New Republic: The Democrats Must Nominate Another Woman for President

[Virginiá]

https://newrepublic.com/article/145867/democrats-must-nominate-another-woman-president

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Putting aside all the Clinton-talk in the article, I did think the idea was interesting. Trump's presidency is serving as a serious galvanizing force for women, and indeed a lot of the "resistance" is being powered by women, so Democrats would be wise to find a strong female candidate who is relatively scandal-free and can command the enthusiasm of a large base of supporters. They need to take advantage of the political furor that is ongoing right now, and if Trump runs again, it will be even more imperative. It will give women a very good reason to hit the streets to support the candidate. As we can see now, there is a lot more grassroots energy now than during the Obama era, and the right candidate can supercharge that in 2020.

I still think it should be Warren, for both ideological reasons but also because she is passionate/authentic in her beliefs and connects with liberals in ways other candidates probably can't. I know Atlas loves to say Warren would be defeated anywhere from a squeaker to a landslide (lol), but I just can't disagree more. I don't even really understand why this is a widespread opinion either. It seems like it could be due to a lot of polls showing opinions of her more polarized than other politicians, but one must also consider that she is somewhat more well known and conservatives have been trying to muddy up her image for some time now. In fact, iirc, it's actually a priority of the GOP to try and drag her down before 2020 is even here.

Anyway, thoughts?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, they should when the woman is the best candidate.

[Jeppe]

Yes.

[henster]

I think Gillibrand and Klobuchar are the most viable and electable women, while Harris & Warren have the potential to become more polarizing and unpopular than Hillary. Upstate NY is a lot like the Midwest , MA & CA have very few areas that resemble the rust belt. Harris & Warren are basically the epitome of coastal elites they've never had to appeal to WWC voters in their states to win.

[henster]

^^^Timmy nailed my thoughts. I think Gillibrand has by far the most potential of the women in the field.

If you thought Hillary had it rough, wait til Republicans focus in on Kamala Harris, the mixed-race lady from LITERALLY San Francisco who doesn't have any kids. And it would cone off as Democrats trying to make a copy of Obama, and could cone across as insincere at best.

Gillibrand seems like the quintessential soccer mom, I believe if she ran she'd be the only young mother of the field. I think she'd do very well with suburban even rural women.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Gillibrand and Klobuchar are the most viable and electable women, while Harris & Warren have the potential to become more polarizing and unpopular than Hillary. Upstate NY is a lot like the Midwest , MA & CA have very few areas that resemble the rust belt. Harris & Warren are basically the epitome of coastal elites they've never had to appeal to WWC voters in their states to win.

Upstate NY is more economically depressed than the midwest. Agreed that Harris would crash and burn. Warren isn't an ideal candidate, but might not be that bad. I don't know how much appeal Klobuchar would have. And Gillibrand would probably have native daughter advantage there, but that didn't work out for Hillary.

[henster]

I think Gillibrand and Klobuchar are the most viable and electable women, while Harris & Warren have the potential to become more polarizing and unpopular than Hillary. Upstate NY is a lot like the Midwest , MA & CA have very few areas that resemble the rust belt. Harris & Warren are basically the epitome of coastal elites they've never had to appeal to WWC voters in their states to win.

Upstate NY is more economically depressed than the midwest. Agreed that Harris would crash and burn. Warren isn't an ideal candidate, but might not be that bad. I don't know how much appeal Klobuchar would have. And Gillibrand would probably have native daughter advantage there, but that didn't work out for Hillary.

Warren is already pretty polarizing in MA which is a bad omen, if she can't get much over 60% in 2018 that should tell you everything.

[Virginiá]

jfern, what is your honest opinion of Gillibrand and her progressive bonafides? I'm a bit curious whether she is one of those more moderate Democrats that jumped on the progressive bandwagon when they saw that was the way the window was blowing, or if she has some history with it.

One thing the 2020 candidate needs is to be authentic, or at the very least, appear authentic (shudders). This is a pretty important attribute with Millennials at least, and it would be a waste to get stuck with someone who comes off as an opportunist, either from the start or after months of nasty campaigning against the GOP nominee.

-

Given my beliefs about how the country's political orientations are shifting (re: TD/BTM), I'm a bit more picky about who I want leading the party into the 2020s. I feel like there is going to be a real opportunity to enact actual change sometime in the next 10 - 15 years, and I'd hate for that to be squandered with a candidate who isn't willing to take some risks.

