But we will probably get one which Obama or Garland would fill.

(My heart says Garland to correct that wrong, but my head says Obama say we keep him working)

Gore has said he isn't interested in running for office again and as much as we love Hillary, I am afraid her time has passed.

I do like the idea of correcting the wrongs, but.... I don't think this will ever happen, sadly.

Let's give the next generation a chance now.

I'd be thrilled if Al Gore and Hillary Clinton were in charge, but nominating two losers of presidential races is not good optics.

Elizabeth Warren is so super-high-octane energetic, and looks so much younger than her years, that even though she's more of the Gore/Clinton generation than not, she seems like the next generation to me.

I wanted Warren to run in '16- really hope she will try it in '20.

They both should have been President. They both would have been good or great presidents. But Gore doesn't want to run again- he has said so- and re-cycling Hillary would be a grave mistake. Her campaign was utterly inept, and while she would be a really good President, she is- trying to put this kindly- not exactly a formidable campaigner.

2000 was lost and 2016 was lost. We need someone who won't only win the usual democrats; we need somebody like Obama in '08.

Hillary was a razor thin margin over the worst candidate to ever get a nomination. Why would we do that again?

"Hillary was a razor thin margin over the worst candidate to ever get a nomination. Why would we do that again?"


IF Pres. Obama had gone up against what Hillary did, he'd have LOST. Bernie would have lost. Anti-Semitism, and a 2 inch dossier that nazibannon allegedly had would have been used against him, and the ruskies would have still done their thing. In fact, several people who were running Pro-Bernie websites and Bernie-related social websites kept trying to get the word out that russian bots, etc. were spanning Bernie's websites, sending out fake/negative news about Hillary and also sewing the seeds of discontent between Bernie/Hillary supporters on Bernie sites. Even Bernie brushed ruskie interference off as late as December of last year. But more recently, he says that the rukies did interfere and may still be meddling. The GOP was voter-suppressing, voter-disenfranchising, voter-crosschecking Dems off of voting roll like crazy. What the ruskies did was horrible, the way they put their thumb, ass, foot all over the scales to elect tRumputin. And if those things weren't bad enough, WikiLeaks, sexism, and the Comey CIA meddling, and the corporate media covering the fake email and fake Clinton Foundation scandal of course didn't help. IF Hillary hadn't have faced those hideous things, she'd have been our 45th president.

Lastly, no matter WHO the Dems run in 2020, they'd better get people out to vote (That's if our votes count and we can vote), and try as best as they can with a tRumputin DOJ and with beaureguard as AG, work on voter suppression tactics on steroids this next time around, because we know the GOP will be getting "help" from a tRumputin DOJ and from AG beauguard who doesn't like it when Dems vote, let alone when minorities vote. WHAT role will the ruskies have in our next two upcoming elections in 2018 and 2020? In front of the Senate Intelligence Committee a few weeks ago, Counter-terrorism expert Clinton Watts said that the ruskies are still meddling, cyber-attacking, and God knows what else--and still making trouble within in the Dem party.

Lol... he would have wiped the floor with him.

Charisma, ability to get his message across, good ground game, addressing the needs of working people, etc. There is a reason why Obama won Michigan by 16 percentage points in 2008.

I said IF Pres. Obama had have gone through what Hillary did he'd have LOST. So would Bernie. ANY Dem Would have lost the presidency given the ridiculous amounts of interference that went on during the 2016 GE.

By the way, HOW would charisma have stopped the rethugs from crosschecking, voter-suppressing, voter disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of Dems off the voting rolls in certain swing states that tRumputin needed in order to win the electoral college? Charisma would have stopped the ruskies from interfering into our elections? Charisma would have stopped Comey from putting his thumb on the scale for tRumputin by not? Charisma would have stopped all of those voting machines from being closed down in places like North Carolina where there was at the time a thuglican governor who arranged to shut those voting machines down in Dem areas? By the way, Hillary barely lost NC to the swamp thing.

