Warren is finished due to DNAgate. Her pro-Israel stance is pretty crummy too, though she has been a hero on financial issues facing the country--no doubt about it. She's bright, honest and vastly preferable to Clinton, but I don;t think she has a chance.
I like Kamala Harris best. She's also very bright, the most charismatic--funny, feisty and charming and whenever Republicans go against her she makes them sound even dumber and more repugnant than they usually do, which is quite a feat. She exposed Kavanaugh as a filthy rapist liar, with great aplomb. I don't know how she'd fare against a mindless bully like Trump. She'd corner the sane vote but sane people are probably now a minority. That's just reality.
We Dems don't need 3 ultra liberals from the 3 most liberal states in the county. We need fresh more middle of the road candidates.
7
I’d love to have a female president. I was a proud Hillary supporter and am still sure that she would have made a good president. But if Democrats run on female solidarity, they’ll lose. There is no such thing. Ideology trumps identity. I would never vote for a left- or right-wing radical, no matter their gender. After the DNA fiasco, I would not contribute a dollar to the Warren campaign, let alone give her my vote. Gillibrand’s McCarthyism in getting rid of Senator Franken has placed her beyond the pale. As for Harris, I don’t know enough about her, and I’m from California. Can you blame an Iowan being ignorant of her very existence? I’m sure there are great women candidates somewhere. Let’s hope they’ll emerge in time before the election.
3
I wish Patty Murray would run. No nonsense, no attorney-speak, condescension, or drama. Working class, common sense, mom in tennis shoes, reaches across the aisle.
Hillary (& Bill) never appealed to me, though I held my nose and voted for them. Please let’s make better choices.
2
A woman is simply not electable in 2020
4
Trump, simply, can’t be beaten. He’s too smart politically, I hate the guy, but the knows the people. His new jobs not mobs slogan is genius, it doesn’t make factual sense, but it has ensure republicans will win these midterms. He will find something similar in 2020. With social media and general tv everywhere, Trump is probably the greatest politician of all time, he can’t be beaten.
4
If the Dems can't win the House next month, this article is irrelevant. We all know 2018 election is a Trump referendum... and my sense tells me, Repubs might win again. Dems, furrowed brows deeply knitted, don't seem to have figured out the reality of 2018 America.
4
Gillibrand stabbed both Hillary and Franken the back.
There is no way, I’d support her under any circumstances.
6
No great love for Gillibrand 'round these parts! He's not a woman, but Al Franken would get my support.
5
The Dems tone deaf leadership think this is a grand idea. From the same folks who marginalized Joe Biden and, yes, rigged the primaries and convention against Bernie Sanders. They want to put forward a woman candidate in the worst way. In that, they will be successful.
4
Amy Klobuchar for president. She's the one who can win right now.
2
I would take a President Harris in a heartbeat, but people are kidding themselves if they think Elizabeth Warren has any chance. I genuinely don't know if I would vote for her over Trump in 2020. She's an ideologue who makes sense as a Senator but she is just not a leader. Her and Bernie Sanders could be twins. Rabid tiny fanbase, too liberal, zero idea how to lead a country, zero chance of doing it.
6
Kamala Harris and Joe Kennedy, Jr.
Or. Harris and Klobuchar.
Warren, sadly, messed up. Gilibrand won’t make it in the Heartland. I didn’t hear her voice fighting for the victims during Kavanaugh??
Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar.
The Dream Team.
7
Youth and minorities for Harris, doctrinaire SJW’s and the seniors for Warren, and neo-liberal corporate types for Gillibrand, with what’s left of our male allies standing on the sidelines laughing at the cat fight.
And the winner Harris going to the altar to help make Trump finally look legitimate after he trounces her like Reagan did to Mondale. Pass the popcorn, and it’s probably time to start planning for 2024. Because 2020 is going to be a real doozy.
4
What really concerns me is the number of comments I’ve seen that mistake a New York Times article for DNC policy. The NYT is merely stating that there are several Democratic women who could be considered as presidential candidates in the 2020 election. Immediately you get commenters spouting off about ‘identity politics’ . Apparently, any time someone *other* than a white male runs for office, then it’s ‘identity politics’.
Also- notice how many times these women are described as ‘strident’. Shudder. We have not come a long way, baby.
7
The most electable Dem, male or female, is Amy Klobuchar. With Julian Castro for VP, everything is covered and you have two superb candidates who can draw crucial demographic groups and would be superb leaders.
2
Nominating an angry woman will get the Democrats nowhere. It's just playing into the hands of the GOP. Better to pick a happy warrior, like Joe Biden.
9
What a disaster. Does anyone really think that either one of these 3 (very capable) women stand a chance? Really? Hillary lost because of the rust belt. I can't see these candidates making a better campaign there.
9
Don't right off Secretary Clinton. None of the 3 women mentioned in this article have executive experience and none have run before for president and won the popular vote. None from the democratic party have the name recognition as Hillary Clinton. Also Hillary has a record of fund raising which will be key to winning the nomination again.
2
I became an independent because of Gillibrand and HRC. No way will I vote for Gillibrand. Harris, yes. Biden, yes. Other wormen being mentioned, yes. (Not Haley though). Bloomberg, yes.
If Gillibrand is the Dem nominee, I will not vote.
2
Good. And elect as many women to Congress, governorship as possible.
The country has been governed exclusively by old white men since forever and it shows. (speaking as an old white man myself)
2
This reminds me of when a female Yale professor lectured me (not in class, in a social situation) about voting for Hillary Clinton. I did not want to vote for Trump for two specific reasons, but I was holding out with a faint hope than Bloomberg/Mullen would run as a third party. I eventually voted for Clinton.
The Yale professor's basic position when I challenged Clinton's shortcoming was "we have to have a women in the white house." Here we are again. Trust me, there is no way this independent is voting for those three candidates.
If the Democratic party want to offer up a real alternate to Trump, run to Tulsi Gabbard. She answers questions truthfully, she has served in the military, and she is from the beautiful state/people of Hawaii. She is also divorced which makes her human and real, and she is Hindu which makes unique in perspective. And I won't apologize for thinking she is a beautiful woman inside and out.
Trump can be a catalyst to a whole new generation of great Presidents, but you have to think differently to beat him in 2020. #Tulso2020
2
People tend to double down on their brand when they’re challenged and I would expect to see Trump get even more support from right, center right types, than before. Unapologetically progressive female candidates will sweep the coastal east and west but so what? Its the same electoral map as 2016. I would guess the best hope of winning among these three women would be that Kamala Harris could increase black voter participation enough to swing key states. If that were to happen it would be very interesting because black America would be certified as a king maker type vote block rather than one taken for granted. The sense of black empowerment in American politics would be something new.
3
Gillibrand doesn't have the equipment, plain and simple. Not only did she throw our real next president under the bus, she did so by employing a childish, binary rationale. Recall that she made her point by insisting that matters of degree were completely irrelevant, in a situation where nuance has *everything* to do with it. President Franken woulda known that. She's not fit to shine his shoes, and that's not the only time she showed it. She actually does that one-dimensional thing quite often.
4
Honestly, if either of those three are nominated I will not vote for Trump.
But I will not get out to vote, either? Why? Because all three are political opportunists, Gillebrand being the worst of them.
4
None of these senators, with the qualities they might have, could shine Hillary’s shoes. Warren has no steel and is not POTUS material, which does not preclude her being hugely important to the Dems. Not everyone is made for that office. Gillibrand is a consumate politician, in the worst way. She seems to have the Times on speed dial and has put herself cheaply at the front of every partisan issue of the day as long as cameras would be there. Harris, who I know the least about, seems to be not far from that. She seems to be the toughest of the three and could conceivably make the necessary moves to lead. But it’s hard to imagine any Dem currently in the spotlight actually leading this diffuse party let alone the country. It’s almost inconceivable in the current era a white man could win the nomination. The party will disintegrate when Trump wins again.
