The next Democratic nominee for president needs to be a woman.

[RDANGELO]

The majority of the American people already consider Trump to be a woman abuser. That is a major reason that he is in such trouble with women politically. In an attempt to level the playing field, the Republicans will take any incident associated with a male nominee and blow it all out of proportion. If they can't find one, they will make something up at the last minute. They won't be able to do that with a woman.

[leftstreet]

1. The last one was

what's different now?

[thucythucy]

59. Pretty much everything.

Two years of Trump, definite evidence of Russian interference, the distinct possibility of a Democratically controlled House and many more Democrats as governor in 2020, the #metoo movement, not to mention an enormous reservoir of anger among women precisely because of how Clinton was treated...

I have to keep reminding people that Hillary actually won the popular vote by a margin of three million--a landslide in any other context. If not for Comey, she'd be president right now. And if Democrats had been the chairs of the various investigating committees, there wouldn't have been six solid years of anti-Hillary headlines coming from the Hill and helping to steer the narrative. People seem to forget that Clinton left both the Senate and the State Department with positive poll numbers. Remember what's-his-name admitting that the whole purpose of "Benghazi" was to drive down her numbers, and his gloating at how it worked?

There are lessons to be learned from 2016, but let's make sure they're the right ones.

[SharonClark]

2. You sound sincere. Guess you don't remember what they did to Hillary.

[RDANGELO]

6. I thnk a lot of people took a chance on Trump

think he was going to be different once he took office. It's not going to happen this time. There are other aspects that I won't get into because I don't want to break the rules.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

12. they attacked Hillary for 30 years

Repukes have been attacking Hillary since at least Arkansas. They've been scared of her for about as long.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

106. +1

[Blue_true]

75. They had attacked Hillary since the late 70's, unjustly, but they did.

Hillary seeming to be intensely private and protective of people that should not be drawn into a national spotlight allowed them to paint her as someone who tried to hide stuff.

I agree with the OP that out nominee should be a woman. But she and her campaign staff had better be prepared for wild accusations against her and her SO - republicans roll that way, her and her team must meet the assault instantly and forcefully. Lastly, the woman must be prepared to live on the campaign trail, doing 2-4 rallies a day as well as attending fundraising events at night, and she must hit big population areas and smaller population areas.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

107. Eliz Warren looks like shes up for it.

[Blue_true]

122. Yeah, if she wants to run, I would put her past Harris.

Both are fighters that will pillor Trump, but I think Warren has a little more in the tank in that area.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

126. I stand with Elizabeth!! She's awesome!!

[global1]

3. Michelle Obama? Maybe?.....nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. She's made it very clear on a number of occasions that she's not interested.

[ecstatic]

124. Wishful thinking, but wouldn't it be amazing if she filed on the last possible day

to enter the race, catching the rethugs completely off guard and without time to launch a character assassination against her?

[ehrnst]

139. As we have seen, POTUS is not an entry-level job for a politician. (nt)

[FBaggins]

146. Why?

Clinton was elected twice to the US Senate and served four years as US Secretary of State. That's a substantial resume.

"Married to a President for eight years" wasn't what got her there.

With all due respect to Michelle Obama. If she wants to seek higher office (and there's no reason to think that she does), she needs to get elected governor or senator first.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. The next nominee needs to be someone who can win and be a good president.

I don't care what their gender or race is - and don't assume that all that misogyny out there will magically go away by 2020.

[RDANGELO]

7. I agree that they should be a good candidate and someone who would make a good president,

but I think the best shot is with a woman.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. I'm not so sure any more. Not after the way Hillary was treated.

There is a deep well of misogyny in our society, and not only among Republicans. I'd happily vote for someone like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris, but they and we had be ready not to get blindsided this time. I don't think a lot of Dems expected the anti-woman haters to come out of the woodwork the way they did.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

14. needs to be tough as Hil

Keep in mind that Hillary actually beat the bastard in the popular vote in spite of 30 years of propaganda specifically against her, intense voter suppression by the GOPers, a complicit 'press' drooling over emailz and ratings, Rose and Lauer and even Woodruff, Putin's best efforts, attacks by Stein, Comey's interference, Gowdy's screeching, and the orange anus playing the cameras and Fox.

Nudge, just a bit, any of the events and weapons aimed at her and we'd be celebrating.

Don't overestimate that well of misogyny or underestimate the resentment of the treatment of Hillary Clinton.

[Ohiogal]

29. I agree with you 100% Velveteen Ocelot.

As much as I would love to see a woman President, I'm not sure this country is ready for one, still way too much misogyny abounds. We can't let this election slip away this time.

