What do you have against an Andrew Cuomo 2020 presidential campaign?

[Suburbia]

What is the problem? He's a two term governor from New York. Italian roots. Qualified. Saw same sex marriage in NY get enacted and signed. Fiscally and economically responsible. Moderate Democrat ,but progressive. What's the problem?

[lulu]

I have no objections to the man himself, but he isn't particularly inspiring. Plus people don't want a moderate democrat they want real change especially considering the horror show Americans are going to experience for the next for years. However, one could argue that his policies do look fairly radical in comparison to Trump's quazi fascist leanings. Also, there is the dynasty element to his candidacy considering his father and wife. People didn't want Jeb or Clinton for that reason.

[Pericles]

There's plenty of better choices than him, besides it doesn't matter if he is actually a progressive people think he's a neoliberal shill and establishment and those people lose elections.

[Figueira]

In addition to what others said, he may have been involved in Bridgegate. He's like a combination of the worst aspects of Christie and Jeb, in terms of electability.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Besides the fact that he's a corrupt Likud friendly 3rd wayer who will likely lose?

[brucejoel99]

Well, the election of Donald Trump has left the Democrats embarrassed, weakened, & looking for a strongman of their own. Yes, the party has a thin bench of potential candidates, & so it might seem logical to hand the ball to the Governor of a big, blue state. But nothing about Trump's victory bodes well for a Cuomo candidacy. If anything, the election we just suffered through is an arrow to the heart of Cuomo's presidential ambition. That'd be true even if Cuomo wasn't confronting a corruption scandal that has ensnared some of his closest associates. That Cuomo is being floated as a presidential candidate just 2 months after the charges were announced is more than insulting to voters. It's insanity.

Also, Trump just defeated Clinton: a dynastic, establishment politician from NY viewed suspiciously by progressives in her party. So of course it'd make complete sense for the Democrats to turn to Cuomo: a dynastic, establishment politician from NY viewed suspiciously by progressives in his party. That'll show 'em!

Really, though, it's more than that. The suggestion that Cuomo has a chance in 2020 ignores a political truism: each President is a reaction to the worst qualities of his predecessor. So, at the risk of oversimplification, we can see that disgust over Clinton's sex scandals & overall Slick Willy-ness led voters to an evangelical Christian who was married to a librarian & promised to restore dignity to the Presidency. But W. lacked complexity. His worldview included no shades of gray. He was all TX twang & Crawford heat. So voters turned to a smooth-jazz intellectual from the South Side of Chicago, a man who could dazzle us w/ the beauty of his words & intricacy of his thoughts. Yet Obama could be too professorial & detached for comfort. Where was the passion? Doesn't this guy ever get angry & fight? So voters turned to Trump, a bully from Queens. He's NYC through & through. Hotheaded, he tends to yell. He's vindictive.

Cuomo is a bully from Queens. He's NYC through & through. Hotheaded, he tends to yell. He's vindictive. See where I'm going? The personalities are too similar, as are the accents. After Trump, voters'll want a mild-mannered Westerner, a melodic voice from the S., or maybe even a certain U.S. Senator w/ upstate manners & familial ties to Albany (*cough* Gillibrand *cough*). They won't turn to Cuomo.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Well, the election of Donald Trump has left the Democrats embarrassed, weakened, & looking for a strongman of their own. Yes, the party has a thin bench of potential candidates, & so it might seem logical to hand the ball to the Governor of a big, blue state. But nothing about Trump's victory bodes well for a Cuomo candidacy. If anything, the election we just suffered through is an arrow to the heart of Cuomo's presidential ambition. That'd be true even if Cuomo wasn't confronting a corruption scandal that has ensnared some of his closest associates. That Cuomo is being floated as a presidential candidate just 2 months after the charges were announced is more than insulting to voters. It's insanity.

Also, Trump just defeated Clinton: a dynastic, establishment politician from NY viewed suspiciously by progressives in her party. So of course it'd make complete sense for the Democrats to turn to Cuomo: a dynastic, establishment politician from NY viewed suspiciously by progressives in his party. That'll show 'em!