1
The Democratic Party pundits who whisper in the ears of Presidential hopefuls yet again reveal how out of step they are with most of America. Each of these candidates has worthy qualities, but NONE will be able to beat Trump in the states that matter.
In the meantime, it telegraphs that the Dems are casting about, and strengthens Trump's hand.
This is not a time for identity politics, women's movement fantasies, or wishful thinking, no matter how lucrative for the whisperer or ideologically satisfying for party activists.
Get real!! This is the time to save our last best hope on earth! Defeat this dangerous and corrupt President, even if it takes a "White, cisgendered, heteronormative, Christian, male of moderate political persuasion" to do it.
3
Your statement that the DNA test proves Warren has Native American ancestry is technically true but misleading. Take 100 random people from the street. How many would be 1/1024th something? This stunt is another political Rorschach test.
4
Just scanning down the posts what I see is Men fretting that a woman is nominated. 30% of the voters elected Trump. The gift of removing 3,000,000,000 votes helped a lot. Now it's all the GOPers cheating and another round of official vote removal plus all the Men who won't let a Woman save America.
I haven't seen any plan for stopping wealth from killing this Nation from any possible candidate other than Warren. She did her homework, this plan makes sense and works for working people.
Sacajawea should be her First People Identity, leading the expedition to rediscover what America really is.
3
I don’t understand the buzz about Kamala Harris. She’s been a senator for two seconds. She’s an attorney, a prosecutor...a senator at best. No executive experience. Hasn’t rolled up her sleeves and been accountable. I hear some people say, well, Obama wasn’t a senator for very long before he ran. Harris is no Obama. He was and is exceptional. No comparison. Have heard Harris speak and she doesn’t come across as presidential. Very green.
Warren - what a gift to the Republicans!
Interesting to read the comments about Amy Klobuchar. I also have a positive impression. But, does she have any desire to run?
4
In my view, even more important, a law professor, or at least a candidate with strong knowledge of and respect for the Constitution and the law, and the humanity it seeks to express and weigh in a careful balance, wouldn't hurt in the least.
1
The person who could win is Amy Klobuchar of Minneaota. She is a true moderate with tremendous bipartisan support - that’s why she wins by such big margins in our state. I am voting mostly Republican - except for her. I would never vote for any of the 3 women in this article - Kamala Harris makes me cringe when she starts hectoring whomever she is speaking to/at and her performane at the Kavanaugh hearings was shameful. Kristen Gillibrand is all ambition and no substance. Warren is unbearable Hillary without the charm, Bernie ina skirt. And this article fails to really mention Hillary who is obviously plotting a comeback run - we owe her, right?Why do Democrats work so hard to shoot them selves in the foot? Making the gender of the candidate is not a winning strategy -women are not a monolith and we don’t all think and vote alike. Please bring us a candidate we can vote for and who has a chance to actually win.
1
Doesn't matter who the democrats pick, they are all too radical left for Americans. We are not going to vote to reverse a humming economy that is lifting everyone up.
2
None of the women who want to be president in 2020 have the standing power to win an election for president.. Warren lost my vote when she pursued the DNA test to prove a very risky point that she was a Native American. The other two are just not known enough to be able to win against trump. We do need a woman president, but maybe they need to start out as vice president to gain more foreign policy experience. Trump will eat them alive with his reality show experience and his ability to reduce people to rubble with his lying and inappropriate behavior. His supporters. who are on the same low moral level as this lying president will support him no matter what.
3
Why exactly do we need a woman to run for president right now on the heels of Hillary's failure to win the vote among millions of white men across the country who are die hard sexist devotees of Trump? They will never entertain the idea of another Hillary and they will never change their sexist ways in just a few years.
Women are not going away. Let their momentum continue to grow as witnessed by all the women running and winning elections in 2018. A woman president can wait for another election cycle when another generation of less sexist younger folks enter the voting bloc.
Millions of men many parts of the U.S. are just not ready to take orders from a woman Commander-in-Chief at this time. That said, I hope I am wrong (despite my cynicism) and a viable candidate can emerge who can reach a broad coalition of men and women and be able to erase the "Hillary effect."
1
Picking a woman because she is a woman is a sure path to another Hillary style defeat. Dems have been focusing on social do gooder issues for too long and its easy to buy a ticket to nowhere. The same goes for picking a candidate solely or primarily because of race. There are broader issues and concerns and many voters are not interested in narrowly focused candidate, who has favorites. We need a candidate that can appeal to a broad section of Ameicans, and that could be a woman etc. But that can't be the criteria. just ask Hillary!
6
Three coastal liberal elites getting ready to throw their hats in the ring. Just great. This news along with thousands of migrants headed for the border, only strengthens the GOP base ahead of the mid-terms. And Ms. Warren's 0.6% ancestry claim is the gift that keeps on giving. If this economy continues to strengthen on into 2020, Trump will get a second term.
4
Warren is a peppier Hillary -- she's damaged goods by shooting herself in her Indian foot. We need to beat Trump. Biden is about the only he can't out white male, can't win the "who would you like a beer with" ultimate test of fitness to serve (according to our stupid masses).
4
We all forgot how the power got stronger on the world wealth the 1 percent has over 60 percent of the counties wealth if not the world and as they did as allways for hundred of years they are the bookies that cover both sides. So its not us against them as the political ads go. They have both sides covered. Rethinking is a way to make a conscious decision.
3
I love these three. However I am upset at my fellow Democrats for thinking of 2020 right now, Warren made a bonehead move with the DNA test==why on earth couldn't she wait a month? If we don't take back the house, it's over. Then Mueller and the ACA are finished. Why can't we be unified like the GOP electorate?
6
Please let the pendulum swing all the over to Madame President Harris.
3
Why exactly is it so imperative for democrats to nominate a women for president in 2020?
Democrats will continue to lose elections if they insist upon symbolic victories and appeal to identity politics. Worse, their commitment to these empty ideals is paper thin. Democrats are only excited by women and minorities in elected office if they share their liberal views.
Enough though of the moral crusade and constant finger wagging on the Left. Let’s make the best possibility of beating Trump the only requirement for the Democratic nomination.
28
This article does a disservice by not acknowledging the trailblazing efforts of women over the years. According to Wikipedia, "as of May 2017, forty-two women have served or are serving as the governor of a U.S. state."
Having executive experience will be critical to counter Trump remarks that we don't want an untested senator running for the presidency. All four women mentioned in the article have zero executive experience and will likely fail to gain the nomination.
Being a woman alone is not enough.
8
Reading through the comments, some of the points of criticism are telling. "Strident", crusading", and too newly immigrated??? If these were male candidates, these same characteristics would be praised as forceful, dedicated and having that go-get 'em American spirit. And the criticisms aren't necessarily from men. Still a long way to go....
4
Both parties are doubling down. Republicans are going Trumpian, openly courting their base. The Democrats are volleying with women, gay, minority and young candidates. And again with the 'demographics to victory' ploy that burned them ln '16.
But the Democrats have over-responded with Kavanaugh and Warren. Concurrently, the republican administration is pumping money to the suburbanite 401k'er. (and the wealthy) If they are strayed Democrats, they might not be returning.
And lastly, the American people have demonstrated tolerance to corruption and unethical government, as long as they're being served.
More rank division on its way.
As Yogi Berra said, "Looks like deja vu all over again".
3
Elizabeth Warren is a good Senator for Mass. but she should not run for President. The DNA fiasco will come back to haunt her again and again. She will never live it down. Please, Senator Warren, don't even try.