I got so tired of hearing Hillary bashers say "I'd vote for a woman President, just not THAT woman". For the life of me, I don't see what was wrong with "THAT" woman. That was just a lame excuse.

[calimary]

55. I heard that same lame-ass crappy excuse, word-for-word, from my best friend.

“Oh I want a woman president. Just not THAT woman.”

Such absolute card-carrying CRAP. We HAD a superior female candidate. EPICALLY superior. The best EVER. She was SO good she towered over ALL the men who flattered themselves into thinking they were worthy of the Oval Office. And she got thoroughly trashed, smeared, and screwed out of her rightful win.

We won’t see a candidate that well-qualified, with that combination of brilliance, ingenuity, and experience at the highest levels ever again, probably in our lifetimes (those of us on the elder side, that is). I certainly don’t expect to see any comparable candidate, much less a comparable female candidate, in my lifetime. She was robbed. As were we all.

That’s lost. And sometimes the very thought of it leaves me feeling crushed.

[Freethinker65]

104. +1000

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

108. Myself, I think President Clinton should get what she won. The Presidency.

Doesn't seem fair that after so long she got robbed and everyone is like...well...she got robbed...lets move on. What? No way. I would vote for Hillary again in a hot second.

[samnsara]

117. i hope History books have an asterisk by her name..

….as the real winner....

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

119. I still have her yard sign and I want to put it out so bad. Sometimes I cram it in the window

anyway. ESPECIALLY on big mueller days.

[smirkymonkey]

18. I agree. Unfortunately, I think that misogyny is in full force in this country these days.

I am not so sure that running a female at the head of the ticket is the wisest thing to do. As much as I would love to see a woman president, I don't think this is the time. There is just too much hate out there.

[still_one]

20. Thank you. You have just confirmed my suspicions that it was characterized wrong

[democratisphere]

28. Agreed. So true.

[Chemisse]

44. That's how I feel about it. Now is not the time to be pulling out the wish list.

It's imperative for the future of this nation that we win in 2020.

[workinclasszero]

140. Bingo!

I don't care about the race or the sex, or age for that matter we need a WINNER who will be a great President!

[IluvPitties]

142. You are 100% right, Ocelot!

[oberliner]

8. Were you out of the country in 2016?

[MurrayDelph]

10. The next nominee needs to be a PROGRESSIVE who can win

The presence (or absence) of a vagina is insufficient reason in and of itself.

[Scruffy1]

11. Well said. n/t.

[pnwmom]

21. No one said that being female was sufficient reason. The OP was saying

it should be ONE of the reasons.

[mythology]

43. The OP in fact didn't mention any other factors, merely that the next candidate needed to be a woman

[spooky3]

52. But obviously s/he was speaking in the context of the pool of

available candidates, all of whom have qualifications.

[pnwmom]

68. You are implying that there aren't any women just as qualified as the men.

The OP is implying that there are -- and so in that equally qualified pool, there should be an edge for being female, in order to take advantage of the female wave.

[Ms. Toad]

70. Remember,

not all women have vaginas.

(my trans friends get very tired of gender being defined by the body parts one is equipped with)

[MurrayDelph]

85. Excellent point

[Garrett78]

90. We really should be using gender identity or sex instead of gender.

Gender is a social construct.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

128. Fair enough.

[elleng]

102. Thanks.

[TomSlick]

113. Yep, that's it!

I'm no more prepared to say our candidate must be a woman than I am to say our next candidate must be a man.

At this point, I will vote in the primary for the candidate I think has the best shot at winning the general. In the general, I will vote for the Democratic nominee - no matter who.

[RockRaven]

13. I agree GOP/RWers will do things to the 2020 D nominee which make Franken look like child's play

Your premise of how to successfully avoid it is flawed. We've already seen female Dem politicians embroiled in accusations of harming women originating in their spouses, their staffers, and even their staffers spouses.

There is no magic bullet to avoid this. We must simply select the most qualified person with the highest character we can find, and don't allow any bogus accusations nor false equivalencies from the press or GOP to go unchallenged.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

15. ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! n/t

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

110. No theres no magic bullet. The gop is set to make everybodies life hell so what does it matter?

Just as soon have Hillary again or Eliz Warren. Swalwell. Biden. Schiff. Harris. Franken. We have a deep bench of splendid people. SO wish HRC hadnt chosen Tim Kaine. I was like...WHO??? Who cares what the gop 'has in store' for everybody? That's how they win, by threatening everyone with inevitably, everything THEY do wrong.