Slightly off-topic, but the next thing you'll be telling me is that a Dem more charismatic than Al Gore running for the presidency would have stopped Bush from winning Florida in 2000, when we KNOW that a Supreme court leaning RIGHT, hanging Chads & shenanigans courtesy of Jeb Bush/Catherine Harris had a MAJOR hand in Dubya "winning" Florida/the White House. The Dem candidate in 2000, no matter how charismatic, would have stopped the results of the 2000 election. A right-leaning Supreme Court, hanging chads and Jeb Bush/Catherine Harris all helped to give the presidency to the thuglicans. A charismatic candidate won't help the Dems win the White House if there's ruskie interference AGAIN (They've never officially stopped meddling per Clinton Watts) voter suppression ignored or dragged out on purpose by a tRumputin DOJ, with beauguard as AG riding as a racist, sexist civil/voting civil rights HATER like him in 2018 and possibly 2020 if reported to a tRuputin DOJ by the Dem part et al.

"I didn't read past."

Didn't even see where I said IF.

Never mind. Good Grief

Someone like Franken or Schiff.

Someone we an all get behind.

and the pukes have convinced the stupid beyond all hope 3rd of the county that she is toxic.
I believe that Elisabeth Warren would be the better choice.

We wouldnt say that about a male candidate.

Heck, She'll only be 3 years older than Trump is now.

It sounds like there may be a bridge somewhere with a vacancy below it.

A man wouldn't face that.

If Warren has the same issues (females being called out for age) when she is clintons age too, I would say something.

Besides, I'm discussing Clinton, not Warren.

Al Gore is the same age as Clinton, and personally I think he's too old too. (I actually think Warren and Sanders are as well).

But maybe that's because I'm getting up there myself.

Trump is older than any of them, yet someone he managed to sneak in.

but then, I was doing that once you suggested that someone who has never been elected to public office before should be speaker of the house. I'm honestly surprised you didn't suggest Bill Clinton for the supreme court.

Are running for office. It's actually a huge drop - around 20% that happens when women are going for promotions in the workplace. It's exactly what happened to Hillary every time she ran. Hopefully people will realize how stupid it is but the truth is our culture punishes women for having ambition- and lionizes men for the same thing.

the charge of sexism might have more merit to it.

I'd say that we'd see Warren looked at in a whole new light once she started to get more ambitious. It's the difference between thinking someone should run and seeing them think they should- for about 20% of people it's a new ballgame. Ambitious women are less trusted. The studies on this are interesting, I encourage you to do some research.

Instead of another, the reason for it is likely not rooted in sexism?

As a small example I heard many people cite ambition and wealth as negatives against HRC- used to insinuate corruption without any evidence. Same folks would deny that men running for the same office were at all ambitious. Odd, isn't it?

There's nothing extraordinary about men amassing wealth and power in our society- most see it as completely meaningless (or a positive) in terms of who they are. In women it's been seen as a character flaw. Do your research- a 20% swing in trustworthiness or likability is nothing to discount.

One poster suggested that Clinton may be too old, and had other negatives, and suggested Warren as an alternative.

Another poster called that "a bit sexist".

I asked why suggesting Warren as a replacement for Clinton is sexist. I think that's a fair question. It would not seem that preferring Warren to Clinton has some sort of gender bias, as far as I can tell.

You keep suggesting that I "do some research" comparing women and men, but I'm not talking about men at all. I'd just like a simple explanation why preferring Warren (a woman) to Clinton (another woman) is "a bit sexist".

Office or bucking for a promotion versus those women who do. The same woman will suffer an average of a 20% drop in likability and trustworthiness. So people assume they'd like Warren but a good 20% will see her in a different light. Is that clearer?

The only point about men is, basically they don't lose points for being seen as ambitious- but it bothers a lot of people if it's a woman. Even when it's the same women they thought they liked? 1/5 is not so sure about her anymore.

Warren if she were to choose to run for office, because of the gender bias. It this accurate?

