Ready The Clown Car: The First Batch of Democrats Are Ready To Announce Their 2020 Bids

I have given consideration to that, especially with regards to Sanders, Warren, Gabbard and Williamson, and to a lesser degree Biden.

With regards to Booker and Harris, not to mention Beto or Gillibrand, someone is going to have to explain to me what their point of 'resonance' with voters has actually been, because it looks like they really do not have any substantial 'resonance' to speak of. Which is obviously no small part of the reason why all four of these people are out of the race before the first vote has even been cast.

 

Yeah, well, based on your own description in the second paragraph, he does not sound like a very compelling communicator to me.

Maybe my expectations are just higher than yours, but being a good 'speechmaker' is not enough to qualify someone to be President of the United States, in my view. He needs to be a demonstrated leader, with a clear vision that is right for our country and some strength. As Obama showed, you can let the guy read everything off of a teleprompter, if that is what it comes down to. So the 'speechmaking' is not nearly as important in my view as it seems to be to you. Even though your second paragraph seems to undermine that argument with regards to Corey Booker pretty effectively.

 

Well, I was never convinced either, truth be told.

 

They were being promoted as that and Harris climbed up to number 2 in the polls for a short while last June. The truth is most of the politicos following this race were surprised by how poorly Harris performed in this race. And her 'identity politics' credentials were certainly a large part of the reason why they expected her to do better.

As far as Booker, he was a black man and a Senator running for President. So he got a significant amount of press and attention because of that. I am not sure how surprised these same people are that his candidacy has fizzled. But the only reason I was talking about it was because they were talking about it.

But let me feed you some sugar here. Once we get past Iowa and New Hampshire, it appears likely that the competitors are going to be a bunch of white guys, mostly quite old and the other gay, and one old school-marm looking white woman. Are the Democrats supposed to be the party of the minorities? The party of "People of color" (meaning people who are not caucasion)? And there will very likely be NO non-caucasion candidates in this race after the second primary contest?

There are likely to be a good many Democrat voters who are chaffed by this realization.

 

I think a lot of these so-called "experts" are routinely and spectacularly wrong. Dependably so. So it does not surprise me to post their remarks and observations with the expectation and my own observations that they are mistaken and will very likely be quite wrong. And I have made observations to that effect in my posts as we have gone along.

Is is "trolling" to disagree with the preferred Democrat left talking points around here? In the eyes of a number of posters, perhaps including you, it clearly is. Is it "trolling" to shake my head and correctly predict that these people are wrong, or likely to be wrong, and then to take some pleasure in confirming those predictions later? I do not think so.

But again, if failure to submit and comply with the preferred Democrat left "narrative" is "trolling" in your view, then we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

Among the Democrats, it appears that women candidates have an advantage among many voters. With some of those Democrat voters, it appears to be a defining single issue. With others, it is one that they give weight to if the candidates are competitively close with regards to other factors. Still others do not care about that and just want whoever it is that represents them or the agenda they favor the best.

For the vast majority of conservatives, they do not care what the gender of the candidate is and they just want whoever it is that represents them or the agenda they favor the best. We believe that our country is certainly ready for a woman president, if and when a woman arises who is a compelling person to fill that role, with NO consideration given to her gender at all.

Margaret Thatcher is an excellent example of what this looks like. She was the British Conservative Prime Minister in the 1980's, as I am sure you recall. She was the PM because she was the strongest and most impressive political leader in that country and there was really no question about it. The reality is that female leaders of this caliber are extremely rare, certainly more rare than male leaders of this caliber. But when they do arise, they have a tendency to be truly extraordinary.

If a conservative woman leader of this caliber were to appear for the Republicans in 2024, the Republican party will support her with great enthusiasm. The Democrats however, as we saw with the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016, will advance woman candidates just because they are women, in an expectation that this has some sort of "identity politics" based marketing appeal. It is an incredibly foolish way to pick and choose political leaders.

The Democrats should stop doing that. Sadly, they do not appear likely to do so any time soon.