9
We desperately need to make progress toward gender equity in this country. That's why after Hillary was not able to take office despite winning the popular vote by a significant margin, I decided that I would not support another male candidate for president again until after a female served. So if you want my vote you'd better nominate a woman. I don't care if she's the best thing since sliced bread, or if she is the most experienced candidate in the field. All she has to be is better than Trump. He didn't have to walk on water to be elected and neither should she have to. I don't care if she's the best candidate in the Democratic field. I care about ending gender inequity and arbitrary gender-based social roles, and one of the best possible ways to do that is to place women in high offices. So nominate Yet Another White Man if you feel you must, but you'll be supporting him without me, because the time when I was willing to wait for a woman in the White House passed a long time ago. No more waiting!!! Understand?
8
As a feminist who voted for Sanders in the primaries and Clinton in the general, I’m begging you to please reconsider your stance. It assumes, first, that there arent highly qualified female candidates out there (there are PLENTY) and, secondly, it plays into the hands of conservatives who scream ‘identity politics’. We women do NOT want special consideration. We only want a level playing field. All things being equal, I would vote for a minority or woman. But all things are rarely equal. If I think a male candidate will make a better president, than I’m voting for him,
3
Warren? No. Gillibrand? Can you say "Al Franken"? No. Harris? maybe, within the party.
It's kind of fun that the Democrats and pundits still don't understand the depths of misogyny which will keep any Democratic woman from the Presidency. If we ever have a female president she'll come from the Right.
It's even more fun that they don't yet understand that the Trump presidency was cast in the late 1970s and is not a result of the 2016 elections. It's also not the beginning of the end but is, rather, the end of the beginning.
There were people who told you this would happen, but you laughed them off (or, in the case of a sitting President, out of office).
10
I am happy to hear you say the Trump presidency is the end of the beginning. Here’s to the next new beginning.
1
I believe Elizabeth Warren has disqualified herself recently by reacting to Trump's goading.
7
Senators Warren and Harris are very talented and qualified to be President. The sad truth, however, is that they couldn't win a general election in the U.S. in 2020. I believe that the over riding criteria for the Democratic nominee in 2020 must be ELECTABILITY. This is no time for Democrats to be trying to break some glass ceiling or make some other diversity statement. To preserve the Republic we must defeat Trump and his minions in 2020. The Democrat that has the best chance of doing that must be our nominee. (Kilabrand has shown herself to be a selfish opportunist and shouldn't even be mentioned in relation to 2020.)
13
I'm a very liberal Democrat. Focusing on identity in 2020, rather than economic insecurity, is a doomed strategy, but based on the platforms of these women, I predict the Democrats will do it again in the next presidential election, not having learned from Hillary Clinton's loss, and losing again. Most of the American public not only doesn't care much whether a candidate is Black or white, male or female, gay or straight, they resent any suggestion that a candidate's identity qualifies them for an elected role. This repeatedly backfires on those who try to claim they are qualified based on their ethnicity or gender. I supported Hillary in the primary, but it was notable that Bernie Sanders did not once mention he would be the first Jewish president if he won. Not once. His appeal, he knew, was his ideas. Clearly it was a much more effective platform than those who are trying to claim their gender will bestow so much more wisdom and moral authority. If the Democrats adopt identity politics for the 2020 race, they will lose again. Don't support those who do it.
28
How about we focus on disposing of Trump and all his fellow women haters? We do that through campaigning, debating and voting, and then uniting behind the nominee.
We are not a party of personalities but of progressive issues. We the people are the boss and our representatives work for us. That is the stark difference between Democrats and Republicans.
If two candidates have equal appeal, I would opt for a woman, but no woman who might run has ever run nationally, so let’s reserve judgment until they show what they have to give.
2
I sure don’t understand the appeal of Sen. Kamala Harris. I’m a Democrat, from California, and I’ve worked in California state government. She’s more cautious than Hillary, is not a bery good speaker on the campaign trail, and, as a first term senator in only her second year in Congress, she’s very green. And the worst part? She’s from California!
17
If Democrats are going to get anywhere in 2020, it will be with a candidate who comes completely out of nowhere and doesn't kick off their campaign until late 2019. They'll have to have views wildly out of step with the Democratic Party, not to mention any mainstream politician. They'll have to promise the moon, build a platform out of policy ideas that nobody else would ever dream of, and face an unprecedented avalanche of heckling and mockery from every established politician without batting an eyelash. In the end, such a person could win simply because they haven't been in the public eye long enough for Trump's broken-record strategy of word-association taunting and insults to have much of an impact. Don't overestimate the American voter. We really do live in a country where a silly nickname makes the difference between victory and defeat. The only nickname they were ever able to stick Bill Clinton with was "Slick Willie," and being slick is hardly an insult. Democrats need another nickname-proof candidate.
5
Elizabeth Warren is the best at saying the right things. She knows how to build power using small donors. Trump will look like a petulant child next to her. Her anticorruption bill and life story are powerful. If we want to win--she is the one.
8
A story
A compelling story
Think Obama
Think hope
Think positive
Get the positive energy going now
The gop train wreck will then be complete
Talk above around behind them
Talk around them
Ignore them
We the people will then win
With all due respect, I believe Hillary Clinton would have been a great President, but she made several mistakes during her campaign that, in my view, handed Trump the Electoral College. She called his supporters “deplorables” and made the big mistake of using private email servers for her office. Yet that alone was all voters needed to be convinced that a amoral, selfish, chauvinistic adulterer was more fit for President than a former First Lady, Secretary of State and Senator from New York. Democratic women feel more empowered to run for office because they don’t have live under the hateful prejudices of the GOP. Carly Fiorina is an exception but she was totally unfit for office despite her more progressive credentials on social issues. All women, regardless of party lines, should feel free to take a chance at holding office. Follow the traditional line for running for President as Obama did; be a state senator, a Senator for the state, and then run for President. Or do something similar. In the case of Trump, you could be a Democrat and hold exactly the same views as he does and he would still malign you just because you’re not in the GOP. This system of partisanship has stood for decades to over a century. It’s time to let all people know that it’s about your ideas, not your gender.
2
If a female is going to be the democratic candidate, it needs to be for an amazing platform, and change that will attract swing voters away from trump. It can't just be because of the novelty and progressive side of a female president.
Hillary Clinton tried, a stable candidate on a platform that basically was "more of Obama's policies", but nothing new or exciting. Elizabeth Warren, despite her ability to criticize men in power, and resist male set restraints, has yet to define a voice of her own beyond that and leaning left.
And maybe the answer isn't just, "how far left can we go, how extreme can we be?". Bernie tried to go all the way to the edge in his plans, perhaps some of the most novel ideas with plans to back them up. Unfortunately his following was only democrats under the age of 38, according to polls. He was unable to win over the older generation on that free-everything platform. And when Hillary won the primary, no one really wanted Hillary, even many democrats.
Where is the democrat with the killer platform that is more than just "Stop trump", or "repeal tax cuts". How are we moving forward?
6
THE ANSWER
The answer to the question is Amy Klobuchar.
Elizabeth Warren is lovable. But she voted against the TPP, which demonstrates a bad combination of naïveté and ideology that has ceded the economics of half the globe to China. Beyond that, I fear that in our political climate of gutter behavior Trump would eat her up. Keep her in the Senate where may be its most valuable member, maybe even its Majority Leader. Then she can tell Mitch McConnell to be quiet.
Kamala Harris is a fighter. Watching her puncture Republican hypocrisies with her prosecutorial skill is a highlight reel unto itself. But Middle America will never vote for her, and that means Trump wins again.
