Who would be the strongest non-Hillary female nominee for the Democrats?

[Phony Moderate]

Warren.

[Mr. Smith]

@BullMooseBase: All the losing candidates since 1980 sans John McCain say otherwise....but especially Mondale and Gore.

[Mr. Morden]

Why do people keep talking about blandness? I mean, if the GOP is going to nominate Ted Cruz or Ben Carson I don't want to talk them out of it but blandness is irrelevant and in the last 50 years, no presidential candidate has lost because of blandness. Elections are won on the economy and Klobuchar (and Warren) would have an easier time selling the message than Gillibrand or Hillary.

Tbh, I think some here mistake "blandness" for "lack of notoriety".  Gillibrand is better known to people because she's from New York, the successor to Clinton, and Gillibrand's leadership on the sexual assault in the military issue.  Klobuchar hasn't broken out of the pack to become one of the most well known Senators, therefore she's "bland".  It's curious logic, but it seems to be a thing with people.  Anyone who isn't that well known (and isn't an obvious nut) is "bland".

[SWE]

Warren.

[Bull Moose Base]

@BullMooseBase: All the losing candidates since 1980 sans John McCain say otherwise....but especially Mondale and Gore.

None lost because of blandness. Mondale lost because Reagan was an incumbent in a recovering economy. Gore lost because the Supreme Court and butterfly ballot weren't bland enough.

Why do people keep talking about blandness? I mean, if the GOP is going to nominate Ted Cruz or Ben Carson I don't want to talk them out of it but blandness is irrelevant and in the last 50 years, no presidential candidate has lost because of blandness. Elections are won on the economy and Klobuchar (and Warren) would have an easier time selling the message than Gillibrand or Hillary.

Tbh, I think some here mistake "blandness" for "lack of notoriety".  Gillibrand is better known to people because she's from New York, the successor to Clinton, and Gillibrand's leadership on the sexual assault in the military issue.  Klobuchar hasn't broken out of the pack to become one of the most well known Senators, therefore she's "bland".  It's curious logic, but it seems to be a thing with people.  Anyone who isn't that well known (and isn't an obvious nut) is "bland".

Right and as you've said, any major party nominee achieves close to 100% name recognition by the election.

And honestly, either major party running the first female presidential candidate would instantly toss whoever it was out of 'bland' territory in the eyes of the general public.

For sure.

Anyway… Klobuchar and Gillibrand have each done more to support a potential Hillary run than just about any other major office holder. Klobuchar (despite endorsing Obama in 2008) would be a feasible running mate if Hillary has a large enough lead (7?) to risk picking another woman.

[Cobbler]

Why do people keep talking about blandness? I mean, if the GOP is going to nominate Ted Cruz or Ben Carson I don't want to talk them out of it but blandness is irrelevant and in the last 50 years, no presidential candidate has lost because of blandness. Elections are won on the economy and Klobuchar (and Warren) would have an easier time selling the message than Gillibrand or Hillary.

The question is asking, who is the strongest candidate. And blandness is relevant. When was the last time the more charismatic candidate in the general election lost?

Presidential elections are popularity contests. Klobuchar would lose to a competent Republican.

[Bull Moose Base]

Clinton, Reagan and Obama were all very charismatic candidates who didn't need to be because they were elected as the out party candidate in bad economies. Bush Jr was more charismatic than Gore but it's debatable if he even won. Any female Democrat would produce a big gender gap, as Clinton is doing. Cruz, Carson, and Perry are not bland at all. You think they'd beat Klobuchar? I have long rejected the claim Hillary is the only Democrat who can win. I think over the course of a campaign Klobuchar's appeal to middle and lower class voters would prove sturdier. I don't see Hillary losing the nomination though and think she is favored to beat every Republican (as Klobuchar would be).

I also am still waiting to hear what about Warren would alienate moderate voters. Maybe just the label of very liberal would work because the voters are ultimately lazy participants and uniformed as 2014 showed again. But over the course of interviews and debates I think she'd be bad news for Republicans. Her views are mainstream.

[Lincoln Republican]

Gillibrand, but she would not win the General election.

[KCDem]

Gillibrand because I am a sexist pig who believes Gillibrand will be a strong candidate only because I think she's actually attractive, thereby displaying my blatant misogyny of believing that female politicians must be attractive in my eyes in order to be successful politicians. Based on this, you may also conclude that I consider Margaret Thatcher to be the quintessential example of feminine beauty

[All Along The Watchtower]

A good share of the American electorate that Democrats need in order to win would probably find Elizabeth Warren, and her fiery liberal rhetoric, absolutely repulsive.

Which share of the electorate?  And how is what Elizabeth Warren says so controversial, anyway? Unless you think she'd scare off rich voters.  But that implies that all or even a majority of rich voters don't give a sh*t if the country and society as a whole regresses into a banana republic. I would think that the top 1 percent of income earners-of which more than 70% have a Bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 30% for the nation as a whole-would be smarter and more empathetic than that. After all, they are very highly educated as a group, right?

[Kushahontas]

Gillibrand because she's actually attractive.

[Cobbler]

Clinton, Reagan and Obama were all very charismatic candidates who didn't need to be because they were elected as the out party candidate in bad economies. Bush Jr was more charismatic than Gore but it's debatable if he even won. Any female Democrat would produce a big gender gap, as Clinton is doing. Cruz, Carson, and Perry are not bland at all. You think they'd beat Klobuchar? I have long rejected the claim Hillary is the only Democrat who can win. I think over the course of a campaign Klobuchar's appeal to middle and lower class voters would prove sturdier. I don't see Hillary losing the nomination though and think she is favored to beat every Republican (as Klobuchar would be).

I also am still waiting to hear what about Warren would alienate moderate voters. Maybe just the label of very liberal would work because the voters are ultimately lazy participants and uniformed as 2014 showed again. But over the course of interviews and debates I think she'd be bad news for Republicans. Her views are mainstream.

You must've missed the part where I said any competent Republican. The topic is about who the strongest female candidate would be, not "Which woman can beat Carson or Cruz?" Obviously choosing someone who is extreme, gaffe prone, and easily mocked by the media would have a much harder time beating her. Do you think Klobuchar stands as much of a chance against someone like Christie or Rubio?

In a case where both candidates are serious (and in my mind, Cruz and Carson are more in the category of joke candidates), charisma has been shown to give a candidate a big advantage. I believe both Warren and Gillibrand would be much stronger because of that.

[Mehmentum]

Gillibrand because she's actually attractive.

While this shouldn't matter, it almost certainly does make a difference.

[Kraxner]

A good share of the American electorate that Democrats need in order to win would probably find Elizabeth Warren, and her fiery liberal rhetoric, absolutely repulsive.

Which share of the electorate?  And how is what Elizabeth Warren says so controversial, anyway? Unless you think she'd scare off rich voters.  But that implies that all or even a majority of rich voters don't give a sh*t if the country and society as a whole regresses into a banana republic. I would think that the top 1 percent of income earners-of which more than 70% have a Bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 30% for the nation as a whole-would be smarter and more empathetic than that. After all, they are very highly educated as a group, right?

Being a far left ideologue is "smart" ?



Oh boy.....


If Warren or sanders is the democrat party candidate , I will vote for the GOP candidate no matter who it is even though they wont win my state. But as an expression of disapproval of how far left the democrats have became since 2012 despite me voting for obama in 2012.

[SWE]

^lmao