New Republic: The Democrats Must Nominate Another Woman for President

[Anna Komnene]

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.

That moment when you mention a 9 year old article and I remember having read it. Not sure how I feel about that!

I agree and it's not just the women candidates. Clinton's "inevitability" keeping most of the ambitious young pols out of the race is the main reason why nobody in America knows about any of the young Dems right now. It was always the things that annoyed me the most about her campaign - that and the whole idea that only one woman could run or else "it would split the women vote." At least people aren't spewing that nonsense anymore.

[Karpatsky]

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.

95% say they would vote for a woman. That's not the same thing as people actually being willing to do it.

[All Along The Watchtower]

At this point I'd rather we hold a Constitutional Convention that abolishes the US Presidency tbh.

[All Along The Watchtower]

PS: None of this matters.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Following the election, I always thought that regardless of if Trump runs in 2020, he'll probably be followed by a woman, as that would be the polar opposite of Trump, just as Trump was the polar opposite of Obama.

Like what was said earlier in the thread, I think Gillibrand and Klobuchar are the best women Democrats could put forward. I think Gillibrand would easily pick up some Trump voters in the Northeast, and peel away at Midwesterners who broke for Trump due to her background in upstate New York, which is culturally a lot like the midwest.

If Klobuchar runs, she'd probably have to somewhat reinvent herself so that she's more interesting, though that shouldn't be too hard. She'd strike at the heart of the Midwestern Trump coalition; she won reelection in 2012 with over 60% of the vote, so she'd likely win Wisconsin and Michigan easily. She may not be the best fit for battleground states in the sunbelt, but against Trump, I'd say she'd have a 50/50 chance of winning AZ/GA/FL/NC.

[jmsstnyng]

What about Lori Swanson? She's on the list for potential replacements if Franken steps down (especially after a second woman has stepped forward). She's the current attorney general of Minnesota. She's about to decide if she wants to step into the governor's race.

Could she make a formidable candidate in the future? (Not necessarily '20)

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

What about Lori Swanson? She's on the list for potential replacements if Franken steps down (especially after a second woman has stepped forward). She's the current attorney general of Minnesota. She's about to decide if she wants to step into the governor's race.

Could she make a formidable candidate in the future? (Not necessarily '20)

Yes, in the future she'd be a formidable candidate. maybe in 2028.

[Figueira]

What about Lori Swanson? She's on the list for potential replacements if Franken steps down (especially after a second woman has stepped forward). She's the current attorney general of Minnesota. She's about to decide if she wants to step into the governor's race.

Could she make a formidable candidate in the future? (Not necessarily '20)

Not in 2020; probably not enough experience. Later might work, but she'll be a little old by then.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

95% say they would vote for a woman. That's not the same thing as people actually being willing to do it.

The question asked "if your party nominated a generally well-qualified woman person for President who happened to be a woman, would you vote for that person". It didn't ask how many people would vote for someone who isn't necessarily a member of their party and currently has a 40% favorable rating.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Gillibrand or Warren, No. Harris, perhaps. Klobuchar would be sound choice though.

[GlobeSoc]

Gillibrand and Warren are good. The rest I wouldn't really consider voting for in the primary, or I don't know about their existence yet/ can't remember them.

[James Monroe]

Any women but Warren, Gabbard and other Bernie stooges.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Agree 100%. Gillibrand, Harris, or Klobuchar would be the strongest. Warren is ok but polarizing. Garbbard is the worst.

[Dr. MB]

Gillibrand, Harris, or Klobuchar would be the strongestweakest. Warren and Klobuchar are okbetter than average. Garbbard is the worstbest.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

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.

They seem to have realized that defending Hillary and Bill has no upside anymore. Gillibrand, who owes much of her success to the Clinton machine's support, will not be the last major democratic contender to condemn them. I think the democrats will nominate a woman, but it shouldn't impact the result of the election unless they try to run with "vote for HER because it's time for a WOMAN to be president" again while ignoring the real issues. What even was Hillary's message? It seemed like her gender was her only selling point. While I dislike Warren, she'd at least rally the base behind ideas.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Gillibrand, Harris, or Klobuchar would be the strongestweakest. Warren and Klobuchar are okbetter than average. Garbbard is the worstbest.