[henster]

I like how the party Right* went from claiming that misogyny is the primary (if not sole - remember all of the claims that a male version of Clinton would've "won in a landslide") reason for Clinton's loss to avoid owing up to their own mistakes, only to piggyback off of a grassroots movement against sexual assault to try and make the next primary a battle of identities rather than ideas. What a bunch of disingenuous clowns.

*Not applicable to Heer, but rather to the many Clintonistas, such as ever-abominable hack (& probable future Health Secretary under the next Dem. Administration) Neera Tanden.

Agreed. The notion that it must be a woman is a pretty big turnoff to half the electorate off the bat. I'm currently leaning towards Gillibrand or Biden (but I fully expect him to implode), but if it becomes all about IT'S MY TURN, I'll probably look at other candidates in the primary.

The only issue with Gillibrand is she is very much a hardcore feminist and there's nothing wrong with that but I think it can turn off a lot of men. I can very much see her going into the 'vote for me becuz of my gender' stuff more than Hillary ever did.

[Virginiá]

but if it becomes all about IT'S MY TURN, I'll probably look at other candidates in the primary.

I think if 2020's nominee is a woman, they will probably be more reserved about that. At least I'd hope so. It didn't look so great for Clinton, and it's superfluous to boot. Everyone knows that it would be a big deal to elect a woman as president, and talking about it a ton like Clinton did can be a turn off to some voters. The candidate would be wise to emphasize their other strengths, and let the gender aspect speak for itself, outside of maybe some limited gestures meant to motivate their primary supporters/volunteer base.

[Young Conservative]

The glass ceiling will never be broken until we stop start looking at female candidates simply as "candidates," whose gender plays no part in our decision to vote for or against them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I like how the party Right* went from claiming that misogyny is the primary (if not sole - remember all of the claims that a male version of Clinton would've "won in a landslide") reason for Clinton's loss to avoid owing up to their own mistakes, only to piggyback off of a grassroots movement against sexual assault to try and make the next primary a battle of identities rather than ideas. What a bunch of disingenuous clowns.

*Not applicable to Heer, but rather to the many Clintonistas, such as ever-abominable hack (& probable future Health Secretary under the next Dem. Administration) Neera Tanden.

Agreed. The notion that it must be a woman is a pretty big turnoff to half the electorate off the bat. I'm currently leaning towards Gillibrand or Biden (but I fully expect him to implode), but if it becomes all about IT'S MY TURN, I'll probably look at other candidates in the primary.

Her campaign was actually considering "It's her turn" as the reason for her running, and she claimed that she was the outsider in the primary because she was the woman. Tom Dewey is a better closer for Presidential races than her.

[Rookie Yinzer]

As of today I believe the nominee will be Gillibrand or Harris.

[Possiblymaybe]

I like how the party Right* went from claiming that misogyny is the primary (if not sole - remember all of the claims that a male version of Clinton would've "won in a landslide") reason for Clinton's loss to avoid owing up to their own mistakes, only to piggyback off of a grassroots movement against sexual assault to try and make the next primary a battle of identities rather than ideas. What a bunch of disingenuous clowns.

*Not applicable to Heer, but rather to the many Clintonistas, such as ever-abominable hack (& probable future Health Secretary under the next Dem. Administration) Neera Tanden.

Agreed. The notion that it must be a woman is a pretty big turnoff to half the electorate off the bat. I'm currently leaning towards Gillibrand or Biden (but I fully expect him to implode), but if it becomes all about IT'S MY TURN, I'll probably look at other candidates in the primary.

The only issue with Gillibrand is she is very much a hardcore feminist and there's nothing wrong with that but I think it can turn off a lot of men. I can very much see her going into the 'vote for me becuz of my gender' stuff more than Hillary ever did.

She’s not a “hardcore feminist”  she’s just a feminist and I don’t think this will be a massive problem. She’s personable enough to overcome that stereotype.
The biggest problem as far as I am concerned is that Gillibrand has taken a lot of money from Big pharma and Wall Street, more so than any of the other female candidates. Her reputation as a politician who is cosy with Wall Street could become an issue. Especially if she has to go up against warren or sanders in a primary.

Also being a longstanding Clinton ally is something the GOP will exploit for what it’s worth. Even though she will probably try to distance herself for the Clintons I do think it’s something that will be used against her.

[BaldEagle1991]

It must be either Kamlah Harris or Elizabeth Warren, or else we would have to wait for a generation for a female POTUS.

[Rookie Yinzer]

It must be either Kamlah Harris or Elizabeth Warren, or else we would have to wait for a generation for a female POTUS.