[JHan]

16. I'm really surprised by the replies in this thread.

there is such a thing as the pendulum swing in politics..

This year women have been dominating democratic primaries - this has been a consistent pattern. So I expect should a woman throw her hat in the 2020 race she'll be competitive. Turn out among women has been high in elections this year.

Amy Chozwick recently said some lessons are being learned about Hillary's run in 2016. Amy still suffers froma bit of cognitive dissonance in her recollections about the part her paper played in it but she's right. And a lot of women , young women like myself, would love to see Trump defeated by a smart-as-a-whip Woman. He got help last time, but it won't be so easy this time.

And we're also tired of the sexism we saw on both sides summed up thusly:

Right Wing Dudes: Women are emotional, cannot be trusted with power and are weak.
Left Wing Dudes: so Yeah, I have no problem with women having political power right? It's just this woman who has changed her mind on things and while I agree with her in principle right now, the fact she changed her mind on something means she lacks conviction, so I don't trust her.. And I also don't trust this other woman for the same reasons.. and this woman too, she's problematic.. and this one here too..

Yeah, see that ^^ We're fed up of it.

And I like the idea of Harris... she'll connect to the base, and she will take the GOP by surprise because they don't think black women actually exist.

And frankly, anyone pretending representation isn't a thing is just lying to themselves. Obama's appeal was partly tied to his identity as the first African American to win a nomination and win the presidency. So let's not innoculate our politics from these realities as if we don't know what the deal is...

At the end of the day though, I'll support whoever wins the Dem primaries.

[Garrett78]

19. Those dismissive of that reality ought to read the following articles:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-cohen-why-women-should-elect-women-20160406-story.html#

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12266378/electing-women-congress-hillary-clinton

Racism and sexism is what is keeping the Republican Party alive. Absent those things, there is no viable Republican Party. One of the ways we help defeat racism and sexism is by electing more persons of color and more women. I know it's still a long ways off, but Kamala Harris is the perfect choice for 2020.

[JHan]

31. I love those links...and particularly this bit:

The "Jill Robinson theory" of high-achieving, women Congress members
Another way legislators serve their constituents is by bringing programs and money to their districts — securing more money to start a pre-K program, for example, or dollars to repave local roads.

All told, Congress allocated $20.8 trillion in federal outlays (excluding defense and military spending) from 1984 to 2004. Women, it turns out, did a better job at getting their share of that money. On average, female legislators sent 9 percent more funds back to their districts than their male colleagues. Districts represented by women received an additional $49 million annually on average compared to their male-represented counterparts.

Sarah Anzia, the author of this study, argues that this might reflect something particular about the type of women who run for Congress. Multiple studies have found that women underestimate their qualifications for office compared to men. When you look at a comparable group of lawyers, business leaders, and others likely to run for office, the men are significantly more likely to say that they’d make a good politician.

"One of the common jokes in this field is that every day, there are a million men who wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and say 'I’d be a great congressman,'" says Heidi Hartmann, an economist who runs the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. "And there aren’t that many women who do that."

As such, Anzia hypothesizes that the women who do assess their qualifications positively are those who are actually overqualified for the job.

"If women … underestimate their qualifications for office, then only the most qualified, politically ambitious females will emerge as candidates," Anzia writes. "The women who are elected to office will perform better, on average, than their male counterparts."

Anzia dubs this the "Jill Robinson effect" after Jackie Robinson, the first black baseball player who was also heralded as one of the top talents in the game. "Robinson had to be better than almost any white player in order to overcome the prejudice of owners, players, and fans," Anzia writes.

Another thing that occurred to me just now is how Presidents are a contrast to each other. Typically they run counter to who the opposing party nominates, and they come to symbolize a rejection of the predecessor.

Trump's anti-intellectualism, nativism, and vulgarity is a response to Obama's decency and his progressive vision of diversity. In '08 Obama's scholarly and cultured persona was a response to Bush's ignorance and evangelicalism. In 2000 Bush sold himself as a down to earth, family man with good Christian values, in response to Clinton's lascivious reputation as a result of the Lewinsky affair. Clinton sold himself as an outsider from the south who was approachable, a cool guy who can play the sax - in contrast to Bush Snr's "blue blood" background, elitism and patrician manner. Reagan sold himself as a cheerful sunny optimist in response to Carter's somber realism. And Carter sold himself as clean and honest in response to Nixon's toxic presidency and the corruption of Watergate. Nixon in some ways personified the backlash to the civil rights movement and Johnson, appealing to the "the silent majority". And so on.

