious role than being part of the House delegation, as well as a past run for VP, 5 years in the cabinet, and he was running at a time before modern media where both campaigns and the bureaucracy were exponentially less complicated.

Kennedy had 6 years in the House and 8 years in the Senate.

Carter had 4 years as governor of Georgia (again, vastly more important than a house seat) and won due to a series of flukes in the primary and Ford's weakness in the general.

Duckworth at the time she would have to declare would have 4 years in the House and 2-3 in the Senate. I don't think military service below high command counts or should count for peanuts when running for President, although it may be a useful springboard to get a House or Senate seat on the way there.

 

[tuxfool]

'care more about attacking Democrats' ---> 'she's a piece of shit'

Never mind that first line...

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I love her and would like to see her run but I don't think she'd make it through the primaries. There are a lot of great women in Congress now and Hillary opened the gate for them. Would love to see all these talented and skilled women (Harris, Warren, Duckworth, etc) lead the way.

Claire McCaskill is my senator and I love her to death but I don't think she ever has the intentions to run for President and she isn't the furthest to the left, as the base currently likes. She should just keep doing her thing in the Senate.

Warren is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe she gets young voters out a bit more but does nothing for black/hispanic turnout, or rural Pennsylvania voters, or moderate independents in swing states. On top of all that, she is about as charismatic as Hillary Clinton but with an added element of an elitist academic Harvard professor giving a lecture.

Liberals need to get out of their bubble because some of these people are terrible options.

 

[TestOfTide]

They'll do that with any women if she got the nod.

Trust me, I know of many conservatives. Some of them voted for Hillary, some of them voted for Trump, and some of them voted for neither.

NONE of them will even entertain the idea of voting for Warren. The GOP has been painting a negative picture of Warren for a while now.

A New Blood Democrat like Kamala Harris or Tammy Duckworth would be MUCH harder for the GOP to attack and paint a negative narrative of for the same reasons it didn't work on Obama.

FDR had 4 years as governor of New York, a far more complex and ambitious role than being part of the House delegation, as well as a past run for VP, 5 years in the cabinet, and he was running at a time before modern media where both campaigns and the bureaucracy were exponentially less complicated.

Kennedy had 6 years in the House and 8 years in the Senate.

Carter had 4 years as governor of Georgia (again, vastly more important than a house seat) and won due to a series of flukes in the primary and Ford's weakness in the general.

Duckworth at the time she would have to declare would have 4 years in the House and 2-3 in the Senate. I don't think military service below high command counts or should count for peanuts when running for President, although it may be a useful springboard to get a House or Senate seat on the way there.

Didn't Eisenhower use his military experience to run for POTUS?

Warren is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe she gets young voters out a bit more but does nothing for black/hispanic turnout, or rural Pennsylvania voters, or moderate independents in swing states. On top of all that, she is about as charismatic as Hillary Clinton but with an added element of an elitist academic Harvard professor giving a lecture.

Liberals need to get out of their bubble because some of these people are terrible options.

I agree with your assessment of Warren, but Obama and Trump prove that you can run someone from a deep blue state so long as whoever runs has a good powerful message for the Rust Belt.

 

[Sickboy007]

What's Kamala Harris's religion? I can't find it anywhere.

 

[B-Dubs]

Trust me, I know of many conservatives. Some of them voted for Hillary, some of them voted for Trump, and some of them voted for neither.

NONE of them will even entertain the idea of voting for Warren. The GOP has been painting a negative picture of Warren for a while now.

A New Blood Democrat like Kamala Harris or Tammy Duckworth would be MUCH harder for the GOP to attack and paint a negative narrative of for the same reasons it didn't work on Obama.



Didn't Eisenhower use his military experience to run for POTUS?

Eisenhower was basically in charge of the armies fighting WWII for the allies. That's way more than Duckworth has.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I agree with your assessment of Warren, but Obama and Trump prove that you can run someone from a deep blue state so long as whoever runs has a good powerful message for the Rust Belt.