Uh there's gonna be a ton of new female governors and Senators in 2018.

They're going to run off and compete for the presidential nomination their first year in office? Any new Democrat women in the Senate or the Governor's mansion will be VP picks at best.

[BaldEagle1991]

It must be either Kamlah Harris or Elizabeth Warren, or else we would have to wait for a generation for a female POTUS.

Uh there's gonna be a ton of new female governors and Senators in 2018.

They're going to run off and compete for the presidential nomination their first year in office? Any new Democrat women in the Senate or the Governor's mansion will be VP picks at best.

Exactly why I said wait for a generation from now to see a female president. The new batches of women in 2018 aren't going to be experienced yet.

[Kamala]

Really, it's a shame Hillary sucked up all the air surrounding female candidates for president - up until her loss, she was basically guaranteed to be the first woman president, and most other female elected officials didn't have such aspirations.

I think I remember some articles (I found a NYT one, back when Hillary lost 2008, that serves that purpose) about who could be the first woman president, and I mean, where are they now?

Janet Napolitano
Kathleen Sebelius
Lisa Madigan
Maria Shriver
Gabbie Giffords
Kirsten Gillibrand
Amy Klobuchar
Claire McCaskill
Bev Perdue
Kamala Harris

And since everyone knew Hillary was going to run in 2016, most of these either faded away or had no presidential ambitions. So there's very few women who have those presidential ambitions, experienced enough, and haven't lost their last election.

 

[Mr. Morden]

I think I remember some articles (I found a NYT one, back when Hillary lost 2008, that serves that purpose) about who could be the first woman president, and I mean, where are they now?

Janet Napolitano
Kathleen Sebelius
Lisa Madigan
Maria Shriver
Gabbie Giffords
Kirsten Gillibrand
Amy Klobuchar
Claire McCaskill
Bev Perdue
Kamala Harris

And since everyone knew Hillary was going to run in 2016, most of these either faded away or had no presidential ambitions. So there's very few women who have those presidential ambitions, experienced enough, and haven't lost their last election.

I mean, given the kind of hints they've been dropping for years now, it seems clear to me that Gillibrand and Klobuchar have both had presidential ambitions for years.  It's just that they didn't run in 2012 because Obama was running for reelection, and didn't run in 2016 because they figured Clinton was unbeatable in the primary.  IIRC, Sebelius also flirted with the idea of running for prez in 2008, but likewise figured that she probably couldn't beat Clinton.

[Mr. Morden]

It must be either Kamlah Harris or Elizabeth Warren, or else we would have to wait for a generation for a female POTUS.

Uh there's gonna be a ton of new female governors and Senators in 2018.

They're going to run off and compete for the presidential nomination their first year in office? Any new Democrat women in the Senate or the Governor's mansion will be VP picks at best.

The implication (that I thought was clear from my reply) would be that there would be plenty of women on the bench in 2024 or 2028 if need be. Not a generation.

Yeah, if Kamala Harris is already presidential material in 2020 after first being elected to the Senate in 2016, then it follows that any governor or Senator elected in 2018 will be experienced enough to run for prez as early as 2024.

Plus, it's not like primary losers can't run again.  If Gillibrand or Harris run in 2020 and fail to get the nomination, they'll probably run again next time.

[Rookie Yinzer]

It must be either Kamlah Harris or Elizabeth Warren, or else we would have to wait for a generation for a female POTUS.

Uh there's gonna be a ton of new female governors and Senators in 2018.

They're going to run off and compete for the presidential nomination their first year in office? Any new Democrat women in the Senate or the Governor's mansion will be VP picks at best.

The implication (that I thought was clear from my reply) would be that there would be plenty of women on the bench in 2024 or 2028 if need be. Not a generation.

Yeah I read your post too fast. LOL. I understand what you're saying.

[Dr. MB]

Gabbard or Warren, yes, most of the other candidates, maybe or no.

I also don't like identity politics. For example, there's an open City Council seat in Portland for 2018, and there were three candidates, two black women and a Hispanic woman. In October a white man announced he'd enter the race and plenty of people, including a state representative, were calling for him to drop out simply because of the fact he's running against three women of color. It's not a good idea to run or not to run simply based on your gender, race, or both.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

jfern, what is your honest opinion of Gillibrand and her progressive bonafides? I'm a bit curious whether she is one of those more moderate Democrats that jumped on the progressive bandwagon when they saw that was the way the window was blowing, or if she has some history with it.

