John Podhoretz: Oprah 2020

[Statilius the Epicurean]

http://nypost.com/2017/09/27/democrats-best-hope-for-2020-oprah/

[Mr. Smith]

She's been mostly apolitical, sans the Obama endorsement.

And she'd get character assassinated anyway by virtue of a D next her, and just by virtue of being rich would alienate her from a decent chunk of the left.

There are plenty of other holes, but those are the most obvious ones right now.

[PoliticalJunkie23]

Could work. Especially if she did rallies like she did her shows. And you get a campaign sticker! And you get a campaign sticker! And you get a campaign sticker!

[McGovernForPrez]

Remember how well Clinton campaigning with celebrities did? Now we're actually supposed to nominate them?

[JonHawk]

Honestly i think she will be do quite well in the general.... not sure if she can make it out of the primaries though

[TheLeftwardTide]

Remember how well Clinton campaigning with celebrities did? Now we're actually supposed to nominate them?

[Possiblymaybe]

I didn't know this, quite significant for Obama at the time.

"She introduced Obama to the Hollywood crowd in September 2007 at a $3 million fundraiser. And that December, she spent four days with him in the key early states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. In the latter, Winfrey helped bring 30,000 people to a stadium to make it clear to women and African-Americans that he was her guy. His victory in South Carolina was probably the key moment for his campaign.

A 2008 study at the University of Maryland suggested that Winfrey herself was responsible for more than 1 million votes cast for Obama in the Democratic contest — which suggests he might not have prevailed had she not campaigned on his behalf."

[kyc0705]

She has a lot to lose and nothing to gain by doing this.

[tallguy23]

She has a damn good life. She's way smarter than Trump and knows not to mess a good thing up.

[136or142]

The premise is pretty silly (not that I'd expect anything else from a writer for the New York Post.)  Of course, it's impossible to know what will happen by 2020 (which is a second reason the premise is pretty silly) but Presidential elections where the incumbent party or the incumbent loses are pretty much all a response to the previous administration, not a confirmation with a different party taking power.

So, there was the perceived youthfulness of Bill Clinton replacing the perceived aging and out of touch George H W Bush.

There was the perceived ethical George W Bush replacing the perceived scandalous Bill Clinton.

There was the perceived cool and competent Barack Obama replacing the incompetent George W Bush.

And finally there was perceived make America great Donald Trump replacing the America compromiser Barack Obama.  (Or fill in your own better explanation.)

So, it's impossible to know for certain what the negative perception of Donald Trump will be in 2020, but I suspect his being an ignorant, loudmouthed fool will have a lot to do with it, and, in that case, the Democrats should actually nominate the most boring, policy wonk available.

I appreciate that boiling down an election result to a single cause like this is a more than a bit of an oversimplification, but I think we've all seen that there is often one main driving theme to an election.  And, I'd argue that at the very least, it's still a much better working theory than whatever nonsense John Podhoretz is working with.