It's not the message, it's the messenger.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

Didn't Eisenhower use his military experience to run for POTUS?

Apples and oranges. Duckworth doesn't come close.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Other than "supported Sanders" what is this appeal for Gabbard? Only thing I know about her is that she likes to go on Fox News and complain about Obama not saying "Radical Islam" in speeches.

Fuck all.

 

[Meowster]

Warren is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe she gets young voters out a bit more but does nothing for black/hispanic turnout, or rural Pennsylvania voters, or moderate independents in swing states. On top of all that, she is about as charismatic as Hillary Clinton but with an added element of an elitist academic Harvard professor giving a lecture.

Liberals need to get out of their bubble because some of these people are terrible options.

My ideal choice to run for President is Jason Kander but he lost... 😕

 

[TestOfTide]

Never mind that first line...

I mean it's true. She has supported the Russian forces who constantly bomb hospitals in Aleppo.

What's Kamala Harris's religion? I can't find it anywhere.

She apparently has a history with practicing both Christianity and Hinduism:

http://racerelations.about.com/od/trailblazers/a/Kamala-Harris-Biography.htm

It's not the message, it's the messenger.

As opposed to who? The guy from Queens who has a history of typical New York/Jersey style corruption? Or the guy who spent his political career mostly in Chicago and has a history that xenophobes call "un-American"?

 

[Fatalah]

I've always liked Kirsten Gillibrand.

 

[slit]

Trust me, I know of many conservatives. Some of them voted for Hillary, some of them voted for Trump, and some of them voted for neither.

NONE of them will even entertain the idea of voting for Warren. The GOP has been painting a negative picture of Warren for a while now.

A New Blood Democrat like Kamala Harris or Tammy Duckworth would be MUCH harder for the GOP to attack and paint a negative narrative of for the same reasons it didn't work on Obama.

So do I and some actually have a positive view of her regardless of the GOP. It just goes to show most of the time conservatives don't even know why they are conservative. Kamala Harris can be easily attacked because of her immigration policies by the GOP anyway. They've already attacked her for being "the Queen of the Sanctuary Cities."

 

[ultratruman]

I hope the best person wins in 2016.

Demographic quotas will not work in presidential primaries.

 

[old]

Megyn Kelly should run. She'd have my vote.

 

[tuxfool]

I mean it's true. She has supported the Russian forces who constantly bomb hospitals in Aleppo.

I wasn't disagreeing. Given her political stances, it would seem that aligning herself with the left would seem an act of opportunism.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

As opposed to who? The guy from Queens who has a history of typical New York/Jersey style corruption? Or the guy who spent his political career mostly in Chicago and has a history that xenophobes call "un-American"?

Notice how you're describing where people are from and I'm describing the personal characteristics of the individual?

Warren is just too easy to dislike for anyone but the most hardcore liberals.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

I hope the best person wins in 2016.

I'm afraid I've got some bad news.

 

[TestOfTide]

So do I and some actually have a positive view of her regardless of the GOP. It just goes to show most of the time conservatives don't even know why they are conservative. Kamala Harris can be easily attacked because of her immigration policies by the GOP anyway. They've already attacked her for being "the Queen of the Sanctuary Cities."

The Obama/Trump rust belt voters probably don't care about "sanctuary cities". And from what I have seen, most conservatives don't even know who Harris is. She has the "newcomer" factor that Obama had, with all the benefits that come with it. If she starts spending some time talking with Rust Belt voters, she COULD potentially prepare herself to appeal to them the way Obama did.

Notice how you're describing where people are from and I'm describing the personal characteristics of the individual?

Warren is just too easy to dislike for anyone but the most hardcore liberals.

Reread my posts. I'm not saying I want Warren as the nominee (I'm from MA, but I want Harris and know that Warren would be a terrible nominee). I'm saying that being from a blue state doesn't mean you can't appeal to the Rust Belt.

