Is she popular? I hope so. One thing in her favor is that she was elected to the Senate last year, so she doesn't have to worry about her seat in 2020. If the ticket wins, her seat should be filled by a Democrat. Could end up as a VP candidate, but I'm hoping for something more.
I'd wonder if Biden is actually the top established candidate. But a while ago I came up with my own list and still like Senator Harris, along with others like John Hickenlooper, Eric Garcetti, Martin O'Malley, and Kristen Gillibrand, to name a few.
I have a ton of respect for Oprah. But I don't want her as president. No more amateurs please. This is a profession that requires real professionals with things like education and experience and drive. It's not a place for people who are successful in other fields to think they can go ahead and be successful there to on a lark. Especially at the presidential level. If you're a smart and capable businessman, become a mayor or a governor. Get appointed as a commissioner for some agency. Succeed at that level. Then I'll consider you for president. If you've never held elected office before, never served in government in any capacity, and now you want my vote to my President, you can go **** yourself. I want an experienced, seasoned professional. The reason Hillary is 'polarizing' is that Republicans knew she would be a significant player for a long time at the national level, so they maintained a 20-year long defamation campaign to train voters to viscerally react to her with disgust. There isn't anything about what she stands for that is rationally any more controversial than any other Democrat. It isn't so much that Hillary is polarizing; it is the prospect of electing Hillary was polarized by a deliberate operation by her political adversaries. I wouldn't characterize her candidacy as trying to shove something down the voters' throats. She fought as hard for her candidacy as her opponents fought to undermine it. She lost is all.
The answer to conservative Trumpism is not liberal Trumpism. The bluecollar Midwesterners and Floridians who jumped from Obama to Trump in droves are not going to see Oprah Winfrey and cream their pants. At best they will just stay home, and that means certain doom. Republicans jumped off a bridge believing they could fly, let's not follow them just because falling really fast looks cool at first.
I think her name is there with reporters and people who closely follow politics, but she doesn't nearly have the household recognition that she needs at the moment. Mostly that's the fault of the Democratic party not doing the work it needs to be doing to get their up-and-comers a media platform to combat the attention that the Republicans get. Democrats really need to be serious about formulating their candidates pretty soon even though it seems like Donald Trump just got elected. Winning in 2018 is substantially more important that 2020 though, but there certainly needs to be more of a media platform for folks like Harris or Booker, or our best hope for beating Trump unfortunately will be someone like Oprah.
That's another possibility. We (Democrats) need some relatively fresh faces. I would support a Cuomo/Harris ticket, but I'm not sure if the geography (New York/California) is a good match for a national election. Certainly worth thinking about, though. I very much agree with dobro that the party needs to (my words) get off its ass and get busy promoting possibilities for 2020, and to focus like a laser beam on 2018. 2018 looks very, very bad for Republicans, but taking for granted that Dems will have a huge victory would be a terrible mistake, in my opinion.
Bullock of Montana intrigues me. Hickenlooper? I like the guy, but can you imagine "Hickenlooper" on a bumper sticker? I can't. Maybe if just first names were used.
Nice read about Bullock: https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...tana-governor-interview-2020-candidate-215695
I 11524003, member: 35"]I have a ton of respect for Oprah. But I don't want her as president. No more amateurs please. This is a profession that requires real professionals with things like education and experience and drive. It's not a place for people who are successful in other fields to think they can go ahead and be successful there to on a lark. Especially at the presidential level. If you're a smart and capable businessman, become a mayor or a governor. Get appointed as a commissioner for some agency. Succeed at that level. Then I'll consider you for president. If you've never held elected office before, never served in government in any capacity, and now you want my vote to my President, you can go **** yourself. I want an experienced, seasoned professional. The reason Hillary is 'polarizing' is that Republicans knew she would be a significant player for a long time at the national level, so they maintained a 20-year long defamation campaign to train voters to viscerally react to her with disgust. There isn't anything about what she stands for that is rationally any more controversial than any other Democrat. It isn't so much that Hillary is polarizing; it is the prospect of electing Hillary was polarized by a deliberate operation by her political adversaries. I wouldn't characterize her candidacy as trying to shove something down the voters' throats. She fought as hard for her candidacy as her opponents fought to undermine it. She lost is all.[/QUOTE] The only reason we know her is cause of Bill. Bill doesnt need her in politics. She is on his coat tail. The whole getting two for one narrative during Bill's tenure was driving her down people's throat and definitely her trying to do health care legislation from the first lady position is driving her down people's throat. She was a first lady not a legislator
You guys go ahead. The last thing I'm interested in is arguing about her record. Hillary won't be on the ticket in 2020. You can take that to the bank. The rest of the nonsense being spouted off about her is just noise. Noise designed to obscure the very real trouble Mr. trump is in. In my humble opinion.
We have the same dynamic now with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner being driven down our throats. My personal opinion is that Trump's Administration will be so radioactive after it's over that they will not be viable for public service. But, if that somehow does not happen, I wonder if they'll have the same baggage of riding daddy's coattails.
I don't disagree. Two wrongs don't make a right I've always had a problem with the two for one narrative.
I wasn't trying an equivalence, just musing about the implications of your view. On the nepotism in both cases, I'm not a big fan. I think the Clintons handled it more appropriately than the Trumps, but I'd prefer family not be involved. I'm not going to hold a 20-year grudge over it.