"Running" for higher office or a promotion. It happened to Hillary when she ran for senate, and once she was in her numbers climbed back up-but yeah she took a big hit just for running. It sounds odd but the same extends to the workplace. Hopefully these biases will fade. But it's good to be aware of them. This bias is what slowed the press and the Russian bots to have their BS repeated ad infinitum.

Clinton and Warren would both be hampered by the sexism embedded in society. I'm not denying at all that either would have a significant disadvantage over a male candidate, and haven't disagreed with anything you've posted so far.

but my question is: how is expressing a preference for Warren over Clinton "a bit sexist"? That's the part I don't understand.

Running.... studies have shown a large percentage are going to jump ship- so it's one of those things that's easy to say. Basically twenty percent of those people are going to feel differently. We can't ignore that just because no one wants to admit it is them- we need to air it out so people can examine and perhaps overcome their bias.

First, Clinton is older (by about two years). While you may call this ageism, it wouldn't seem to be sexism.

Second, that "the pukes have convinced the stupid beyond all hope 3rd of the county that she is toxic". Surely some of this is related to sexism and that will affect Warren as well, but the republicans have been going after Clinton for decades and have demonized her to the extent that they would have a hard time repeating for any candidate over just the next few years. Clinton has problems that go well beyond just the sexism that Warren would face.

You can argue about the extent of it, but these are both things that would seem to give at least some advantage to Warren over Clinton, even assuming that the sexism is equal for both candidates. So why is expressing a preference for Warren "a bit sexist"?

And two years is negligible. I'm not pushing for either of them or anyone else to run in 2020- would rather focus on the midterms. I like a lot of Dems. Was just explaining why some of these crappy memes got traction. Raising awareness as it was. Gotta run Nice talking w you!

made a sexist remark. Now, they did it in a polite way, but they did it all the same.

I recognize that because of my background, I have certain biases (as we all do) and frankly, don't always see things the way other people do. I didn't understand why this post was called "a bit sexist" and I wasn't sure if I missed something here.

Have a good evening

To be honest a lot of people pretend to want to understand and they just eff with you.... I'm glad that i guessed that that wasn't the case here. My larger point was we should keep the results of such studies in mind while listeneing to the conversations peopelmhave about candidates. Despite being a life long feminist I admit I had some bias myself, and when needed to be confront d with it. And in this election I have to say it was hearing "I just can't listen to her" a few times that made me push back. I couldn't imagine people writing people off without ever listening to them. That shocked me. But people were willing to do it, and willing to repeat all sorts of crap they had no evidence for. The scuttlebutt killed her- and it hurt all of us in the end. We're ducked right now because it was 20% easier to NOT give HRC the benefit of the doubt. I wasn't really fond of her myself until I dissected what was happening and how crazy it got. A real hatchet job.

What is the precise age that makes one "too old," and on what objective measure is that number arrived at? Or is your entire premise predicated wholly on simple bias and guess-work?

I'm looking for new blood

In 2020, do we really want a "dream team" of candidates born during the 1940s? It's time to nurture some younger leaders.

In 2008, we won with a young, energetic, inspiring outsider. Why mess with success? It worked!

And, honestly, what has Chelsea Clinton accomplished that qualifies her to be House Majority Leader?

I want 2020 to be a fresh start. Preferably some young blood too. It's time for a new generation of leadership.

What are you trying to do here?

There's not an ounce of fail in these people.

If they hadn't been robbed all of them would be leading us through prosperity right now.

We shouldn't give up due a couple elections. We should double down and try harder. We really do owe it them.

Hope and audacity is what this is.

But it looks like the idea is dead on arrival. Sad to see us writing off our best and brightest in hopes our the junior varsity team will save us.

But that probably is reality.

but God I hope she is not our candidate in 2020.

#1 and #2 were Obama's.

she didn't win in the midwest (which is where i live.) She's considered "establishment"

We need fresh faces in 2020

I would like to see Seth Moulton (D-MA) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL).

I would like to see Kirsten Gillebrand as Seth's running mate as well, but I don't think two north-easterners are going to work. I love Warren and Franken, but I think they are doing better work where they are. We need people that the right hasn't spent years demonizing. I think we need to surprise them by throwing new blood at them.