 

[Zoator]

Warren is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe she gets young voters out a bit more but does nothing for black/hispanic turnout, or rural Pennsylvania voters, or moderate independents in swing states. On top of all that, she is about as charismatic as Hillary Clinton but with an added element of an elitist academic Harvard professor giving a lecture.

Liberals need to get out of their bubble because some of these people are terrible options.

Wait, what? Warren is way more charismatic than Hillary, and her strongest message has always been focused directly on working class middle America and people who have been left behind by modern American economic policy. She's great at taking an idea, framing it in exactly the right way, and selling it (she's no doubt aided by her teaching background in that regard), and videos of her that have gone viral tend to feature her doing exactly that. On top of that, she's probably Wall Street's most despised politician, which in the current political climate she can wear as a badge of honor. Republicans have been trying to paint her negatively, but honestly the worst they've got is she said she was Native American once.

I'm not saying she's the best candidate, and I do think the Democratic party would be hesitant to nominate her based on superficial similarities to Hillary (old, white, blonde woman), but outside of that, she is a totally different beast, and would certainly be in the mix if she did decide to run in 2020.

 

[univariate]

Megyn Kelly should run. She'd have my vote.

She should run based on what?

 

[7Th]

They only need someone younger than 50. Trump is getting larger and larger and already looks terrible; he won't be able to pass as anything other than a senile overweight old man in 2020. I doubt he will be able to keep up campaigning or in debates.

 

[Sickboy007]

She apparently has a history with practicing both Christianity and Hinduism:

http://racerelations.about.com/od/trailblazers/a/Kamala-Harris-Biography.htm

Thanks.

 

[TestOfTide]

Wait, what? Warren is way more charismatic than Hillary, and her strongest message has always been focused directly on working class middle America and people who have been left behind by modern American economic policy. She's great at taking an idea, framing it in exactly the right way, and selling it (she's no doubt aided by her teaching background in that regard), and videos of her that have gone viral tend to feature her doing exactly that. On top of that, she's probably Wall Street's most despised politician, which in the current political climate she can wear as a badge of honor. Republicans have been trying to paint her negatively, but honestly the worst they've got is she said she was Native American once.

I'm not saying she's the best candidate, and I do think the Democratic party would be hesitant to nominate her based on superficial similarities to Hillary (old, white, blonde woman), but outside of that, she is a totally different beast, and would certainly be in the mix if she did decide to run in 2020.

The problem is that outside of Obama and Hillary, the one Democrat that the GOP has been attacking the most and painting a negative narrative about is Elizabeth Warren.

The GOP wants Warren to be the nominee because it'll be easy for them to transition into focussing entirely on attacking her.

Part of the reason that Hillary lost was because everyone and their mom knew as early as December 2012 that Hillary would run again in 2016, so the GOP spent the last 4 years focusing on attacking Hillary as much as Obama.

 

[norm9]

Hopefully Harris doesn't run. I'm not a fan of prosecutors and people who gain their reps through sending people to jail.

In regards to potential cases against killer/crooked cops-

”I don't think it would be good public policy to take the discretion from elected district attorneys," Harris, formerly San Francisco's district attorney, said in an interview. ”I don't think there's an inherent conflict. ... Where there are abuses, we have designed the system to address them."

 

[slit]

The problem is that outside of Obama and Hillary, the one Democrat that the GOP has been attacking the most and painting a negative narrative about is Elizabeth Warren.

The GOP wants Warren to be the nominee because it'll be easy for them to transition into focussing entirely on attacking her.

Part of the reason that Hillary lost was because everyone and their mom knew as early as December 2012 that Hillary would run again in 2016, so the GOP spent the last 4 years focusing on attacking Hillary as much as Obama.

That isn't why they want her. It's because they know the Dems would lose major Wall Street donors if they nominate her.

 

[adamantypants]

I subscribed to /r/Tulsi the day after the election. We'll see how 2020 goes.