You're funny.

[Virginiá]

They seem to have realized that defending Hillary and Bill has no upside anymore. Gillibrand, who owes much of her success to the Clinton machine's support, will not be the last major democratic contender to condemn them. I think the democrats will nominate a woman, but it shouldn't impact the result of the election unless they try to run with "vote for HER because it's time for a WOMAN to be president" again while ignoring the real issues. What even was Hillary's message? It seemed like her gender was her only selling point. While I dislike Warren, she'd at least rally the base behind ideas.

Hillary's platform had a huge number of policies described, and in an ideal world, people would have just looked that up and knew what she was selling them. But that's not the world we live in. People want a clear, concise message about a generic theme that doesn't involve a lot of policy nuance. The only way to drive that into people's skulls is to ramble on about it over and over again, and talk about it every chance they get. But we all know Hillary didn't do that. In fact, ad-wise, she talked about policy less than almost every party candidate for the last generation, iirc.

Point is, the actual ideas are not the problem here. The next candidate, Warren included, needs to find an clear, effective theme for their ideas that makes sense to people. However this is not something I think Warren would have trouble with. She comes off as authentic, and she already has a brand that she sells well.

[Kingpoleon]

I wouldn’t mind Amy Klobuchar, esp. if she picks Wyden, Patrick, or Newsom as her running mate.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

They seem to have realized that defending Hillary and Bill has no upside anymore. Gillibrand, who owes much of her success to the Clinton machine's support, will not be the last major democratic contender to condemn them. I think the democrats will nominate a woman, but it shouldn't impact the result of the election unless they try to run with "vote for HER because it's time for a WOMAN to be president" again while ignoring the real issues. What even was Hillary's message? It seemed like her gender was her only selling point. While I dislike Warren, she'd at least rally the base behind ideas.

Hillary's platform had a huge number of policies described, and in an ideal world, people would have just looked that up and knew what she was selling them. But that's not the world we live in. People want a clear, concise message about a generic theme that doesn't involve a lot of policy nuance. The only way to drive that into people's skulls is to ramble on about it over and over again, and talk about it every chance they get. But we all know Hillary didn't do that. In fact, ad-wise, she talked about policy less than almost every party candidate for the last generation, iirc.

Point is, the actual ideas are not the problem here. The next candidate, Warren included, needs to find an clear, effective theme for their ideas that makes sense to people. However this is not something I think Warren would have trouble with. She comes off as authentic, and she already has a brand that she sells well.

I knew what policies she ostensibly supported, but you cannot deny that she failed to in any way make the case for them. Her campaign was focused entirely on "Vote for me because I'm a woman and Trump is an asshole" She wavered considerably on policy when actually asked, as seen by her trying to walk back calling TPP the gold standard of trade deals.

[Mr. Smith]

They seem to have realized that defending Hillary and Bill has no upside anymore. Gillibrand, who owes much of her success to the Clinton machine's support, will not be the last major democratic contender to condemn them. I think the democrats will nominate a woman, but it shouldn't impact the result of the election unless they try to run with "vote for HER because it's time for a WOMAN to be president" again while ignoring the real issues. What even was Hillary's message? It seemed like her gender was her only selling point. While I dislike Warren, she'd at least rally the base behind ideas.

Hillary's platform had a huge number of policies described, and in an ideal world, people would have just looked that up and knew what she was selling them. But that's not the world we live in. People want a clear, concise message about a generic theme that doesn't involve a lot of policy nuance. The only way to drive that into people's skulls is to ramble on about it over and over again, and talk about it every chance they get. But we all know Hillary didn't do that. In fact, ad-wise, she talked about policy less than almost every party candidate for the last generation, iirc.

Point is, the actual ideas are not the problem here. The next candidate, Warren included, needs to find an clear, effective theme for their ideas that makes sense to people. However this is not something I think Warren would have trouble with. She comes off as authentic, and she already has a brand that she sells well.

I knew what policies she ostensibly supported, but you cannot deny that she failed to in any way make the case for them. Her campaign was focused entirely on "Vote for me because I'm a woman and Trump is an asshole" She wavered considerably on policy when actually asked, as seen by her trying to walk back calling TPP the gold standard of trade deals.

