in 2020 We Need a STRONG Candidate

[MineralMan]

We need a candidate that all Democrats and assorted progressives can agree will make a good POTUS. We need a candidate who will energize voters and create a massive, overwhelming turnout at the polls in November, 2020.

I don't know that candidate's name yet. I hope to learn it soon after the midterm elections in 2018. I hope such a candidate exists, because we cannot survive as a political party if we lose in 2020.

Young, old, man or woman, we need a terrific candidate!

[Squinch]

1. TAMMY DUCKWORTH!

Former combat pilot. Disabled veteran. Second generation army. Served in the House AND the Senate. Great voting record. Great personality. Bad ass!

[joeybee12]

2. Agreed. And fuck that ageist shit. Knr

[MineralMan]

3. Thanks!

[malthaussen]

4. I have a recurring nightmare that they will nominate HRC again...

... no doubt she can do the job (after all, Mr Trump is currently doing it, 'nuff sed), but I don't see her inspiring anybody who doesn't already think she's a goddess.

-- Mal

[lunamagica]

17. She received more votes than anyone except for President Obama

[Bleacher Creature]

5. K&R. It's about time someone said this!

I'm only in my mid-40s but am getting really tired of the incredibly ageist posts.

Thanks for your post. The only thing I'd add is that nobody should be deciding on a candidate before the mid-terms are over. And I don't just say that because those elections need to be the priority right now. It's because the mid-terms are the best window we have into the mood of the electorate. The 2014 mid-terms showed us that people (especially on the right) were ready to reject the "establishment" on all fronts, such that you can draw a straight line from Eric Cantor's loss to Donald Trump's win.

[FarCenter]

6. Most likely one of the sitting Senators

Kamala Harris
Tammy Duckworth
Chris Van Hollen
Elizabeth Warren
Amy Klobuchar
Cory Booker
Kirsten Gillibrand
Sherrod Brown
Mark Warner
Tim Kaine
Tammy Baldwin

Things are really thin in the State Houses. I don't see any of the Governors breaking through nationally.

Of course, there are always "celebrities"!

[StevieM]

7. Harris, Warren, Klobachar, Booker and Gillibrand all seem likely to run. So does Sanders.

So there won't be any shortage of U.S. Senators in the race.

I like Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington and Tom Steyer as potential candidates.

[FarCenter]

12. I'd think Terry McAuliffe might run if he can take over the Clinton machinery.

[StevieM]

13. I am betting that McAuliffe does not run. First of all, I don't think the Clinton Machinery

is transferable. It wasn't even necessarily transferable to HRC. People forget how popular she became when Secretary of State. That got her a lot of it.

I also don't think he wants to deal with being labeled the Clinton candidate, which many people will (unfairly) rush to do. Why not just go out a winner?

Tom Steyer strikes me as someone who wants to celebrate all the Democratic candidates in our history, rather than trash them. He postponed his business career to work for Walter Mondale in 1984. That is what we need: someone who will celebrate our party when so many other Democrats are racing each other to tear it down.

[karynnj]

15. McAuliffe might run and he might get "the Clinton machinery", but he certainly

would not get all the support that was there for Clinton. In some ways, he might have ALL the baggage from the 1996 fund raising without anywhere near the many positives accomplishments of Hillary Clinton. (True, he is a successful swing state governor.) I would suspect that he will start off with underwater favorabilities.

Fairly or not, there is baggage to go with the accomplishments of the Bill Clinton years - in McAulife's case, you get the baggage without all the accomplishments.

As to not wanting to be the "Clinton" candidate, that was always what he labeled himself.

[StevieM]

16. He has another option: he can simply be a successful and popular swing state governor who retires.

If HRC had not run for president she would still be hugely popular. It's not like she came under all these attacks (Benghazi, the fake email scandal, the Clinton Foundation) at the same time that she just so happened to be running for president. Had she not run we would have heard nothing about her email server or the Clinton Foundation, and the Benghazi lies would have stayed focused on Barack Obama.

McAuliffe is certainly aware of that. He might just want to avoid all that nonsense himself. His campaign would be a major long shot to begin with.

I like the idea of nominating someone like Steyer, who seems like he will celebrate all the Democratic leaders in our history.

[karynnj]

14. I hope not - he has tons of baggage - going back at least to the 1996 campaign

where financial things he did led to problems for Al Gore (Buddhist donation) in 2000. He also can be blamed for the incredibly poor shape of the state parties in 2004. Imagine that he would have actually invested in at least some swing state's parties. (In fact, consider had he ONLY helped Ohio).

Mcauliffe was good at raising money for the DNC, but if you don't use it to win the election. In fact, the situation was so bad that the ONLY GOTV in some states was via the outside groups, who were not allowed to make the case FOR a nominee. Not to mention, he chose the date of the convention, missing that the new McCain/Feingold rules would lead to Kerry having to spend his general election money over 13 weeks to Bush's 8 weeks.

Howard Dean took over the DNC from him after that election. The first goal he spoke of was fixing the state parties.

[triron]

10. We had one in 2016.

No, we need a fair election where treason or conspiracy is nonexistent.

[pnwmom]

18. +1000. n/t

[lunamagica]

19. Exactly! I've said the same thing several times. We can noninate the biggest rock star candidate

but if all the shenanigans that put trump in the WH aren't addressed and fixed, we will have the same result.

I'm sick and tired of hearing that Hillary was "a bad candidate", who ran a "bad campaign".

Hillary was the best qualified candidate in decades, and people DID vote for her. Millions and millions of them. She was set to have a landslide victory. The fact that she received more votes than anyone except President Obama is always overlooked by those who think we only need the "right" candidate to win.

[madinmaryland]

20. Martin OMalley. nt

[MineralMan]

21. He didn't get much, if any, traction in 2016.

Why would he do better in 2020? That question will have to be answered, I think. We need to win, not just run someone who is liked by some.

[madinmaryland]

22. I think that can be pinned squarely on the media

The race basically boiled down to three people. And in 2020 there will be no clear front runners as was the case in 2016.

[MineralMan]

23. You know, I don't think so.

I think he simply did not have the presence to get enough attention. That won't fly in 2020, either.

He's a nice guy. Next door neighbor type. But he doesn't stand out in any particular way as a personality.

I'm sorry, but I don't see it at all for 2020, and he's not doing anything to boost his public presence now, either.

And the whole "singing candidate" thing is a bust, really.