 

[TestOfTide]

That isn't why they want her. It's because they know the Dems would lose major Wall Street donors if they nominate her.

maybe that too, but for the GOP it is mostly about who they can most easily frame a negative narrative around.

Trust me, the GOP has already done half the legwork these past few years attacking Warren.

Someone like Duckworth or Harris would catch the GOP by surprise the same way Obama caught the GOP by surprise.

 

[slit]

maybe that too, but for the GOP it is mostly about who they can most easily frame a negative narrative around.

Trust me, the GOP has already done half the legwork these past few years attacking Warren.

Someone like Duckworth or Harris would catch the GOP by surprise.

You don't nominate based on worrying about what the GOP is going to do. The same message came with Clinton vs Bernie and that turned out horrid. I'm not even saying Warren is the best candidate but you don't have to have nominees pop out of a cake to win.

 

[TestOfTide]

You don't nominate based on worrying about what the GOP is going to do. The same message came with Clinton vs Bernie and that turned out horrid. I'm not even saying Warren is the best candidate but you don't have to have nominees pop out of a cake to win.

Worked for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

 

[Zoator]

The problem is that outside of Obama and Hillary, the one Democrat that the GOP has been attacking the most and painting a negative narrative about is Elizabeth Warren.

The GOP wants Warren to be the nominee because it'll be easy for them to transition into focussing entirely on attacking her.

Part of the reason that Hillary lost was because everyone and their mom knew as early as December 2012 that Hillary would run again in 2016, so the GOP spent the last 4 years focusing on attacking Hillary as much as Obama.

While it's true that they have been attacking her already, I don't think it will be nearly as damaging as it was for Hillary for two reasons: 1) There's simply far less content to attack Warren on (I'm sure they'll fabricate more or exaggerate what's there, though), and 2) Warren has far less of a national profile, so attacks on her now just wouldn't stick with people who aren't from MA or don't follow politics regularly.

That's not to say that her current status as a target isn't a concern, though. It is, along with her age. In a perfect world I would love to see a young Obama-esque candidate rise out of nowhere in about 2 years' time and embrace progressive idealism as their platform. We kind of just have to wait and see how all of this shakes out.

 

[slit]

Worked for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

True, but in Obama's case they bought the change message more than anything the GOP could do to take him down and they surly tried with their lies. That change has now completely fizzled. Different political and economic environment.

 

[Bowler]

You all know Andrew Cuomo will get the dem nod in 2020

 

[LegendofJoe]

Gavin Newsom?

Jeff Jackson from NC in 2024 or 2028. If he wants it I think he's close to guaranteed to win the open North Carolina US Senate seat in 2020. The Democratic party isn't as weak on charismatic leaders as people think.

 

[luxarific]

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.

If she runs in 2020, she actually have the same number of years in public office as Obama did when he ran in 2008 (she was AG of California for six years and will have been a U.S. Senator for four years by 2020). Obama also had ten years in public office when he ran in 2008: he was an Illinois state Senator for seven years and a U.S. Senator for three. And to be frank, California AG has many more responsibilities than an Illinois state Senator (California is a small country really):

Duties of the California AG: "The state's top lawyer and law enforcement official, protecting and serving the people and interests of California through a broad range of duties. The Attorney General's responsibilities include safeguarding the public from violent criminals, preserving California's spectacular natural resources, enforcing civil rights laws, and helping victims of identity theft, mortgage-related fraud, illegal business practices, and other consumer crimes. Overseeing more than 4,500 lawyers, investigators, sworn peace officers, and other employees."

She'd be a great pick for the Dem. candidate in 2020 if the Dems are smart enough to go with her. Experienced, but not too experienced - quite frankly I think too much experience in government is a negative now (sadly)). A woman -and- a minority, which would energize those voters.

 

[luxarific]

My ideal choice to run for President is Jason Kander but he lost... 😕

Jason Kander would be amazing - I have no doubt that we will see him on a national ticket one day.