Kirsten Gillibrand is a fighter and might even be able to win. But there are many Democrats who will never forgive her for throwing Al Franken under the bus. Either she knew she was betraying an almost certainly innocent man, which means she is unethical, or she believed the ridiculous charges against him that anyone with half a brain can see don’t add up (Michelle Goldberg excluded, who has a brain and a half at least, but who is very, very wrong on this matter).
The next time you see Amy Klobuchar listen to how well she reasons—not as a smug elitist but as someone with exceptional common sense, decency, doggedness, likability, empathy, morality, intelligence, humor, communication skills, and perhaps most of all the ability to work on both sides of the aisle.
Vote for unity. Vote Klobuchar 2020.
13
I disagree with some comments here, that the best chance to beat Trump is another white male. I think the country is ready for a change, not more of the same. Obama won those swing states, twice. So it's possible. I do agree that Warren may be too controversial to unite the party and country.
3
The Dems just refuse to listen, to read about major points that people are saying is wrong with the party. Warren is falling into the same trap that killed Hillary's chances. They just don't get it. And how many more times does one have to say it. People don't listen.
9
It'll be the Orange Menace vs. Bloomberg. Oh, they'll run the ladies and Uncle Joe but it'll be the guy who inested the most dough
Why? Because we're an oligarchy and an increasing number of Americans are comfortable with the idea of a rich savior going up against an evil one. But an oligarch is an oligarchy and oligarchs' interests are what they are.
---
'Things Trump Did While You Weren’t Looking' https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2ZW
3
@Rima Regas
"It'll be the Orange Menace vs. Bloomberg."
I'm ok with that. If that's what the Dems have come to. It leaves plenty of room for Bernie (or a similar candidate) to run as an Independent. Both parties are on their last gasps, long past time to stick a fork in both of them.
1
Sisterhood is powerful, but not on election day. Race, culture, and religion all exert a stronger pull. I wish it was otherwise, but the 2016 campaign, turnout and results showed what matters. I was a strong Hillary supporter, admire her as a person and politician, and am glad she continues to speak out.
But I do not think this country will elect a woman as president in 2020. After the tumult of the Trump years, people will want a return to normalcy, and a female - head of state, leader of the government, and commander in chief - will be too unsettling for many Americans.
9
Liberals are apparently swooning over the possibility that one of these three female lefties could win the Democratic nomination and general election for President in 2020. But alas, the central question remains: are any of them winnable and the answer is categorically NO. Warren presents a distinct crusading instinct, Gillibrand sports Hillary Clinton visual optics, and Harris has proved strident without restraint. Should any of them get nominated, it's a gift to the GOP. Based on the abysmal choice the DNC made in 2016 to back Clinton, it's quite possible the DNC will again chase down a conventional choice, or throw caution to the wind and select one these three or a clone. The truth is that this is a fundamentally conservative country, whose basic institutions are being demonized and rejected apace. A progressive agenda is not at issue here, only its torch bearer, and for success and sanity to shower the Democrats, a likable, well-spoken, level-headed centrist will be needed. Who might fill that need? These are only rough suggestions, but they point the way in terms of a cross-the-aisle winnable Democrat: former HUD Secretary Julian Castro or Congressman Joaquin Castro of Texas, Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio, or Congressman Beto O’Rourke of Texas. They’re all men you say? Then name a female who doesn’t just make liberals feel good, but who bridges the electoral divide and could actually win the Presidency.
19
@RCG Tulsi Gabbard. But I do think a primary with 10+ people, men and women, held across the entire country will end up with the winning choice. That's how Trump won, right? Even Obama was a relative unknown before he started on the campaign trail. I think it is too early to say anything (and any opinion just reflects that person's biases).
1
No, no and no. Thank you.
There must be ONE over-riding criterion in selecting the next DEM nominee. It must be a person who can win over swing voters in swing states. Due to our Electoral College system that is the group who elects our president.
PA, OH, MI, VA, FL - These 5 states.
It's basic math. Ideology has nothing to do with it. The grouping of states has shifted a bit. WV used to be one but it's now lost to the DEMs. VA has taken its place.
I encourage readers to look back at every election, going back to Jimmy Carter. You will see that EVERY president has one several of those states and all the other states have pretty much remained aligned Blue and Red.
If a candidate can't persuade an out of work autoworker or steelworker from sourthern Ohio or western Pennsylvania, that candidate is going to lose.
We may not like that. But it's a fact.
26
@J Jencks - Who is to say that a woman candidate couldn't persuade an auto worker or a steel worker? I think you are underestimating the men of Ohio and Pennsylvania.
1
Sadly, misogyny and radical right views are building momentum here in Ohio.
I hope that we can put up a candidate who is not a demagogue. I wouldn’t support any of these. If my choice is trump or them it is then - but that is not a choice I would be happy to make.
4
Sad to say, but states in the middle of the country will likely not go for a woman as commander in chief. And the blue coastal states (without Florida) alone will not suffice to win the electoral college, as has been evidenced by past elections (Bush 2000, 2004) and the recent 2016 campaigns. Ultra progressives are living in a fantasy utopia state of mind. There simply are not enough women and minorities to lead to an election victory as the electoral college is currently constituted.
9
Any of these three would be sure of carrying New York, Massachusetts, and California. Problem is, you need more states than that to win.
32
@M Davis,
Not if we vote with all our hearts!
Just vote for someone smart and who has the best interest of the country at heart. Doesn’t matter if they are not perfect.
5
I could certainly support Senator Harris. I could certainly support Klobuchar. I would love to see Warren run but, truth to tell, her impact from the Senate Floor is going to be greater than her impact from a compromised White House. As a Senator, she punches way above her weight in critical policy areas.
If the Democratic establishment wants to court another totally humiliating and probably fatal defeat...nominate Gillibrand.
First, I want to see the Democrats win. Second, my enthusiasm meter regarding the top of the ticket would drop to zero (I'd still support state and local Dems) if the party apparatus foists Gillibrand on us.
The last thing these troubled United States need is another self-serving opportunistic New York junkyard dog. See Al Franken as Exhibit three.
Forewarned is forearmed, DNC.
9
Joe Biden is too old. If he is as great an American as I think he is, he will find a younger female candidate to get behind and provide the expertise she needs to succeed.
There is much difference between 70 and 78 years of age. As a man 79 years old I know this.
He can honor his son in a campaign for a vibrant, female candidate.
I think he is a great American
Steve Martin
5
I will NEVER forgive him for his treatment of Anita Hill. And neither will most women I know.
Democracy in the United States is on the knife's edge of failure today. Unless the Democrats manage to control the House now, talk about 2020 is futile and hopeless.
7
I don’t care who the Democratic candidate will be. Just VOTE for him or her! Unless you are happy with cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and a 100% reactionary Supreme Court and a destroyed environment.
5
I have a feeling that Donald Trump isn't going to run in 2020.
He'd much rather spend his golden years spending all the money he made on the presidency. Plus, there's more money to be made outside of government (it's all about the money with him.)
His 2020 campaign has already raised $100 million. Expect that to mysteriously disappear just like his inaugural slush fund did.
10
@L
Trump is losing money being president - which was predictable - it will happen to any wealthy person who goes into public office. Clinton and Obama are the ones who became rich off the presidency.
What the democratic party should do is make sure the process if fair and transparent. What candidates and the party should do is face reality. If the candidate is flawed make the decision early to confront that internally.
In the end the party regulars and general public have a right to expect the candidate is capable of leading the party and governing the nation. Winning is not everything, witness Trump.
2
My thought is: Watch Nikki Haley, and as soon as 2020 if Mueller cripples Trump. Her combination is gold. None of these three would stand a chance against her.