So, who would we envision as being the opposite of Trump The Pussygrabber? Who is the anti-Trump? Who would be seen to restore America's standing in the world, heal relationships with allies, with a gift or at least some talent for diplomacy? What sort of person would attract the votes of those in the crosshairs of this administration? What sort of person would get the interest of women in the surburbs, POC, and represent a complete and total rejection of all that Trump stands for?


In the 2016 matchup, they managed to drag Clinton to Trump's level, with a massive disinformation campaign. Now that we are aware of the dynamics of 2016, the next nominee won't face a similar fate - hopefully.

[Garrett78]

71. "What sort of person would get the interest of women in the surburbs, POC, and..."

And truly understands law and order, as a former AG of the most populous state in the country. In contrast to the unlawful and disorderly mess we have now.

[JHan]

87. +++++++++

[brer cat]

98. Great observation, JHan.

I am concentrating on 2018, but I am looking forward to see who emerges from the pack for 2020. The anti-trump should be a blessed relief for everyone!

[Hortensis]

136. Put that way: That would be Hillary for all good reasons.

Complete and total rejection of all that Trump stands for.

As for America not being ready for a female president, we did elect one in spite of massive new and old means of voter manipulation and election theft + Russia.

As for a woman and as for Hillary herself, people forget, but her approval ratings were very high as a U.S. senator and as secretary of state. That's in good part because other women came before her, and the usual hatemongering failed.

Well, in 2016 in a tragically real sense Americans did elect our first woman president. Our next female president will be the second one we elect and the first to take office.

I'd be very happy if that were Hillary. Age would be the big issue for me, not gender. She'd be very tough to match, and that election left us with unfinished business that we can address, not just move on from.

[JHan]

137. excellent points as always :)

Our next female president will be the second one we elect and the first to take office.

[OnDoutside]

17. If the best person is a woman, great, otherwise no. It is too

important. I have great hope that this Dem primaries will be electric, highly engaging and will produce the best person to be nominee. Let it evolve, perhaps someone who is not a frontrunner currently, will shine through.

[SkyDancer]

22. I think the next Democratic nominee should be

someone who supports;

*A living wage
*College free tuition
*Complete weed legalization
*Single payer health care
*Green New Deal
*Student loan debt forgiveness
*Paid maternity leave
*No limits on supporting abortion
*Ending wars immediately
*Single payer health care

Regardless of gender, race or religion.

[Voltaire2]

23. Exactly.

[oberliner]

39. Sounds like Bernie Sanders fits the bill

Is there another potential candidate who ticks all those boxes?

[SkyDancer]

46. Ro Khana

[oberliner]

82. Is he planning a presidential run?

[JHan]

88. So Corporate donations are okay now?

I'm only asking judging by some of your posts I've come across in threads we both participated in.

Interesting to see you evolve, evolution is inevitable.

Wall Street’s fab five: House members, candidates most reliant on funding from finance industry

Ro Khanna has pledged to not take money from Super PACs, which is interesting since it's illegal to do that anyway.

don't get me wrong though, I have had him in my sights and like some of his ideas.

[SkyDancer]

92. Nope they aren't ok

and if anything he needs to get off the money train.
First time I have heard of this.

[JHan]

132. "no they aren't okay" . Interesting so...

You would object to employees in a pharma company, or employees of a bank who are not executives, donating to a campaign?

Bear in mind there isn't a single soul in Congress right now who has run an election without donations from either "corporations" or entities that aren't very progressive ( like the NRA) or they've supported projects which provide jobs/economic activity to their district or state from problematic industries - like the defense industry.

The purity you seek is not there and never will be. Ideological purity and the language or purity politics produces failure in politics. No matter what side of the aisle you're on. Ideologues have poor legislative records, no matter what the ideology.

I suppose then you think crowdfunding is the only kind of legitimate political contribution to make - but should a Political Candidate seriously avoid help from Emily's List, Human Rights Campaign, Public Sector Unions, George Soros, Steyer, .....or filthy rich Hollywood liberals?

What's notable about Ro Khanna is that he's seen as a bastion of progressiveness, yet he's also a favorite of Silicon Valley big money donors. How people could not know this mystifies me since "corporate donations" borders on obsession for some.

"he needs to get off the money train" - Well he won't, I mean there are progressive groups very critical of Democrats listing themselves as 501c4s - proving that the purity metric is either a cynical ploy or cognitive dissonance has become increasingly endemic under Trump.

[SkyDancer]

134. Corporations aren't people

and dark money shouldn't be allowed from anywhere or any source, period.

This isn't "purity", this is called "having standards". Are you a fan of Citizens United because I for one am not.

