Democrats who can unite the Country

[McGovernForPrez]

I don't get how people see Booker of all people uniting the country. If Obama couldn't do it, what makes you think Booker can? Both are left of center black men, but Obama is by far the better speaker and has stronger working class and geographical appeal. Booker would be an awful choice for unifying this country.

[McGovernForPrez]

Who can:
Cory Booker

Yes, because if there's one potential candidate who could unite the country as President, it's a cheap Obama impersonator who is hated by a significant portion of his own party for being a shill for Big Pharma. Peak Atlas #Analysis right here.

Source on that, Cenk? Then I'll respond.

Cenk? What are you even talking about my dude?

Or not, just wanted a source for your claims on Cory Booker "being a shill for Big Pharma."

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that he is or isn't, I'm merely pointing out that there are many leftists who seem him as such. I'd be more interested in hearing your explanation as to how he'd "unite the country".

"Leftists" don't make up a majority of the Democratic Party as indicated by Sanders' performance in the primaries, while racial minorities do. Booker's appeal to minorities, combined with appeal to center to center-left (and even pure liberals) voters, will help him carry the south, the midwest, the northeast (minus Massachusetts, Vermont, and maybe New Hampshire + Maine), and secure the nomination. From there, as Booker is a moderate Democrat, he could run a dynamic campaign on working with both Democrats and Republicans and using Trump's low approvals to help boost support with moderate Republicans. The only groups that are alienated are the far-right and maybe the far-left, but those groups can never be pleased unless someone "ideologically pure" from their belief set is elected. Now granted, this is easier said than done in a much more polarized and partisan America, but Booker has the potential to pull it off. Conversely, he has much greater potential to unite the country compare to someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren could (or for the right, Jeff Sessions or Mike Pence).

This is absolutely delusional. This country'so right wing would never vote for Booker. We've already learned this lesson through Obama. Racial divides in America are still too large for a black man to unite the country. Obama is a way stronger candidate than Booker so if he couldn't do it why the hell could. Booker? There's no guateentee Booker could even unite the Democratic party nevermind the entire country. He's already alienated himself from the Sanders base and it isn't like he has the name recognition and popularity to get all of the Clinton voters. The Democratic party is moving left side he'll end up in the dust.

[McGovernForPrez]

I think any notion of "uniting the country" has to come with the understanding that the primary electorate does not equal the general electorate, and that most Americans aren't a.) all that passionate about politics or b.) particularly ideological. Someone like Booker, at least in terms of messaging, would do extremely well with a general electorate and fare poorly with an activist base, whereas Sanders/Warren would do extremely well with the Democratic base but poorly with the general electorate.

I'll chip in and say that I think Sasse (not a Democrat, obviously) would do extremely well in a general election, particularly with people who don't vote.

Why can't you be popular with both? Obama certainly was popular with activists and average Joe's alike. On the flip side you can be neither. Hillary wasn't popular with activists nor was she very popular amongst average Americans either. I think Booker would fall much more the way of Hillary than Obama. Nothing about Cory Booker yells average American to me.

Firstly he's black so that automatically makes it a challenge for him to connect to the broader electorate. Obama did it, but even he struggled. Obama spent his entire career crafting an image which made him popular with working class whites. His success in downstate Illinois in his 2004 Senate race translated into his success with the WWC nationally. Do you really think Booker will have the same image as Obama had? Booker isn't from Illinois he's from New Jersey. New Jersey is a stereotypical coastal elite type of state. It's very wealthy and urban making it rather difficult for him to have the same image as Obama. Let's also not forget that Obama was a once in a generation speaker, and that also helped him have broad national appeal.

Just because Cory Booker is "fiscally moderate" doesn't mean he automatically dips into this magical pool of "moderate" voters. Electoral politics is more complicated than a simple battle of being more left leaning or more right leaning. Cory Booker has serious image problems which would prevent him from ever being capable of being a nationally uniting candidate. He's a wealthy technocrat and most Americans can't identify with him. There are certainly ways to change that image. Donald Trump managed to break loose from it, but it took a long time of careful planning and imaging. Cory Booker could try and shake of his image problems but I don't see him doing that anytime soon.