Don't forget the Experience Card vs. Trump The Noob, which is a bit ironic considering how Obama got in.

[Frodo]

They seem to have realized that defending Hillary and Bill has no upside anymore. Gillibrand, who owes much of her success to the Clinton machine's support, will not be the last major democratic contender to condemn them. I think the democrats will nominate a woman, but it shouldn't impact the result of the election unless they try to run with "vote for HER because it's time for a WOMAN to be president" again while ignoring the real issues. What even was Hillary's message? It seemed like her gender was her only selling point. While I dislike Warren, she'd at least rally the base behind ideas.

Hillary's platform had a huge number of policies described, and in an ideal world, people would have just looked that up and knew what she was selling them. But that's not the world we live in. People want a clear, concise message about a generic theme that doesn't involve a lot of policy nuance. The only way to drive that into people's skulls is to ramble on about it over and over again, and talk about it every chance they get. But we all know Hillary didn't do that. In fact, ad-wise, she talked about policy less than almost every party candidate for the last generation, iirc.

Point is, the actual ideas are not the problem here. The next candidate, Warren included, needs to find an clear, effective theme for their ideas that makes sense to people. However this is not something I think Warren would have trouble with. She comes off as authentic, and she already has a brand that she sells well.

I knew what policies she ostensibly supported, but you cannot deny that she failed to in any way make the case for them. Her campaign was focused entirely on "Vote for me because I'm a woman and Trump is an asshole" She wavered considerably on policy when actually asked, as seen by her trying to walk back calling TPP the gold standard of trade deals.

I have long griped that she should have done the courageous thing and defended the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  At least people would have respected her for it even if they disagreed.  

[Rookie Yinzer]

I have long griped that she should have done the courageous thing and defended the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  At least people would have respected her for it even if they disagreed.  

!!!!!!!!!!

So many voters thought she stood for NOTHING and she proved this to them over and over again. Smh.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Gillibrand and Klobuchar would be the better picks.  I don't think it would be a bad idea for the two of them to run as a team.  Driving the gender gap to its biggest level ever might be the ticket to oust Trump in 2020.

Hillary had unique liabilities, plus she's not likable.

[IceSpear]

Gillibrand and Klobuchar would be the better picks.  I don't think it would be a bad idea for the two of them to run as a team.  Driving the gender gap to its biggest level ever might be the ticket to oust Trump in 2020.

Hillary had unique liabilities, plus she's not likable.

No woman will ever be seen as "likable" in contemporary American politics. If one wins the presidency, it will be in spite of that.

[Virginiá]

I knew what policies she ostensibly supported, but you cannot deny that she failed to in any way make the case for them. Her campaign was focused entirely on "Vote for me because I'm a woman and Trump is an asshole" She wavered considerably on policy when actually asked, as seen by her trying to walk back calling TPP the gold standard of trade deals.

Well not only did she not talk about it enough (or at the right times), but something else I left out of my post is that the candidate needs to become ubiquitously associated with the theme they are selling in voters' minds. Bernie's authentic feel and non-stop talk about the 1%/etc practically made him synonymous with the word billionaire. Compare that to Hillary, who became synonymous with the words corruption and liar. This was largely out of her control once she started her campaign. Her actions as Secretary of State ruined her political future, but she wouldn't find that out until years later. I think there is a limit to how much any politician can become "known for something." Sometimes things happen that kind of derail them, and make it hard for people to see that person in any other light.

It's for this reason that Hillary was almost doomed from the start. Once that email scandal broke, and the FBI investigation that followed, and all the other little things all just helped paint her as corrupt and almost everything people hate about politicians. I'm not sure she could have talked her way out of that. No amount of great campaign ads, or great speeches were going to change it. Every time things started looking good for her, Comey chimed back in with something new to say that once again reminded people of who she was. Or new emails were leaked. Or whatever. It just kept going on like this. The only thing that kept her viable, imo, was Trump and his ability to surround himself with his own scandals.

Maybe in the future, the party can develop a mechanism to eject a candidate from the party if they become embroiled in criminal investigations/huge scandals at the start of a presidential election.