I find it rather odd and weird that you seem to think $ in politics is just fine and dandy. Politicians should avoid any sort of money from corporations, period. The only ones IMHO that should be contributing to political campaigns are people and there needs to be limits on how much someone can contribute that's realistic. That means a millionaire shouldn't be able to donate any more than you & I can and while we're at it, let's get rid of these closed door $50,000 a plate dinner fundraisers that some pols are fond of doing too.

You say Ro won't change, yet I'm not sure of that. He listens to people and has changed his mind in the past, simply look what happened with AOC after people spoke up.

How can people not know this about him? Simple, I'm not that focused on him, I like what I've heard from him, much in the way you probably don't know about Emiliy Sarota

[JHan]

135. Lol lol okay Skydancer you do you.

[SkyDancer]

143. I will. Why do think....

the title of what I wrote is "I think the next Democratic nominee should be...."

What I want.

[JHan]

144. .....

🙄🙄🙄🙄

[SkyDancer]

145. ....

[JHan]

147. feel free to heed your own advice anytime..

[ehrnst]

149. ....

[ehrnst]

138. Dark money - you mean like

Our Revolution accepts?

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/08/26/bernie-sanderss-new-political-group-wont-have-to-disclose-its-donors/

You say Ro won't change, yet I'm not sure of that.

Interesting. From what I understand any politican who changes is "inconstant," and changeing one's view on a topic is a sure sign of corruption.

Unless of course that politician is given the blessing of the Junior Senator from Vermont.

[JHan]

148. complain about citizens united..

accuse Dems of not fighting citizens united hard enough..

then list yourself as a 501c4.

[ehrnst]

150. Crickets...on OR taking dark money.

No surprise.

[Blue_true]

76. Harris, Klobuschar, Duckworth. nt

[oberliner]

84. Harris would be my top choice

[OilemFirchen]

100. Not Kirsten Gillibrand?

You fall out of love quickly, Mr. Fickle.

[oberliner]

105. She'd be a close second

So many great Democrats to choose from!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

127. He sure does... run, Bernie, run!!

[dansolo]

50. And if they don't support your entire wish list?

It is obvious what you think the nominee should be. The real question is whether you would support someone who isn't.

[Blue_true]

79. And THAT my friend, will be the question that we will face in 2020.

The my way or the highway element, even in the face of a disastrous Trump second term. Sad and amazing.

[George II]

89. Yes, and that question scares me.

[SkyDancer]

93. The real question is

why are you so concerned with what I would like in a nominee?
Not interested in the bait, m8

[cloudythescribbler]

118. progressive plank (don't forget facing up to full implications of climate crisis) AND WIN!

Democrats need to find a strong candidate, like Obama was. Remember that before 2004, few outside Illinois secularly had any idea who he was -- so could be a fast rising political star.

I strongly suspect for some reason that unless another strong campaigner like Obama emerges, Trump will get a second term, especially w/all the GOP election stealing and a pliable (for the RW) SCOTUS

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

129. AND who voted AGAINST the Iraq War.

[workinclasszero]

141. I would vote with much enthusiasm for that ticket

and the person advocating it regardless of their sex, age, race, religion or lack thereof!

[Captain Stern]

24. Not neccessarily.

The next Democratic nominee needs to be someone that women will vote for.....even if it's a man.

[dem4decades]

35. Agreed

I know I'm going to get shit for this but I like Biden-Harris for a ticket. Steadying hand and a new beginning. But I'm open to alternatives too.

[Blue_true]

80. That would be an excellent ticket. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

25. I can't make that kind of assessment

After the midterms - and about a year from now I could discuss.

We must elect a Democratic House.

Then we have to see how America responds to the gridlock.

Finally - we would have to see if Trump survives the first term. We also need to look at the serious Republican challengers. 45 will not go willingly. The problem of putting 45 out to pasture may not be ours to find a solution for.

Flake, McMullin, Kasich are a good start. Who could beat one of them AND Trump? What do the chances of keeping the Senate look like? The House?

[Cerulean Southpaw]

72. This

There was an earlier post about the pendulum swinging. It's true, but it changes rhythm and speed. Sometimes something makes it bounce back sooner than expected.

The success of women in recent elections might or might not make a difference by 2020 and presidential elections are different from those kinds of races anyway.

The best strategy is to nominate the most electable candidate. The candidate's genitalia shouldn't be a factor.

[Garrett78]

74. A Republican challenger running as an independent would guarantee a Dem POTUS.

[Mc Mike]

26. Agreed. A 2 Woman Ticket. rec, nt

[leftyladyfrommo]

27. I don't think a woman could win.

She would just get ripped to pieces.