I like Gavin Newsom, also Kamala Harris and WA gov. Jay Inslee.

Of course both Oregon's senators, Ron Wyden and the increasingly outspoke Jeff Merkley, are valuable party assets as well.

Unfortunately letting the Eastern half of the country dominate the conversation too often seems to lead to tone-deafness on issues like cannabis legalization and tech questions like strong encryption, etc.

same old, same old. You have brought up some great candidates. The democratic party is not hurting for viable candidates, only for people who don't have vision. We need to give these people a chance. Hell, if someone with NO experience like Trump can get elected, then I think we can put up some great inexperienced but highly qualified people who can beat the republicans.

I was really impressed with Pete Buttigeig, when he briefly took a crack at the DNC chair post. There's a guy with a funny name, who I'd never heard of before that night, and wham! Very impressed.

Other possibility would be for her to run for VP, Gore for President, giving her to chance to step in a few years later.

I was gonna say, "you know, I don't read them books about the wizards, mang"

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2017, 08:01 PM - Edit history (1)

.. crook, Captain Hook!..."

Considered by many to being groomed for office.

You meant Chelsea Clinton.

Surprised that it caused so much confusion, but I'm glad that I was able to put you at ease.

Neither is Chelsey Clinton.

So let's agree they will be in the same place.

None of this is likely of course. It's starting point for discussion about how to correct past wrongs and put us on the right course.

Looks like the general consensus is that the older folks aren't wanted, so I'll let the matter drop.

Once again, I apologize for my offensive use of the letter "y"

They don't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

The fed is independent and Soros has other interests.

I would love to see candidates who are not on Social Security. We need new blood.

If someone on a Democratic board doesn't even know how to spell her name...

admittedly I haven't followed her career as closely as I do Hillary's, but on occasion my fingers do fail me.

If so I'll make sure get that into my spell check right away. Would hate to be banned over a letter.

Thank you for your attention to keyboarding quality.

But if even a Dem is ignorant of the correct spelling of ANY Clinton name, it seems doubtful that she would "win", as you so blithely assert.

And one not caught by spell check.

I'm a bad person I know.

Edit it already.

No one said you were a bad person lol. You ok?

And I have relatives who are named Chelsey, so its an easy mistake for me to make.

Yea I'm ok. I'm down to one eye (literally), but otherwise yes.

Rough times for all of us.

Hang in there.

Please! I really admire her, and agree with her on everything, but it is time to stop obsessing on getting her elected President. Through no fault of her own, she has been demonized for over 20 years non-stop. We can't keep doing this!

...but it's too far out to pick a favorite. The mood of the country is unpredictable... I'm sure we will have great candidates, though! And, I don't think any of the older politicians mentioned above are "too old" - except for Trump due to his bigoted old ideas, not his chronological age.

would bring out the R base en masse. It would be a bloodbath.

Appointing Pres. Obama would be exactly that. He was a great leader but I've seen no indication that he is a great legal thinker and jurist on the level of Kagan or RBG. They are different talents with little, if any, overlap. There are plenty of liberal jurists that would be better suited for the role. Furthermore, I doubt he'd want the job.

As to the rest of the OP, others have already expressed my concerns there.

Yeah, that will really connect with youth voters.

if we don't win BIG in 2018, and that's very much an uphill battle, it won't matter one bit who we nominate in 2020. we need at least one house of congress to slow the destruction down to a rate at which it can be effectively opposed. spoiler: what we're doing now is not working.

The republicans would kill us and they'd have a permanent majority for the next several decades.

I'd go:

Al Franken - President
Elizabeth Warren - Vice President
Kamala Harris - Senate Majority Leader
Julian Castro - Speaker Of The House

But if we're going to beat the GOP, we need new, scandal free people that they can't use in ads against us. Running the same people again would just ensure more republican victories.

We need to look forward and not keep trying to vindicate past failures.

let that blow your mind

Welcome to the DU.

But I don't think you have anything to worry about from me.