You know who the Democrats should run in 2020? Someone utterly dull and boring.

[DetlefK]

Imagine 4 years of Trump. Imagine non-stop chaos, non-stop scandals, non-stop-drama, non-stop outrage.

People will yearn for the LUXURY of not having to worry about politics. When Trump is done with this country, people don't want a flamethrower for President. They want a nice glass of cold milk.

They will not want yet another firebrand. (Sorry Bernie.) They will want somebody bland and unremarkable, a cool professional who can assure them that he/she will run a smooth and scandal-free administration.

Can you even IMAGINE what it's like to live in a country where you don't have to worry 24/7 what crazy shit your politicians will pull next?





You know who followed Hitler?
The first democratically elected Chancellor post-WWII?
His campaign-slogan was "No experiments."

[BumRushDaShow]

1. Unfortunately, thanks to the proliferation of mass media

someone "dull and boring" needs to be a good public speaker and "popular personality" or they will be torpedoed. See Walter Mondale and Mike Dukkakis.

[zaj]

2. And John Kerry, Al Gore

The person needs to be an inspiring Jimmy Carter. Elizabeth Warren can for that, I think.

[brooklynite]

14. Jimmy Carter barely won in 1976...

[smirkymonkey]

32. I personally would love to see John Kerry as president.

I think he is the most qualified person for the job.

[greymattermom]

3. Adam Schiff

Someone cool headed may seem dull and boring.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Jimmy Carter wasn't Mr. Excitement but he was just what the country needed after Nixon.

[rtracey]

5. anyone?

Anyone that has a brain, has some progressive thoughts and someone who isn't over the age of 70

[bettyellen]

6. Nope, someone obvs competent and civic minded. Harris.

[alarimer]

7. Oh, for god's sake, NO.

Some boring milqutoast is NOT GOING TO WIN, so fuck that shit.

An honest firebrand, someone who, in the words of FDR, "Welcomes their hatred". Because fuck working with those assholes.

[IluvPitties]

8. A military person with a stellar record and a serious demeanor.

Trump would be intimidated.

[northoftheborder]

9. Gen. Wesley Clark would fit this description.

[JonLP24]

29. I'd be more impressed by someone who worked their way up enlisted ranks

But I'd rather focus on policy regardless of record. I don't want another Wesley Clark who I didn't even want but so many anybody but Bush people backed him to avoid looking "weak".

[ehrnst]

10. But what about that "inspiration" factor so many voters "need" to bother to vote?

So many on the left feel that a candidate that doesn't get them, personally, "exited" or "inspired" doesn't deserve their vote.

At least if it's a woman.

[ollie10]

11. Not sure on the boring part, but we do need to vett our candidate....

...Vett our candidate, that is, with regard to how Trump would campaign against him/her.

Hindsight is 20/20.... Hillary was very qualified to be president, however, Trump was able to use her as a foil. Perhaps we were over-confident.

Trump is STILL campaigning against Hillary! Yes, that may reflect the desperation at his core, but without running against and demonizing Hillary, where would he be now? In Trump Tower.

We need a candidate who can win, first and foremost. I am not saying he/she should be bland.....you go to all the focus groups and polling to tell you what to think you will come off as ingenuine....and that doesn't work.

[StevieM]

12. I am liking Tom Steyer more and more. (eom)

[ehrnst]

13. Haven't we had enough presidents with no experience in elected office?

The commercials are nice, but I don't know if he's presidential material.

I think we need someone with foreign policy chops, especially in light of what DT has fucked up.

[StevieM]

18. I see your point but each candidate will have strengths and weaknesses.

Biden will have foreign policy experience but other drawbacks going against him.

My guess is that 20 Democrats will run. Eventually we will settle on a nominee and hopefully we will all get excited for him or her.

[ehrnst]

19. Unless it's a woman, then she will be held to different standards

in terms being "inspirational" instead of "shrill" "too ambitious" "expecting people to vote for her because she's a woman," etc.

I will take competence and experience over lack of experience any day, but I'm not everyone.