[Blue_true]

83. I don't agree.

She can win, but she will have to outwork and out think Trump or Pence 2x. She will need to visit more places, hold more rallies per day, sit for tv interviews, talk to reporters on the campaign trail. She would need to be available and have a consistent message to voters. The person who seems to fit the bill is Harris. I would be concerned more about Klobuchar, maybe Duckworth can do it, she is one tough person and she is smart.

[apcalc]

30. No longer voting for old white men....

Been there, done that...
She won.

[oberliner]

40. What about Biden or Sanders?

[Kilgore]

32. Here is what the odds makers say

ODDS TO WIN THE 2020 UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Name Odds
Donald Trump +150
Kamala Harris +1000
Bernie Sanders +1400
Joe Biden +1600
Mike Pence +1600
Elizabeth Warren +2000
Cory Booker +2500
Kirsten Gillibrand +2500
Bob Iger +3300
Tom Steyer +3300
Howard Schultz +3300
Oprah Winfrey +3300
Paul Ryan +4000
Nikki Haley +4000
Michelle Obama +4000
Andrew Cuomo +4000
Ben Shapiro +5000
Julian Castro +5000
Michael Bloomberg +5000
Amy Klobuchar +5000
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson +5000
Tom Wolf +5000
Orrin Hatch +5000
Jamie Dimon +5000
Joe Kennedy III +5000
Hillary Clinton +6600
John Kasich +6600
Tulsi Gibbard +6600
Mark Cuban +6600
Jon Stewart +10000
Caroline Kennedy +10000
Mark Zuckerberg +10000
Ivanka Trump +10000
George Clooney +10000
Leonardo DiCaprio +10000
Rand Paul +10000
Terry McAuliffe +10000
Clay Travis +10000
Ted Cruz +12500
Marco Rubio +12500
Stephen Colbert +15000
Bill Gates +15000
Steve Bannon +15000
Kanye West +15000
Will Smith +25000
LaVar Ball +25000

https://www.oddsshark.com/other/2020-usa-presidential-odds-futures

[oberliner]

41. Where's Avenatti?

[dem4decades]

96. Stirring up shit, just what we need against the Orange menace.

[oberliner]

99. I'd think he'd get better odds than Will Smith

[drray23]

58. What's the definition for this number ?

The lower, the better ?

[Kilgore]

69. Lower number, better the chance of the outcome

Put 1$ on Trump, get 150$ if he wins.

[former9thward]

97. No.

It means put $1 on Trump, get $1.50 in profits.

[Kilgore]

125. Whats a decimal point between friends?

Was using my least favorite device, a tablet.
Typing with a single finger sucks.

[The River]

33. Focus on 2018

This who do we pick in 2020 shit is old and unproductive.
It's counter productive.

[Squinch]

34. TAMMY DUCKWORTH!

[treestar]

36. They are not ready

Most of the voters aren't. That is a major reason for the upset. People just didn't like Hillary they would say, without realizing themselves why they didn't. Even people who think they agree in theory.

[Chemisse]

45. Exactly. The dislike was strongly rooted in sexism.

It began 30 years ago with her not baking cookies (forget the details on that) and not 'standing by her man', and piled on steadily. Amazingly she was recently blamed for not being nice enough to Monica!

A new woman on the scene would not have so much baggage, but would still be subject to attacks based on long-held biases toward her gender. It would be great to see someone take on those biases head on and go on to win. But a woman candidate has to be superior to a male candidate just to break even.

[treestar]

77. Yes, she was the first career woman FLOTUS

I remember that and how the right used to sneer that they hated the POTUS and her husband too. She must have worn the pants in the family per them. I did like the irony of her being the first female POTUS and Bill and the first one to take the role First Gentleman. Would have loved those right wingers to inconsistently start claiming Bill was getting a third term.

Notice they were able to make hash of the emails. I wonder if a male candidate could have done the same things as Sec. of State and there be nothing at all made of it. And let's not forget that the media will go after the husband too, in a way they never go against potential First Ladies. Geraldine Ferraro's candidacy - the media made it about her husband's scandals. The potential First Gent always has a career of his own.

I think it can happen soon, if the voters in the swing states get a bit more modern, but the next election is against Tangerine Hitler who the sexists will turn out for.

[thucythucy]

57. "Most of the voters"

who voted, voted for Clinton. By a margin of three million, which in any other context would have been called a landslide.

We need to learn lessons from 2016, but let's be sure they're the right lessons.