[McGovernForPrez]

I think any notion of "uniting the country" has to come with the understanding that the primary electorate does not equal the general electorate, and that most Americans aren't a.) all that passionate about politics or b.) particularly ideological. Someone like Booker, at least in terms of messaging, would do extremely well with a general electorate and fare poorly with an activist base, whereas Sanders/Warren would do extremely well with the Democratic base but poorly with the general electorate.

I'll chip in and say that I think Sasse (not a Democrat, obviously) would do extremely well in a general election, particularly with people who don't vote.

Why can't you be popular with both? Obama certainly was popular with activists and average Joe's alike. On the flip side you can be neither. Hillary wasn't popular with activists nor was she very popular amongst average Americans either. I think Booker would fall much more the way of Hillary than Obama. Nothing about Cory Booker yells average American to me.

Firstly he's black so that automatically makes it a challenge for him to connect to the broader electorate. Obama did it, but even he struggled. Obama spent his entire career crafting an image which made him popular with working class whites. His success in downstate Illinois in his 2004 Senate race translated into his success with the WWC nationally. Do you really think Booker will have the same image as Obama had? Booker isn't from Illinois he's from New Jersey. New Jersey is a stereotypical coastal elite type of state. It's very wealthy and urban making it rather difficult for him to have the same image as Obama. Let's also not forget that Obama was a once in a generation speaker, and that also helped him have broad national appeal.

Just because Cory Booker is "fiscally moderate" doesn't mean he automatically dips into this magical pool of "moderate" voters. Electoral politics is more complicated than a simple battle of being more left leaning or more right leaning. Cory Booker has serious image problems which would prevent him from ever being capable of being a nationally uniting candidate. He's a wealthy technocrat and most Americans can't identify with him. There are certainly ways to change that image. Donald Trump managed to break loose from it, but it took a long time of careful planning and imaging. Cory Booker could try and shake of his image problems but I don't see him doing that anytime soon.

No, Obama swept through downstate because his opponent wasn't a real Illinoisan; he established residence in Calumet City a few months before the election and was really from the East Coast. Check out the Chicago Tribune's 2004 endorsement of Obama to see just how out of touch his Republican opponent (Alan Keyes) really was with Illinois. The GOP couldn't find anyone who wanted to run against Obama. Also, since Keyes entered late, Obama had already consolidated his base in Chicagoland and had plenty of time to campaign downstate. Furthermore, downstate Illinois was a lot more swingy and more apt to split ballots (Bush still won the area) than it is now. Rod Blagojevich's corruption scandal was what (I think) really turned downstate red for good, and that didn't happen for another six years.

Also, a career in government hardly screams "crafting an image to connect with the working class". If Obama wanted to do that, he'd have been in the pipe fitters' union or the UAW.

Anyway, I'm not sure whether this changes your mind on Booker, but I thought I should at least set the record straight.

That is certainly some interesting info that I wasn't aware of about Illinois politics. I think my point overall still stands, though. Obama was popular with white midwesterners, and he did that through being anice incredible speaker and crafting a strong image.

Booker doesn't have that same working class appeal. He's too wealthy and technocratic. Wealth isn't so much the problem as plenty of wealthy people can connect to the middle class. It's that technocratic image that'll really do him in. American voters don't like technocrats and that a fact. Look at Gore, Kerry or Clinton (Hillary). They were all generally conceived of as being out of touch with the people. So wrapped up in the minutia of their policies that they couldn't see the real frustrations of Americans. Cory Booker will come across that way too. He's not an Obama tier speaker, and I don't think he's as charismatic as Bill Clinton. He'll even have trouble getting the activist base excited as they all already hate him for the most part.

Booker also doesn't seem to be trying very hard to change this either. He's tried shoring up the activist base by introducing Marijuana legislation, but it hasn't gotten much hype. He introduced a bill to remove confederate statues from the Capitol despite the country and even his own party being highly divided on the issue. The dude just seems politically clueless.