One thing the 2020 candidate needs is to be authentic, or at the very least, appear authentic (shudders). This is a pretty important attribute with Millennials at least, and it would be a waste to get stuck with someone who comes off as an opportunist, either from the start or after months of nasty campaigning against the GOP nominee.

-

Given my beliefs about how the country's political orientations are shifting (re: TD/BTM), I'm a bit more picky about who I want leading the party into the 2020s. I feel like there is going to be a real opportunity to enact actual change sometime in the next 10 - 15 years, and I'd hate for that to be squandered with a candidate who isn't willing to take some risks.

I don't know how much I trust Gillibrand with her sudden change from when she was in the House. She arguably has changed more than Tulsi Gabbard, who gets a lot of sh**t for that. I mean she seems better than most Democrats, but that's a pretty low bar.

[Beet]

As someone who lamented the lack of women in politics for years, I don't think this article is right at all. Yes Trump's misogyny is horrible, and so are many other things about him. The problems are much bigger now than they were just five or ten years ago. Their real sources are becoming clearer and coming into focus. So much has shifted under the feet of people who still think it's 1995.

And I don't mean the revolt against neoliberalism but the erosion of confidence in the United States itself; the country as a physical entity and the values we are founded on, and not just domestically but globally. We have not only lost all the gains of winning the Cold War but are in an even worse position than we were in the 1980s. This is a very dangerous time. Despite the rah-rah over nationalism on the new Right, real patriotism is probably at its weakest moment in living memory. There's a reason why the Soviets never seriously tried to interfere in American politics during the entire Cold War and it's not because you wouldn't have done it before the Age of the Internet, but because they knew that there would be no question-- any hint of such a campaign would have been met with a unianimous united front by both parties. Partisanship would have been set aside by any credible actors as the foreign effort was quashed with impunity.

Political sexism, and other identity politics related problems, traces itself back to the fraying of decency among the people, and this in turn traces back to the same causes that have led to the fraying of patriotism. In part these roots are, frustration with the failings of the political system of which the Democratic party itself sadly played a part, because we have (IMO) lost touch with our Judeo-Christian values on which the country was founded on, because we no longer lift a finger to defend the Enlightenment values upon which this country was also founded, and because we have abused the Internet to hide behind the fact that we no longer have to see each other face to face, to tolerate cruel and abusive behavior. This is where Beet transitions into a crusty old man.

For many years Christianity was a pillar of this country, implicitly if not explicitly; even people who were not religious were influenced by Christian norms of decency and the ensoulment of all people (the Civil Rights movement being the last major prosocial use of these norms). But when the evangelical Christian bulk embraced the intolerant politics of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Roy Moore, they began to divorce themselves from the mainstream society and spawned an entire generation that increasingly rejects them. The founders tried to prevent this by mandating a separation of church and state--what people don't often talk about these days is that this was done as much to protect the church from the state as vice versa--, but what they couldn't prevent was an intersection of church and politics. We are now feeling the negative knock-off effects of this social withdrawal from Christianity on our culture.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As someone who lamented the lack of women in politics for years, I don't think this article is right at all. Yes Trump's misogyny is horrible, and so are many other things about him. The problems are much bigger now than they were just five or ten years ago. Their real sources are becoming clearer and coming into focus. So much has shifted under the feet of people who still think it's 1995.

Political sexism, and all identity politics related problems, traces back to lack of decency among the people, partially fueled by a frustration with the non-workings of the political system of which the Democratic party itself sadly played a part, and partially because we have (IMO) lost touch with our Judeo-Christian values on which the country was founded on, partially because we no longer lift a finger to defend the Enlightenment values upon which this country was also founded, and partially because we have abused the Internet to hide behind the fact that we no longer have to see each other face to face, to tolerate cruel and abusive behavior. This is where Beet transitions into a crusty old man.

For many years Christianity was a pillar of this country, implicitly if not explicitly; even people who were not religious were influenced by Christian norms of decency and the ensoulment of all people (the Civil Rights movement being the last major prosocial use of these norms). But when the evangelical Christian bulk embraced the intolerant politics of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Roy Moore, they began to divorce themselves from the mainstream society and spawned an entire generation that increasingly rejects them. The founders tried to prevent this by mandating a separation of church and state--what people don't often talk about these days is that this was done as much to protect the church from the state as vice versa--, but what they couldn't prevent was an intersection of church and politics. We are now feeling the negative knock-off effects of this social withdrawal from Christianity on our culture.

95% would vote for a woman today, much higher than in the past.