Just like the naysayers told us in 2008 that America wasn't ready for a Black president, I'm skeptical of the "we're not ready for a woman" thesis.

If not for Comey's last second intervention, Hillary would be president right now, and this despite everything else thrown at her in the last 30 years.

For Democrats to allow out and out misogynists to in essence dictate the gender (or race) of our nominee is appeasement.

All else being equal, and assuming the candidate is qualified, tested, and holds with the Democratic platform, I too would prefer a woman candidate. And contrary to what seems the accepted wisdom in the comments here, I believe a woman might actually have a better chance of winning the next time around.

But let's first focus on 2018. With control of the House committees, Democrats will be in a much better position to steer the narrative than we were in 2016.

[treestar]

73. But would Comey have done that to a male candidate?

Would a male candidate have any issue at all had he done exactly the same with his emails? That's the question. The OP says they will find something on the man but they will work twice as hard to find something that is really nothing on a woman (and remember her husband will be investigated too) and be able to make something of it.

Hillary did get the PV but then remember it is the swing states you have to get. California will of course be fine with a woman but we have to have Ohio, etc. be fine with one.

[thucythucy]

94. Did the GOP find something on John Kerry?

I have no idea whether Comey would have did what he did to a male candidate.

But the GOP turned a war hero like Kerry, running against someone who actually went AWOL during a war, into some kind of shirking coward. Remember the purple band-aides?

You don't fight misogyny (or racism) by surrendering to it. If we start choosing our candidates based on our fears of what the KGOP will do or say, we've already lost.

[treestar]

95. I wonder that they didn't do anything to Obama

Kerry was just about as squeaky clean. I guess Obama being young enough to have no war/draft issues was the difference. You could say a female wouldn't have those issues even in that age group.

They probably thought they didn't have to bother; Obama was black, and could not win in their minds. There was birtherism, but that was not enough; too ridiculous for most people.

I agree about the KGOP - the media helps them so much, though. They didn't have to make anything of the emails.

[left-of-center2012]

37. I prefer the best candidate regardless of gender ...

Regardless of race, religion, etc.

[samnsara]

38. i would like at least a VP consideration...

...not many women with tons of experience have tossed their hat into the ring. I would LOVE to see a Biden-Harris ticket.

[oberliner]

42. Is there a woman with tons of experience who you hope will toss her hat into the ring?

[Chemisse]

47. I think a female VP would be a great way to ease into having the first woman president.

A POC female would be great too. That route would bypass most of the misogyny and racism kicked up during a campaign.

[crazycatlady]

112. The last female VP candidate had a lot of misogyny thrown her way

Granted she was not in the least bit qualified, but she had misogynistic nicknames thrown her way.

I doubt a male VP candidate would ever be called something like Caribou Barbie.

[samnsara]

115. exactly.. we have to sneak a woman in..like veggies to kids..

[Chemisse]

116. LOL! We don't have to; it would just be easier. n/t

[mainstreetonce]

61. I agree

Biden/ female

[dembotoz]

48. For giggles why not the best candidate?

And too early to say who that may be

[Autumn]

49. Hillary, our last Democratic nominee for president was a woman.

The Republicans took any and every incident associated with the last woman Democratic nominee for president and blew it all out of proportion and what wasn't there they fucking made up and blew out of proportion. Where were you at that you missed all that?

I think choosing a candidate based on the Republicans treating them well is not a candidate I would want.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

131. Excellent point!

[SoCalDem]

51. or not

The next candidate should be the one who has enough pizzazz/charisma/enthusiastic fans to get a vibrant/energetic base motivated enough to vote and get friends/family to vote as well..

man.....woman..... old.... young... does not matter.. A candidate who has that ephemeral quality is what we need.

If we nominate someone whose "turn" it is, or someone who is formulaic and sufficiently "moderate", we will lose again even if we manage to win the popular vote yet again

[sellitman]

53. Harris-Kennedy

That would be an amazing ticket.

My dream team.

[democratisphere]

54. The next Democratic presidential nominee needs to be able

to defeat the redumbliCONS. Specific gender not required.

[LBM20]

56. No, we don't need a gender litmus test. It's not a coronation. We need a FIGHTER.

[maxrandb]

60. The next Democratic nominee needs to be a DEMOCRAT!!

[SidDithers]

62. The next Democratic nominee for president needs to be a Democrat...nt

Sid

[TCJ70]

63. OH NO! The Republicans will say things!?!?

Tell me more about how that’s different than any other time in the last 40 years. It doesn’t matter what’s between someone’s legs for them. They’ll call them a socialist (*gasp*), a communist (*gasp*), a far left atheist unpatriotic baby killer (*gasp*). They’ll say whatever they want whether it’s true or not and it doesn’t matter if it’s a man, woman, any of the LGBT letters, white, black or anything in between person.