Really, though, it's more than that. The suggestion that Cuomo has a chance in 2020 ignores a political truism: each President is a reaction to the worst qualities of his predecessor. So, at the risk of oversimplification, we can see that disgust over Clinton's sex scandals & overall Slick Willy-ness led voters to an evangelical Christian who was married to a librarian & promised to restore dignity to the Presidency. But W. lacked complexity. His worldview included no shades of gray. He was all TX twang & Crawford heat. So voters turned to a smooth-jazz intellectual from the South Side of Chicago, a man who could dazzle us w/ the beauty of his words & intricacy of his thoughts. Yet Obama could be too professorial & detached for comfort. Where was the passion? Doesn't this guy ever get angry & fight? So voters turned to Trump, a bully from Queens. He's NYC through & through. Hotheaded, he tends to yell. He's vindictive.

Cuomo is a bully from Queens. He's NYC through & through. Hotheaded, he tends to yell. He's vindictive. See where I'm going? The personalities are too similar, as are the accents. After Trump, voters'll want a mild-mannered Westerner, a melodic voice from the S., or maybe even a certain U.S. Senator w/ upstate manners & familial ties to Albany (*cough* Gillibrand *cough*). They won't turn to Cuomo.

That is really interesting and going off by that logic the best counter to Trump would be Bullock

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Well, the election of Donald Trump has left the Democrats embarrassed, weakened, & looking for a strongman of their own. Yes, the party has a thin bench of potential candidates, & so it might seem logical to hand the ball to the Governor of a big, blue state. But nothing about Trump's victory bodes well for a Cuomo candidacy. If anything, the election we just suffered through is an arrow to the heart of Cuomo's presidential ambition. That'd be true even if Cuomo wasn't confronting a corruption scandal that has ensnared some of his closest associates. That Cuomo is being floated as a presidential candidate just 2 months after the charges were announced is more than insulting to voters. It's insanity.

Also, Trump just defeated Clinton: a dynastic, establishment politician from NY viewed suspiciously by progressives in her party. So of course it'd make complete sense for the Democrats to turn to Cuomo: a dynastic, establishment politician from NY viewed suspiciously by progressives in his party. That'll show 'em!

Really, though, it's more than that. The suggestion that Cuomo has a chance in 2020 ignores a political truism: each President is a reaction to the worst qualities of his predecessor. So, at the risk of oversimplification, we can see that disgust over Clinton's sex scandals & overall Slick Willy-ness led voters to an evangelical Christian who was married to a librarian & promised to restore dignity to the Presidency. But W. lacked complexity. His worldview included no shades of gray. He was all TX twang & Crawford heat. So voters turned to a smooth-jazz intellectual from the South Side of Chicago, a man who could dazzle us w/ the beauty of his words & intricacy of his thoughts. Yet Obama could be too professorial & detached for comfort. Where was the passion? Doesn't this guy ever get angry & fight? So voters turned to Trump, a bully from Queens. He's NYC through & through. Hotheaded, he tends to yell. He's vindictive.

Cuomo is a bully from Queens. He's NYC through & through. Hotheaded, he tends to yell. He's vindictive. See where I'm going? The personalities are too similar, as are the accents. After Trump, voters'll want a mild-mannered Westerner, a melodic voice from the S., or maybe even a certain U.S. Senator w/ upstate manners & familial ties to Albany (*cough* Gillibrand *cough*). They won't turn to Cuomo.

That is really interesting and going off by that logic the best counter to Trump would be Bullock

Honestly, Bullock could be a good choice. He's from a purplish state (especially on the state level), he's from the west, and he's rather moderate. I think that moderates could do well if they don't come off as elitist and corrupt (see H. Clinton and Cuomo). Combine him with a progressive and I think that ticket would do well. Maybe Merkley; he did well in Southern Oregon in his 2016 Senate run, winning some counties that Hillary lost bigly (Thanks NOVA Green for all those Oregon posts).

I don't think that an average East Coast politician would play that well in the Midwest and West. In 1992, Dems went with two southerners. Maybe it's time they go with two westerners.

[andrew_c]

Cuomo is someone who would turn off many progressives. Also corrupt, boring, and likely to hand victory to Trump on a platter.

[Cashew]

Yes, the saboteur of his state party will have no problems rallying the base around him.