24
The women mentioned as potential Democratic presidential candidates are all impressive. I would vote for any of them, but at the present time the one who has a slight edge as far as her resume' is concerned is Senator Kamala Harris. I like it that she is multi-racial, but more than that she has had experience running a large department as Attorney General of California for 6 years. Plus, she's from the West, and didn't go to Harvard or Yale.
6
Warren/Sanders 2020. Policy will matter in 2020. Progressive ideas like single payer Will be mainstream. The dark horse that will be a huge issue will be Big Money Corruption (not just PAC money) of our representative democracy. That is the underlying hypocrisy that brought Clinton down. And is already a problem for Harris. Gillibrand is moving in the right direction on this. The candidate best positioned on that issue will be president. It will also mean the demise of the establishment democratic party, replaced by a citizen supported democratic party worthy of the name. Scoff now, since you're so smart. We'll have to see what happens. (That is going to happen)
The best scenario for this to happen is if democrats Fail to take the house this year and republicans have another two years to do their bull in a china shop rampage to our US government. People will literally die if that happens but apparently that's what it takes to motivate people to vote. If democrats take the house, that will check some of the ravaging republicans would otherwise do, which ironically, will help elect republicans in 2020 and somewhat diminish democratic party returns.
Let me be perfectly Clear; I do Not support another two years of republican radical Libertarian NeoFeudalist destruction of our government and demolition of democracy. But if it were to happen, the 2020 backlash would be extremely extreme.
As a person involved with American politics and elections since 1960, all three candidates will be losers. They are all too emotional and unmatured. Kamala Harries is still too new and not widely known throughout America. Plus she was a newly immigrant from India. Many Americans may not yet able to accept her as our president. Nikki Haley is a much more mature and experienced candidate for president.
Gillibrand is great but her unethical way to force Senator Al Franken resigned from the senate may create some credibility of her personal ethics. She may be a good candidate for vice-president.
Elizabeth Warren is too vocal and talked too much. Just Like Bernie Sanders had a lot ideas but too liberal or too stranjge. Americans difficult to understand her.
Hillary Clinton still the best female candidate but regret that she had a bad campaign strategy and talked too much for nothing. She lost. But I supported her and Bill Clinton twice.
Americans still not yet ready for a first female president. Sorry and sad. Gender discrimination. Even American ladies without higher educations would prefer a male president. Ladies can try again and again but someday they will make it. Senator will be a great president but her age may not be helpful. Too bad. But anyone will be better than Trump.
6
What has Haley done? Ambassador to the UN. Did she build good will for the US? Governor of South Carolina. Small stage and what did she accomplish? Bet nobody can identify anything! She is much nicer than Trump? Few people living today aren’t.
In 2020, 44 states will vote predictably along party lines. Only 6 states will be "in play", and whichever candidate can get a majority of those states will win the Electoral College.
They are PA, OH, MI, WI, VA, and FL.
The other 44 states could just as well stay home and the results would be exactly the same.
Within those 6 states, there are about 5-7% of voters who are fence sitters, swing voters. It's those voters who elect our presidents. And it's the candidate who can appeal to, connect with and persuade them who wins.
This has been true of every election back to Jimmy Carter, though the exact makeup of the swing states has changed a bit.
Though these swing voters have gone both ways, it is a mistake to assume they are "centrists". They have their own shifting concerns, in large part to do with the economy and their specific industries.
It's not about race, gender, or ideology. It's about connecting at a personal level with that small group of voters.
I'm not asking any of you to believe me. Go back and look at election results, of all the races back to Carter.
I wish it wasn't that way. But that's the way it is.
18
@J Jencks - If the DEMs want to WIN they need to build their 2020 strategy around that reality. Ideology is secondary.
3
@J Jencks
Don’t count Minnesota out. Trump only lost by 15k votes in my supposedly deep blue state. Taking states for. granted is how we got here. Don’t do it again.
These 3 ladies need to stop and worry about 2018 instead.
12
We Liberals should support the candidate of our choice during the primary season. We need to come together and support the nominee of the Democratic Party in the general election regardless of who that person might be. The stakes are too high for any other choice.
14
The Democratic Party needs to consider electability as much as it considers policy when choosing a nominee. In no way is Elizabeth Warren electable on a national level. Another four years of the Trump train wreck is not acceptable.
33
@NDG
She may, however, make an excellent running mate for Joe Biden. She could bring in the progressive wing of the party and appeal to independent women voters.
3
Anyone over 50, please take a seat. We need some fresh ideas that aren’t rooted in the baby boomer generation. That is proven to not be working.
11
The first female president will be a Republican. It will be Nikki Haley.
28
Kamala Harris. She’s tough and bright as a whip. She takes no prisoners.
22
@Kitty P - Can she connect with and persuade unemployed autoworkers from southern Ohio, or laid off steel workers from western Pennsylvania?
In the end, every successful candidate in our lifetimes has won by getting swing voters in a small handful of swing states.
If Harris can connect with and persuade voters in 3 of these 5 states (PA, OH, WI, VA, FL) then she's got my support. But I have serious doubts she can do it.
4
Please no more Presidential Tickets of two old white guys!!!
17
Klobuchar. Impressive.
23
@kat perkins probably appeals to the rust belt more than the others too
Amy Klobuchar and Harris for Pres and VP, respectively. Neither Warren nor Gillebrand will get the votes in heartland and south.
24
I'd much prefer Amy Klobuchar to any of them.
24
I think with all these great female candidates, there should be a Democratic ticket with a two women on the ticket. Harris for President/ Warren for VP . Warren for President/Gillebrand for VP, and so on and so forth.
5
Two women: massively unrealistic. One woman: not as bad as two but still unrealistic.
2
The Democrats have to find someone who has the best chance at beating Trump. Sad to say, I think a standard-issue white male is the best bet at this point.
11
I'd happily take any of these three (or just about anyone else for that matter) over Trump.
5
Elizabeth Warren has already taken herself out of contention with her absurdist DNA ploy. I am just about the most far left-leaning person I know and I have found Warren to be a grating presence in our politics. This native American thing backfired stupendously. It was akin to a Howard Dean yelp--only far sooner than any traction was gained in the early primaries. She is out before she is in. I hope she has the good sense to recognize it and simply stop now, enabling other viable candidates to gain traction.
Kamala Harris would be an amazing choice.
So would Amy Klobuchar.
And I DO very much like Tulsi Gabbard.
Kristen Gillebrand should opt out of a run--she sullied her reputation with the Al Franken debacle. She will not be forgiven for that any time soon.
On the male front, I have a fondness for Eric Garcetti and Mitch Landrieu.
(However, Joe Biden should forget about it. The Democrats need to be the party of tomorrow now--not yesterday.)
32
Democrats can have all the female frontrunners in 2020 they they want. I'm still going to vote for the presidential candidate who should have won in 2016 and that's Jill Stein <3
4
@Joseph Naham
Are you serious? The electoral college system does not support a third party, as has already evidenced by Florida 2000, and 2016. The system, as currently constituted, requires a binary choice, and both candidates are not the same. Those who voted for Stein contributed to Trump's victory. Are you happy with him? A third party vote is a wasted vote.
5
The obvious but overlooked choice for 2020 is veteran, wounded war hero Senator Tammy Duckworth.
7
A black woman would be sensational--are you listening Michelle Obama?
9
@niall. Makes about as much sense as Hillary. Which is to say not much.
9
Just not Warren please
18
Please let the Dems have the sense to nominate someone who can actually beat trump! Among the women, Amy Klobuchar's temperament seems a very good counter to trump's hysteria and she seems much more even-keeled, and less baggage-laden, than Elizabeth Warren.
But let's not discount Joe Biden, who could at least serve one term with a young, less-experienced VP and then throw it to the VP for the second term. Biden does have appeal across the spectrum and would be a reassuring return to civility.
