It would suck if we could never have a female president simply because they would always get compared to Hillary Clinton
So this makes 7 candidates so far, right?
Wasn't this the senator courting Wall Street execs for her run? If so, hard pass.
Unfortunately the last two years have proven that men are too emotionally unstable to handle the job
Offtopic but I don't like colbert. As a person I'm sure he's a great guy but I don't find him all that funny on his own and when he is funny he runs the joke into the ground.
Another one coming in to land?
https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1085319082600263681?s=09
If he wins the nomination it effectively kills any chance of Democrats taking the Senate as his particular brand keeps him winning as Ohio goes more Republican, and the governor would appoint a GOP
replacement.
I don't think it's necessarily that. I hugely support feminism but it's clear that making your gender a focal part of your campaign is a bad idea for both the right and the wrong reasons. Obviously there are many people who don't think a woman can do the job so it becomes more difficult to win them over, but even politically interested people will say "I don't care that you're a woman - what makes you suited to be president?". It just seems like lazy gimmicky marketting on the basis of gender.
She seems to at least have a lot of gender related political goals. As far as I remember, Clinton's only real political point for electing her as a woman was simply to "inspire young girls". Gillibrand is focusing on rape problems in the military, homophobia, and other actual gender related issues in the country.
That's good but she'll need to broaden her appeal. I like what she said about healthcare and schooling. She should make that a key focus of hers.
That will probably be every Democrat's appeal, though. At least this is something to build off of.
Besides, healthcare is more of a general campaign point for the Dems. When competing against each other in the primaries however, they need more unique talking points.
Gillibrand is definitely a mixed bag. A pretty bog-standard Democrat who isn't super bold or impressive. Has some pretty bad votes, courts Wall Street, too. And I tend to look down on people who overly rely on social issues to make up for a lack of bold vision for the economy.
What really sucks is that Hillary Clinton, and ironically, the DNC, have personally soiled the chances of the next 2020 female candidate just by virtue of the 2016 election.
Please let this primary be a version of the Repulbican 2016 primary - all the neo-liberal democratic candidates cannibalize each other's support, and Bernie sails on through to the nomination because he has the corner on actual progressives, just like Trump had the corner on racists.
Dude, wouldn't that be some funny shit.
we can't allow Presbyterians to become president anymore, they'll just come in and hamburger up the place
This is the election right after we had Trump run and win so it's only natural to compare every male candidate to him.
Not sure if you're mocking me or not but yeah, if another Republican does run against Trump in the primaries, he probably would be.
She shouldn't run and should rescind her bid. Biden has a much stronger chance among moderates, and Bernie or Warren would have a much better chance with progressives. I knew she existed prior to the announcement simply because she was among the few that said they would completely resist Trump's appointees and for no other reason.
To top that off, she was appointed to Hillary's Senate Seat right after HRC was named the future Secretary of State. I feel like Hillary has a better chance than she does.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the idea of a woman sitting in the oval office, but the candidate needs to be influential and energetic. I don't agree with most of his policies but it's Bernie, hands down. If the Republican Party doesn't mind tossing a 70 year-old and a mid-50s duo in the White House, then why should the left have a problem with it?
To top off the influential/energy aspect, the Dems just walked a bunch of staunch red seats over to their side of the isle. I've said it here before, but if the candidate is sufficient, then yes they can win, but those House gains will walk away. Bernie, Biden, maybe Warren or Gabbard would be the few candidates capable of pushing that vibe.
I don't mind crossing the isle to get Trump out of office, but can I please ask that the person I cross for be of the Biden, Bernie, Holder variety?
Who the fuck is she
Forget the candidate in particular for a moment here; the fact that a candidate would launch a Presidential campaign during an appearance on a late night comedy show is an absolute joke. Pun unintentional.
Why are late night comedians such as Stephen Colbert and that other dickhead with the glasses so influential in American politics. Fuck
What do you mean by this? Those are three pretty different people
In any case, if she's that shit then she won't win the primary, I see no problem with her running
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/17/kirsten-gillibrand-joins-2020-democratic-presidential-field/3193642002/
She has finally now running in St. Patrick Day.
I never get this "exploratory committee" stuff. What's the point? What's the difference between that and an actual campaign?
Seeing if enough people would be interested in you running before committing to the costs and manpower of a full campaign. It's like the pre-production for a campaign.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
