Democrats who can unite the Country

[anvi]

Agree with everyone who says that the country can not be united in its present state by any figure from any party.  As to which Democrat can appeal to the electorate, there are perhaps a few out there (Brown, maybe Hickenlooper), but they have not been "out in front" of the political scene, they don't have serious name recognition.  Apart from Sanders, who I don't think can win a general election, the Dems effectively have an empty bench at the moment.  Obama could only manage to use whatever political capital he gained for himself, and the decks were mostly cleared for Clinton in 2016, and now there is just a vacuum.  At the moment, I'm not the least bit optimistic for Dem general election prospects in 2020.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

Oh, and by the way, this whole rise in ideological purity perpetrated by people like that Australian guy is what cost the GOP their strongholds on New Jersey, Connecticut, and other moderate suburban areas back during Gingrich's """revolution""" with his ideological purity.

Somewhat true.  Although back in the early 90s, there was a group of moderate Republicans called the "92 group" that were strongly behind Gingrich.  This was not so much because of Gingrich's ideological purity as the fact that these folks did not accept the concept of the Pemanent (Democratic) Congress and sought to win.  This group was made of Republicans who had actually governed; who had been part of majorities in their state legislatures and state houses, and who had experience being "bi-partisan" to get mundane things done that make government work because they would be held responsible if those mundane things didn't work.

The issue that really pushed the suburbs and the Northeast to the Democrats was the religious conservatism that became a GOP power base in the 1990s.  The GOP was able to win over Evangelicals to the GOP up and down the ballot, but this alliance cost them the support of secular Republicans who were conservative on economics, but socially liberal.  Even New Hampshire, a state that has always been fertile grounds for tax revolts, trends Democratic these days. 

[Deblano]

That's putting the cart before the horse.  Politicians don't create or drive anxiety, they are products of anxiety and the prevailing background culture that existed before them. 

Trump or no Trump, current anxiety isn't going to just disappear.  It was there before him, it'll be there after him.  Only in a certain climate could a Trump-like figure even appear in the first place.  If it wasn't Trump himself, it would've been someone else that emerged out of the woodwork.

There will be no "uniter."  I said it before and will say it again- this is a structural problem in society that no one man can fix.  There won't be some "Nixon figure," that just appears on the scene, snaps his fingers, and like a deus ex machina- all this polarization disappears.

Thinking such is incredibly naive.  Sorry, but that's the simple truth, whether you choose to accept it or not.

Thank you.

There are so many people on the web who think that Trump was the problem, rather than the symptom, and that if he was never elected we would have had ZERO tensions in the United States.

[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.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

Someone like Sherrod Brown or Tammy Baldwin. Midwestern progressives with establishment connections. Cory Booker has no chance with the activist base (Despite the borderline Republican beliefs of Blue Dog Moderate, who seems fine with Democrats being right-wingers). Same goes for people like Manchin (who's nomination WILL trigger a left-wing third party challenge).

But even then, it'd be an uphill battle for them. There are always going to be unsatisfied people.

This sounds about right to me.

I think a Brown or Baldwin type would be the perfect nominee in 2020 for the Democrats, and I've been saying that for a while. Harris also mostly fits the bill (although she's not from the Midwest, so she could still get the brunt of "coastal elite" criticism) of "progressive with establishment connections".

[Coolface Sock #42069]

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.

[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.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Joe Biden is the only one that comes to mind

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Joe Biden is the only one that comes to mind

As nice and likable as Biden is, no one is uniting the country, regardless of their party or ideology.

[Sumner 1868]

What is "unity" anyway? It seems to be a way of saying "winning elections easily." I mean, the "uniter" Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan still had four-tenths of the country vote against them.

[Sirius_]

Joe Biden is the only one that comes to mind

As nice and likable as Biden is, no one is uniting the country, regardless of their party or ideology.

Nobody can unite everyone, but I can see him at least uniting democrats.

[GGover]

Other that Brown and Biden, I think John Kitzhaber would be able to appeal to progressives and the WWC. The biggest problem I could see him having is with the criminal investigation into allegations of corruption that forced him to resign, but...

Kitzhaber's statement regarding the investigation

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The investigation is over and he has stated that he's willing to get back into politics. I think he will be a very strong candidate if he decides to runs.