And I'm not supporting a Biden run - I will work for whoever is the Dem candidate, and if I have to hold my nose to do it, then I will not let that show.

[StevieM]

22. First of all, I completely agree that a woman will be held to a different standard in a number

of different ways. The fake email scandal is the ultimate example of how we make up reasons to trash women.

I fully expect Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders to run again. And, as I said, I think that at least 20 people will run for the Democratic nomination. Ultimately, we will pick someone who has some strengths and some shortcomings. Hopefully we will all get behind them and get them elected.

The two potential candidates I most like are Tom Steyer and Jay Inslee, because they are both great environmentalists. That is the top issue for me.

[ehrnst]

25. Environment is a top issue for me, as well, but competence

is what will make them effective.

No use in having an issue if you don't have the political skills to get it implemented.

[StevieM]

27. I think lots of people have the personal skills to be effective.

Experience is worth discussing, but experienced people can be ineffective, while inexperienced people may be very effective.

To me, the most important issue is trustworthiness. Who will prioritize climate change? And who has the right ideas, versus standard talking points?

Steyer and Inslee are currently the people who I trust the most. So they are the ones I hope to have the opportunity to vote for.

If you are utilizing a different method of assessing potential candidates then it is understandable that you might have a different early favorite.

Out of curiosity, if you don't object to my asking, who are you currently leaning towards as the candidate you are most likely to support?

[ehrnst]

34. I don't know the field yet, but

Kamala Harris or Cory Booker have the mix of experience, temperament, intellect, teamwork skills and charisma that would be needed.

Franken was a favorite, but I always suspected that he didn't want to go through the crucible of a run for POTUS, along with his family because of his long career in comedy- which is a rather hedonistic boys club. I don't think we're going to get anyone male from entertainment or comedy running for office for a long time.

Again, I will not pick any candidate without the experience plus temperament, plus demonstrated intellect for POTUS.

As we have seen, it's not an entry level position, and it requires a temperament that allows one to work well with others. Experience doesn't guarantee fitness for the Oval Office. There are long serving politicians who don't have the teamwork skills that diplomacy and effective working relationships with legislators requires. As we have seen, a blinding lack of self-awareness is disastrous in the White House.

That said, Eisenhower was a political rookie, but effective POTUS - but his extensive experience as an executive in the Defense Department during a world war gave him an understanding of government agencies and foreign diplomacy that most people don't have.

I guess my "trust" is going to be earned primarily by how many of a candidates' peers endorse them. They are the ones who work closely with them, know how they are under pressure on the job. I want them to follow the Democratic Platform, obviously. I'm not sure what "trustworthy" means otherwise in terms of a politician. I have no way of guaging what a candidate's personal life is like, so as long as there aren't issues that will pop up (like John Edwards), I really don't care about that. Every single politician is changed once they get into the Oval Office, and are probably presented with realities that they can't predict.

I may not want them as a spouse or a close friend, but that doesn't impact my "trust" that they could do the job. I don't need to want to have a beer with them in order to assess their fitness for office.

I consider it akin to interviewing someone for a managerial job - references, experience and ability to work within the culture of the workplace they want to head up is what I would look for.

Lacking any of those qualities is a non-starter.

[NewJeffCT]

15. NO FUCKING WAY

In the modern era, Democrats only win when they run the more charismatic candidate, as evidenced by two wins for Bill Clinton and two wins for Barack Obama.

Sure, Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale were smarter and far more competent than Reagan, but they were also both boring and Reagan was the most charismatic Republican since Teddy Roosevelt. Sure, George HW Bush was not charismatic, but Mike Dukakis suffered from an epic lack of charisma. George W Bush had that "down home" charm and was the guy you wanted to have a beer with, while Gore and Kerry were stiff elitists who were out of touch with regular Americans. Clinton was very smart and extremely qualified, but Trump had that con-man's charisma that allowed him to sell his BS to Americans.

[genxlib]

16. I would disagree

And my disagreement would echo many of the comments here.

But I would add this.