Get serious, once the dirt becomes common knowledge he will be hated as much, if not more than Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

[henster]

Cuomo tanked in Upstate largely due to the SAFE Act and he'd get the same reaction in the Midwest, he'd lose WI, MN, MI by larger margins than Hillary. His anti-fracking stance would also hurt in OH, PA, & CO. Guns & energy are two issues the party doesn't need to go hard left on considering the map.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Uh, he's terrible?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

No more corporate trash.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Also, Trump just defeated Clinton: a dynastic, establishment politician from NY viewed suspiciously by progressives in her party. So of course it'd make complete sense for the Democrats to turn to Cuomo: a dynastic, establishment politician from NY viewed suspiciously by progressives in his party. That'll show 'em!

Seriously, this. Cuomo has all of Clinton's faults and none of her strengths.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Because he's a right-winger.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I'd probably vote for that ticket, which should tell you all you need to know about its viability in a Democratic primary.

Cuomo would represent a return to DLC-style moderate policy and a ditching of identity politics, which could play well in the general but be uninspiring at best in a primary.

[bagelman]

[Del Tachi]

Nothing.  He is a moderate, accomplished governor of one of the most dynamic states in the United States.  He would have a strong fundraising base and the institutional strength needed to challenge an incumbent president.  Democrats would be wise to nominate him, as I think he is one of the most electable Democrats in 2020.  Would certainly do better than Sanders or Warren.

The only problem I can foresee in his campaign is that the "establishment" Democrats in 2020 are going to need to have consolidated support among minority groups in order to overcome Sanders/Warren's advantage with White voters (especially Millennials).  It will be interesting to see if Cuomo can do that in a race that might also feature Cory Booker, Deval Patrick or Kamala Harris.

[Cashew]

I'd probably vote for that ticket, which should tell you all you need to know about its viability in a Democratic primary.

Cuomo would represent a return to DLC-style moderate policy and a ditching of identity politics, which could play well in the general but be uninspiring at best in a primary.

Those are mutually exclusive. You either need to rely on minority voters, or you run to the left economically, it it impossible to do neither and win the Democratic primary.

[Phony Moderate]

I don't like conservatives.

[Mister Mets]

I'm a Republican so I'm unlikely to vote for him.

Pros...
He's experienced (HUD Secretary+ two terms as Governor of a large state + one term as New York Attorney General)
He is resilient (goes from losing a bid for statewide office primary to being considered a potential Biden replacement in ten years.)
He's comfortable with the high profile of a potential presidential candidate.
The potential candidates are largely untested on a national stage (Gilibrand, Harris, Booker, Castro, Gabbard) and it's possible they're not ready for prime time.
An alpha male might paradoxically play well against Trump.

Cons...
A 60-something white guy does nothing from an identity politics perspective.
He's not married.
The son of a Governor who became a cabinet secretary 20 years ago is not going to be a change candidate.
Some of his positions/ actions pissed off liberals.

[Cory]

Nothing. 

Well you're a conservative so....... 

[Del Tachi]

Nothing.

Well you're a conservative so....... 

Well what's wrong with him?

Democrats are doing themselves a disservice if they think the reason HRC lost was because "muh DLC faux-liberalism".  Polls showed that a majority of voters were in agreement with Democrats on basically every issue compared to Trump, but when you nominate a candidate with -22 favorability ratings whose under FBI investigation...

Hillary's lost wasn't because of the failure of Democratic policies.  To move the party to the far-left in response to her loss is the only way Democrats ensure that Trump is reelected in 2020.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I'd probably vote for that ticket, which should tell you all you need to know about its viability in a Democratic primary.

Cuomo would represent a return to DLC-style moderate policy and a ditching of identity politics, which could play well in the general but be uninspiring at best in a primary.

Those are mutually exclusive. You either need to rely on minority voters, or you run to the left economically, it it impossible to do neither and win the Democratic primary.

Which is what I was saying.

[MarkD]

I have nothing against him, yet. If he runs, I will consider voting for him depending on what things he has to say about appointing Supreme Court Justices. If he says things similar to what Hilary said, and/or if he continues to cling to the sanctity of Roe v. Wade, then I am against him getting elected President.

I like this a lot:

Saw same sex marriage in NY get enacted and signed.

The federal courts didn't do it; the state courts didn't do it, the Governor and the state legislature did it. Marvelous!!