11
@Amy Bland, agree, but we do realize that a Trump vs Biden race could devolve into a WWE smackdown on pay per view lining Trump's pockets like we always do
Since 50.8% of American adults are women, we certainly should have a higher percentage of them in elected national leadership positions.
8
I believe that a woman is as capable of being president as a man. It isn’t too difficult to be better than President Trump, he continues to undermine the values of the American people, demonstrating every time that he has no real interests of making a positive impact in the country. The world undermines the United States, and if we continue to place these people people in power the country will slowly fade away.
That being said, I believe that Elizabeth Warren should run for president. She can beat Trump and turn traditional Republican voters. #Warren2020
Her policies are consistent with what she portaras herself as: an individual who wants to end corruption and support everyone, from education to healthcare, Warren demonstrates that she is capable of running the country, making it better for not just the rich, but for everyone.
3
Voting for a woman because she is a woman is just as bad as voting against a woman because she is a woman. I just hope that the Democratic Party leadership does not try to ram a candidate down the voters throats. Let the people decide the Democratic Party from a diverse slate of candidates. American voters will make the right choice if there is a strong candidate that they helped to choose, irrespective of gender. The Democratic Party wanted HRC for their candidate and the NYTimes wanted HRC for President going back to 2008. In 2008 democrat voters chose the right person. They can do it agin if you let them.
19
@Denis Lapierre That's what primaries are for. A proper primary with a slate of over 10+ candidates will decide the best choice. That person would've proved durability across the country. I think the problem in 2016 was that the Democratic primary was really between two people, it's not enough. People don't know when the next Obama will come up.
All the other comments here are just opinions reflecting biases. I have my own opinions and preferences but I recognise my biases - the person who wins will have to show they can appeal across the country and it really could be anyone, if Trump can do it.
@Denis Lapierre a crowded field does the party no good. If everyone in the US voted, then maybe. But our voting habits are abysmal.
Whatever shortcomings you believe any of these three women may have, you must realize that the nation would still be far better off with them than with the incumbent.
As Democrats, let’s please not go back to the days of 2016 when some of us sat out the vote because of what Hilary may have done to Bernie and let’s please not vote again for guaranteed losers, such as Jill Stein. Do any more of that stupid nitpicking and you will end up with another four years of Trump.
19
@LIChef,
A wet towel would make a better President. The issue isn't whether or not any one of these women would make a better President than Trump it is whether any of them could win in an election against Trump.
The Democratic Party is going to lose a lot of votes because of their immigration policies. A lot.
They won't lose the Presidency because of a bitter inter-party nomination fight- they will lose because they support massive amounts of immigration which will make every one of their other policies impossible to enact.
The Republicans are going to have two years to talk about the tens of thousands coming in illegally (every month). They will have two years to point out every crime committed by an illegal immigrant. They will have two years to, rightfully, portray the Democratic Party as extreme and caring more about immigrants than citizens.
That's why we will have another four years of Trump. And if the Democrats don't moderate whatever comes after Trump is going to be worse.
5
No chance any of the three listed could win the Presidency...
Democratic Party is so fractured and disjointed with no leadership.
You can only hope Joe Biden runs and social liberals aren’t too stupid to not support him.
11
Trump beaten by a woman is lovely karma. Can just imagine his concession speech.
11
Yikes, I usually favor women over men, but these three? Warren is a sloganeer, Kamala got her start being the eye candy for the CA Speaker/SF Mayor and Kristen's most significant achievement was she outed Al Franken. What a bunch of lightweights.
26
A white straight man WOULD say something like this. I wish all of you would stop pretending to be feminists. Give up the ghost already.
4
Kamala Harris ain’t no lightweight.
12
Elizabeth Warren has fought harder for working-class Americans than ANYBODY in Congress.
1
Gillibrand???!!! No way will she get my vote after what she did to Al Franken.
49
@susan Agree, but if she did run, and became the candidate I'd sure vote for her. Same as with Clinton - voted for Bernie in the Primary, but Clinton in the General - no other choice!
5
Amy Klobuchar is the kind of person I could ask over for dinner and she might stay later and talk about real stuff in an authentic way. Her down to earth manner, coupled with piercing intelligence, raises her above the crowd.
25
The Dems are basically throwing the election if they put forward a female candidate. The electoral college is already stacked enough as it is.
13
Don’t forget Carolyn Kennedy
3
@Alan Falcon
Caroline's Palinesque performance with the media worked against her when she was considered for Hillary's Senate seat. She would have to demonstrate her ability to speak without once saying "you know."
4
This will make it easier.
I'm a woman. And a Democrat. And no way am i voting for any of these 3.
20
Sssssh! I mean that respectfully.
1
I am a woman and a Democrat and I would vote for any ticket that included any one of these women!!!
This idea that Harris, Gillibrand, et al., are "so leftist" to some people is ridiculous. They are liberals, sure, but believing in those far-out and strange things like science, a balanced budget, medicare for all, education, a woman's right to choose, sensible background checks for gun ownership, etc., are beliefs held the majority of Americans. Let's get away from an overindulgence in the identity wars the Republicans WANT us to be fighting, and talk about military spending, parental leave, and what level of economic stratification makes sense and what level is beyond the pale.
7
And it will be one more term of Trump. Is it any wonder the Democrats can’t get out of their own way?
Three lawyer trained Senators with zero experience.
Hopefully Bloomberg will run. At least he’ll attempt to fix the tax code and reduce the debt.
8
@PM but as you know, alot of NYers didn't like him.
If only. I would love to think that a woman on the Democratic ticket would run for president. Any of these three would be great. However, after what Trump did to Hillary Clinton and from what we have seen of the horrid things he says while he continues to campaign (itself an outrage although maybe it keeps him away from the Oval Office where he could be doing more damage than he already has), I just fear for any of these women: I am talking about their lives. Will Trump move from "Lock her up" to slogans about assassination. If he can bellow out his approval, as he did yesterday, of a congressman beating up on a journalist with a roar of approval from "his people," then quite naturally, at least for him, will come announcements far worse than the "lock her up one."
5
@eric: Trump already hinted at assassination when he called upon the “second amendment people” against Hillary Clinton....
8
Harris, Warren, and Gillebrand are all Coastal Democrats assured to lose in 2020. How would any one of them win a middle state? You tell me. Believe me, I don’t like to say that but I’m a realist. The only woman with a chance would be Amy Klobuchar who isn’t even mentioned in the article! It’s very scary at this very troubled point in our history the Democrats still can’t get their act together. I’ve just about given up.
31
I love Kamala Harris, and envision her politely eviscerating her opponents in debate, with a style that earns her respect from all quarters. Please, no Warren. She's fine, but might be eaten alive in a general election.
16
Klobuchar for President. Harris for Vice. THIS is the winning ticket in 2020!!!
30
The question isn't how many women will run for office in 2020. The question is whether if they run on policies essentially identical to those of Bernie Sanders the Times will turn against them, attacking their proposals and ridiculing their supporters day after day in every column and op-ed the paper runs.
Someone there should investigate what you all did to Sanders. It was ugly. And he could have been our first Jewish president. Better than forcing a moment for women with a candidate who lost.
I even remember reading an article (not in the Times!) by a Ph.D. student in sociology at Harvard who wrote that if the dems nominated Clinton, Trump would be president. Here's hoping the Times is more honest with its readers in 2020.
30
@Robert I like Bernie well enough, and voted for him in the primaries more or less on principle, but this idea that he'd have mopped the floor with Trump in the general election is kinda nuts. He definitely would have had a chance, like any Democrat would have, but he had yet to be hit with serious opposition research and the relentless pounding of the Republican attack machine. It would have been endless, brutal, and believe me there is stuff there to be found. The word used for serious Bernie fans who claim with such certainty otherwise is....naive.