Boring is a blank canvas. We know the GOP and deep pocketed dark money will spend boatloads to create a narrative about our candidate.

Boring makes that too easy.

I would prefer a candidate with a strong, well established personality that will create their own narrative.

[IluvPitties]

17. A "war hero" with a known narrative...

Someone who has been praised by the right at some point.

[DetlefK]

20. They praised Comey, Mueller and McCain... until they did not.

[nuxvomica]

21. A lot will change by then

I predict Franken/Gillibrand or Gillibrand/Franken. You heard it hear first. I fully expect credit when it happens.

[dembotoz]

23. Sorry in Wisconsin we tried dull and boring and Walker keeps beating us

Nothing revs gotv like dull and boring

[kentuck]

24. Mark Warner

-type?

[mobeau69]

26. 2020 may be a moot point.

No point in crossing bridges until we get to them.

[treestar]

28. competent and experienced

having gotten over the idea that merely being outside the "establishment" is going to cause some great shake-up that is going to make things better.

[VOX]

30. Is there a genuine, take-no-prisoners, ass-kicker in the Democratic ranks?

If so, that person (or those people) need(s) to step forward soon. Like NOW.

Someone who can convey and direct the tribal and anger onto the PROPER targets, and NOT on fellow-Democrats/progressives.

[roamer65]

31. Lets get through 2018 first.

[NastyRiffraff]

33. THANK you!

I was about to post the same thing. We have a great shot at 2018 if we start working NOW.

[Ken Burch]

35. Problem is, electing someone like that would mean

Last edited Fri Dec 22, 2017, 05:26 PM - Edit history (1)

That nothing Trump did would ever be reversed.

No dull and boring candidate would ever do anything progressive in office. It's not possible to be bland AND

We can't just reduce our pitch to "it's enough that it'll be a Democrat doing it".

Doing that will just lead to the continuation of what's being done now...and THAT will simply drive people to vote the R's back in because we'll have been "the party in power" and they'll blame us for things not ceasing to be bad for them...

To make a victory sustainable, a party that wins needs to be able to demonstrate that it has changed things.

[Tatiana]

36. No. We need someone unknown, new, and fresh.

Like Obama.

Someone they (the Russians/Republican party) won't have any dirt or kompromat on.

[ehrnst]

37. They don't need facts to create dirt.

Remember Benghazi?

Remember the Birther thing that still goes on?

Remember "Palling around with Terrorists?"

We can't just run a rookie for POTUS because they don't have a record to attack....

Obama was a congressman and a Senator - hardly unknown, especially after his speech at the Convention.

[L. Coyote]

38. Democrats don't run people, people run as Democrats.

Hopefully someone exciting who can get out the vote runs. Obama was such a candidate, very exciting, not dull, anything except boring.

[Blue_true]

39. Run a well spoken, young Democrat that has a clean record, as best we know on ethics.

Believe it or not, people around them know who the relationship cheaters or bride takers are, those people need to open their damned mouths if one is trying to con us into giving him or her our party's nomination. We beat Trump by fielding a fighter who is the very opposite of Trump on ethics against Trump.

[StevieM]

40. Whoever the Democrats run will get swift boated. The GOP will find a way to label them a criminal

who is drowning in a mega-scandal.

This is what elections are all about at this point.

We need a competent nominee who can find a way to overcome the swift boating. I actually think HRC did a pretty good job of it, but Comey's last minute intervention erased all that success.

[Blue_true]

41. We need to start with a ethically clean person.

Then have vicious war room that rips the pukes heads off if they try their regular lying and character assassination act.

[StevieM]

42. We did start this last election with an ethically clean person.

She was extremely popular and well-respected when she finished up as Secretary of State. Then she was swift boated.

I am proud to have supported an honorable and decent candidate like Hillary Clinton for president.

[Blue_true]

43. Hillary did not set up a war room like her husband did.

That, plus Trump was new gave him advantages that he should not have had. Our candidate will need to set up a powerful war room out of the gate and challenge every lie immediately.