So let’s just nominate the person we feel is going to do the best job and not be concerned about what’s bunch of morons will say.

[Wounded Bear]

64. The next Democratic nominee for president needs to be...

decided next year.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

65. No. Nominate the best PERSON. No purity/litmus tests. Very bad idea. . . . nt

[beachbum bob]

66. Disagree totally. Whether if it's a woman or a man as long as we can

route the GOP with our ticket.

[kentuck]

67. It "needs" to be someone that can save our democracy.

I don't know that sex or gender has anything to do with that?

[Heartstrings]

78. Need to survive midterms first....

If we don't take control our candidates won't stand a chance imo.....

[lark]

81. I don't know about that.

I think Joe Biden would be an excellent candidate and excellent president. Hillary being a woman didnt stop them from outrageous attacks and neither would the nominee being a man. Russian Repugs will pull dirty tricks, lie a million lies, show fake photos, expect the very worst - and that is regardless of who the nominee is. We need to have whoever is best, whoever moves the most people to vote for them because they like their policies and them personally and because she/he will improve their lives. We can't afford anything less, if we don't take over the House or Senate, our constitutional democracy could well be destroyed from within by Russia & Russia Repugs.

[lunamagica]

86. It doesn't matter who is nominated, as long as Russia keeps interfering

[Laura PourMeADrink]

91. the next nominee needs to be intelligent, witty, on top of facts, and unabashedly liberal PERIOD

[Awsi Dooger]

101. I think it would be a mistake

Ousting an incumbent is extraordinarily difficult. We ignore that at our peril. Only Jimmy Carter in more than a century has lost in Trump's situation...an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term.

Benefit of a doubt is enormous to that incumbent, no matter what it looks like two years out.

IMO, we should only nominate a woman in a favorable situational spot. That was my argument in 2008, when Hillary would have been perfect and it would have done the nation an immense favor to the country. 2016 was an iffy and slightly negative situation for a woman, after we held the White House for two terms. You'll lose more often than not in that landscape.

Now if we run a woman in the most unfavorable situational spot in American politics, and she fails, then it's going to put a wrench in our thinking and we might avoid further female nominees ever when they fit and are the best choice.

Donald Trump can savage any woman. He is comfortable with it. He relishes it. Let's face it, he comes up with more effective damning nicknames for women. His base thrives on attacking and belittling women in positions of power. We would be energizing the same white working class base from 2016 plus more of the peripheral types would join.

As I've mentioned many times, I became familiar with the uneducated white male types upon moving to Las Vegas in 1984 to bet sports. There is no question they would consider a male Democrat above a female nominee, who would be rejected with a laugh. I've heard them say positive things about a handful of Democrats only, like John F Kennedy and eventually Bill Clinton. They also didn't mind Al Gore, although he hardly was a favorite. If you don't understand that type of voter exists, then you are looking at all the wrong variables toward who we nominate. They may dislike Trump but if you give him a female alternative then there is no choice to be made. We forfeit 1.5-2% right there, and more in the midwestern swing states that are overwhelmingly white without the Hispanic support.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

111. I get it that people need to be qualified, but, after don trum...the right wing has ZERO

grounds for complaints about anything. And I mean ZERO>

[highplainsdem]

103. The next nominee needs to be the best candidate, whether male or female.

[YOHABLO]

109. We need a progressive candidate that can beat Trump ..what ever gender.

[Loki Liesmith]

114. Don't care

Whoever convinces me they can remove Trump has my vote. I have no other agenda.

[madaboutharry]

120. The next democratic nominee for president

need to be someone who is going to win.

[tirebiter]

121. The next Democratic nominee needs to be a Democrat

And not some easy rider.

[lovemydogs]

123. As a fan of Kamala Harris I disagree with the post

I am a woman
I adore K. Harris and am a big fan. As well as one of E. Warren.
But, I do not think a woman MUST be the nominee simply because she is a woman.
I want who is best.
I don't care what color, what sex, what religion. I want us to nominate the best. Period

[Renew Deal]

130. Yes, republicans never make up scandals if it's a woman

[Raine]

133. NO, it needs to be the best PERSON

no matter what sex, color etc they are!

[PDittie]

151. The next Democratic nominee for president needs to be

able to unite the party. Because if he/she can't, he/she will suffer the same fate as the last nominee.

(Demands for unity, FWIW, are a non-starter.)