10
@George Ladshaw - People often remark how HRC could have won with only 78,000 more votes distributed in a few key swing states. All Sanders would have needed, to win, was a small lead over Trump in those states.
And guess what. He had it.
In April-June 2016, Quinnipiac polled in swing states, comparing a Clinton/Trump race to a Sanders/Trump race. Sanders consistently maintained a wider winning margin. Clinton went on to lose ALL those states by a small fraction of the vote, much smaller than Sanders' margin.
In the end, it's the swing voters in the swing states that elect our presidents and Sanders definitely connected with them better than Clinton.
https://poll.qu.edu/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?r...
1
@George Ladshaw, I assume you're talking about someone else's remark then and not mine. Because all I said is that he *could* have been our first Jewish president. Could, as in the conditional, if you're familiar with that verb tense. That's a long way from "mopping the floor" or "claiming with such certainty," etc. Hope you're able to focus on what people are actually saying if you're going to bother to reply to them.
Amy Klobuchar and Julian Castro, or Julian Castro and Amy Klobuchar.
12
@Hedge. Julian Castro? Not likely.
Ms. Warren is not my girl. If she's the best we can do, get ready for trump to chew her up and spit her out.
Enough about the American Indian heritage. Enough whining, we need a winner not a whiner.
27
I was very impressed with Ms. Harris questioning during the Kavanaugh hearings. I would like to see and hear more about her. She had a no nonsense approach and temperament that was to the point and refreshing. I want to hear more.
13
Any time I read about Senator Kirsten Gillibrand I know the comments will start. "Threw Franken under the bus." "I will never vote for her." On and on. Yes, Sen. Gillibrand has taken the heat on an issue that has always been at the top of her agenda. But some people seem to forget that more than 20 Senate Democrats called on Al Franken to resign. AND it was his decision to resign.
I loved Al Franken, but I repeat to myself THE best analysis I read of the 2016 election, this by Kurt Eichenwald, "Too many Democrats demand purity or won’t vote, while most Republicans want victory, and so vote."
15
@Greg
Yes, and I'll say it again. Gillibrand threw Franken under the bus, and I won't vote for her.
I don't demand purity but I do demand basic decency and the due process described in the Bill of Rights.
There seem to be a lot of people on this list who feel the same way. If the Democrats are foolish enough to choose Gillibrand, then they're running a candidate who is guaranteed to lose those votes.
I just don't see any of them winning. The Democratic party needs leadership - desperately. In 2020, Dems must focus their eyes on the prize (and that might include a few meetings to really figure out what "the prize" is) and put up a candidate with no skeletons in the closet and who can and will appeal to more than the Democratic base.
8
We just can't take the risk of not defeating Trump. And as much as I'd love to see a woman president in my lifetime this election isn't the one to make that happen. The important electoral states aren't ready. Joe Biden for president with Harris or Klobachar for vp so people in the heartland become comfortable with a woman executive. After that . . .
29
@ Faroutlier2
Now that's a plan!
3
Curious as to why Gillibrand is considered a serious possibility for the Dem nomination in 2020. I have yet to meet anyone in NY State who is a fan. Yes, she is extremely ambitious with no discernable principles other than her own self-interest. She was undoubtedly a fine associate at Davis Polk. However, what exactly has she ever done, especially in an executive capacity, that evidences an ability to lead the government of the United States. Yes, she is an advocate for women. So are thousands and thousands of other politicians. What else does she offer?
28
How to guarantee a Trump landslide?...Nominate Warren or Gillibrand...even if only as VP, let alone for the top of the ticket. Probably Harris too, but at least she doesn't come across as a finger-wagging high-pitched scolding schoolmarm to most men like the other two do. Amy Klobuchar is the only hope for the Dems if they select a woman for the ticket. I say this as a card-carrying "librul."
27
Klobuchar can’t win this election cycle but would make a decent VP
4
We don’t need a woman, we need a person of leader ship and integrity who can win.
20
If this is true, it's a sad business. Of course, the Democratic Party has been running on fumes for years. That sputtering sound you hear may be the engine's last gasp.
7
If we Dems nominate Elizabeth Warren we'll lose badly in 2020 and 2024. She fits into the same mold largely as HRC -- elitist left coast/academic ties, longtime politician, somewhat out of touch with reality. My vote is for Kamala Harris who has less time in politics and therefore less baggage and can have more impact on youth/Black/Hispanic vote.
14
Though I will vote for any Democrat running in 2020, why does the front-runner need to necessarily be a woman? Is it because of Hillary? The #MeToo movement? The treatment of Dr. Ford? If the front runner is to be a woman, then women need to get out and vote and make their impact known in the midterms. By doing so, they will make any of the fine senators mentioned in this article a plausible opponent to defeat Donald Trump.
5
If Gillibrand is the nominee I am voting for someone else.
34
Democratic leadership continues to fail to see the only way to get this dangerous autocrat and his supporters out of office is to actually WIN elections, and to do that the Dems need to run people who will get votes from people on the fence and from those regretting their Trump votes. The three women mentioned in this article will lose. Putting HRC in the lead spot because "she was due" didn't work, did it?Democrats need to get their priorities straight, remember the goal is to WIN, and instead put a far-more-successful-businessman-than-Trump at the top of the ticket: Bloomberg, Cuban, Gates, or someone of that ilk. Democratic leadership is ALSO failing to get their candidates to hammer home a consistent, simple message: If you want peace and prosperity for your children and grandchildren, you'd better get Democrats in office. If you vote Republican, be prepared to explain to your children and grandchildren why you voted for people who enriched themselves at the expense of your own family. Seeing all these unelectable Democrats spouting a hodgepodge of complex messages is truly demoralizing...
9
Would never vote for a women in this metoo climate of hatred towards men.
11
Oh Lordy, let it not be Hillary !
6
@Sam Oh, I don’t know, she’s had a good bit of practice! Actually, someone should show both of the Clintons the door. They haven’t improved with age.
4
Let's try this: ANYONE WHO CAN BEAT TRUMP. A-N-Y-O-N-E.
Please, for the sake of the Republic, can we please, please agree on a candidate and unite in the name of democracy and the American people? I will work. I will give. The institutions of the United States cannot sustain four more years of abuse.
14
Removing Trump from office and reducing the effects of Trumpism will be the greatest challenge for democrats. We must choose wisely and figure who can beat him?
Right now, I would would give him a 50/50 chance of winning if the election today. That’s a scary prospect.
7
I REALLY want to support a Democratic candidate and get rid of Trump, as a moderate Republican who didn't vote for him.
My fear is that Democrats are going to make the same mistake. Pick a candidate that can WIN. Pick one that can pull in the moderates on both sides. Democrats thought Clinton was the person. Do you seriously think Harris and Warren can win?!?!?!?! Gillibrand can win if the messaging and delivery is super focused on a same number of specific things that affect most people. It also doesn't have to be a woman, or a minority. Wake up and realize you need a great CANDIDATE that can win. You can change policy if you are constantly in the minority.
3
@David Typo... You can't change policy...
I'm an independent, but could see myself enthusiastically supporting Warren, Harris, and especially Klobuchar. But Gillibrand? Oh lord, please don't do that Dems, it will be Hillary all over again, she is just as big an opportunist with no firm principles.
I held my nose and voted for Hillary, but I swear hear and now, if you show you didn't learn your lesson from that, I will be forced help make the "distaste" of the middle clearer, by voting 3rd party for the 2nd time in 10 presidential elections. I know from talking to friends and reading commentary here that I would not be the only one. Anyone but Gillibrand (or Hillary again!)
15
If the democrats "want to" nominate a woman, they will lose the election. If a good candidate wins the nomination, regardless of any personal attribute, then the democrats may, just may, win the election. But dear, they seem hellbent on making it difficult.
11
Nope, I want a woman. And I wouldn’t be compromising at all by voting for a former US senator.
We Democrats must replace Trump in 2020. Who? I think it is too early to worry about that now. For the next 18 days we need to concern ourselves with the mid-terms.
We need to know more about Ms. Gillibrand and Ms. Harris. Maybe there are others. Elizabeth Warren? Highly qualified and might make a good president, but we need younger women and men running as Democrats. I’m in the social security and Medicare crowd and I normally fight anything to do with ageism. However, we need to put forth younger candidates, people who will disrupt things a bit.
I like a lot about Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden, but we need younger blood at the top of the ticket in 2020, especially if the person is running against Trump — a man who apparently spends as much time watching television as he does actually allegedly running the country. Trump will be two years older in 2020. Let’s find a youthful, energetic, forward-thinking person to counter Trump’s old white man approach.
That’s my two cents worth and I am white, old enough for social security and Medicare, and retired military. Thanks for everything you’ve done Mr. Biden and Ms. Warren, but please step aside and let the younger candidates run. We didn’t energize enough with Hillary. Let’s try a different approach.
6
The biggest weapon in Trump's arsenal is two-pronged: his supporters don't care about his personal ethics and the media can not stop covering him. In 2016 Trump got elected with relatively little fundraising but historic levels of media coverage. Now he is already raising more money than he ever had in 2016 as it seems many of the elites who fretted over a Trump presidency have had their minds changed, or at least put at ease. In 2020 he will be able to run ads while also enjoying the media feverishly covering everything he says. Trump will also be in a better position to control the narrative as he is the President and can cause events that might favor his incumbency. Finally, the argument that Trump is not suitable for public office will be severely diminished unless there is a major economic or government melt down. Are we really wishing for crash and recession again just 10 years later?
When I look over these Democratic candidates I'm terrified. We need someone who can take a crude comment or joke and throw it right back with confidence and humor. We need someone who can bury Trump on his lies without going into a finger wagging lecture.
When I see people asking for rage induced candidates carrying a "Year of the Woman" banner I start thinking about Hubert Humphrey vs Nixon. There was so much rage at Nixon and so much protest and civil strife. Dems thought they had it because everyone agreed Nixon was so bad.
Then Nixon won 301 electoral votes and 4 more years.
12
Conflict of interest! AG Sessions is a well known Trump supporter who was his first supporter during his campaign. This news comes just three weeks before the election indicating the Sessions Justice Department is who is really interfering in the election with this public announcement.
I am a fan of Amy Klobuchar and wish she would get some traction.
She embodies midwestern values that I believe would be very attractive to, even, moderate Republicans and she is beloved in Minnesota.
We need someone who has the ability to heal wounds and I think Amy has that ability.
30
Senators rarely make good presidents. They lack executive experience. Without governor or cabinet secretary experience, I never vote for a Senator. Being a legislator is not adequate training for the job. They've never had to make the choices necessary to stick to a budget. Given the incompetence of the incumbent, I think it is particularly important to nominate somebody with the experience to do the job better. Let's look at Hickenlooper or Patrick.
.
Yes, I know Obama was a senator. He was a good man, but his inexperience led to an overly lengthy and Senate-lobbyist driven process to produce the health care act, an act that was far from ideal. His need to grow into the job led to poor perceptions which in turn led to the Republican route of 2010. Obama achieved far too little for a man in office 8 years. Yes, that was the Republican's fault, but the Republicans were given the initiative by the naive and inexperienced new president. Anyone without governor or cabinet experience is vice-presidential material, at best.
10
Democrats better be ready for Nikki Haley either replacing Trump on the ticket or Pence. There is no question she left UN ambassador to start campaigning for President or VP.
10
Amy Klobuchar may be the most thoughtful and electable general election candidate Democrats could turn to. Can she win the nomination from a cadre of strident and self-promoting politicians such as those highlighted in this article? We better hope so.
21
Kirsten Gillibrand showed her toxic ambition when she put a knife in Al Franken. Elizabeth Warren is smart but is more a dreamer than an administrator. Kamala Harris is the Dem's best hope.
But Nikki Haley is has shown strength and leadership. Harris vs Haley would be a great contest. Either would be a tremendous improvement over clown boy.
8
If 2020 comes down to a male-female election we are doomed to 4 more years of torture.
4
@Howard Tish Wake up. It's not about gender or race. It's about quality of the candidate,
3
tIf there were an obvious female democratic candidate, the democrats would not be scrambling to find any woman as they are now.
5
Forget gender. Forget party. How about we elect someone who is an honest, competent, and dynamic leader?
10
@Peter: If only we could forget party. Republicans have poisoned themselves.
1
How about Klobuchar? With Tim Ryan as her running mate.
I could at this point get behind Warren or Harris, though I confess to feeling I need to get to know more about Harris to be "all in."
Gillibrand? Nope.
She insisted Al Franken resign from the senate immediately. Without the Ethics Investigation he requested. That seemed a bit questionable to me, but I thought well, OK, she feels strongly about METOO, so I could accept it as sincere.
BUT...she was also happy to share her campaign stage with Bill Clinton, who was accused of FAR worse than Franken, including rape.
Not OK. She appears to me clearly to be a hypocrite and a political opportunist.
But a lot of us on the Left--who were rightly angry at the GOP during the Kavanaugh hearings--also looked the other way when Bill Clinton was accused by several women of sexual impropriety. We, like Gillibrand, need to take a long look in the mirror.
12
The million dollar question is does the Democratic nominee appeal and charm voters beyond the coasts?
1
Klobuchar!
12
Something of which I am certain:
There will be a female President one day. It will not be Hillary Clinton. Thank God.
Something which greatly concerns me:
Democrats persist in playing identity politics. "It's her turn."
You WILL get your woman President---Ivanka. Donald Trump will 'appoint' her. Jared will be running the show.
The decent into autocracy will be complete.
Just a thought democrats---nominate the best candidate. Regardless of gender or color. I am not hopeful.
8
@Concernicus Couldn't have said it better myself.
1
If Texas is not smart enough to elect him as their Senator, I would love to see a Klobuchar\O'Rourke ticket. Her experience and his energy would be a great combination!
4
Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden are the first three real contenders I see, maybe Cory Booker, too. But it's still way early.
1
Of the 3 Senators in this piece only Ms. Harris would have a shot at winning. Gillibrand lost any chance of winning when she led the charge of those demanding that Senator Franken resign.
Warren let Trump bully her into doing taking then releasing that ridiculous DNA test.
16
All Warren has to do is utter a simple chant: "If you're not a crook, let us look!" The Dems can't keep letting Trump get away with murder. Demand his taxes, and use rants and chants that his followers can comprehend.
7
"Rants and chants", aka the programming for NPC's? Chanting is not going to influence the right, it only makes those chanting seem like they don't have a mind of their own. This is actual advice.
6
@RJ
"All Warren has to do is utter a simple chant: "If you're not a crook, let us look!" "
Seriously? If anyone thinks that is a good slogan, you might as well just stay home and watch the 2d Trump inaugural on TV. It must be hard work being that bad at politics.
4
I think a ticket of Biden/Harris would be a winner, hands down.
6
@MJB: No to Biden based on age and his involvement in the Clarence Thomas hearings. Watching Kavanaugh whine and whimper through his hearing made me angry all over again for how they treated Hill.
2
@Anne
Biden has come a long way in that time. The point is to get a win, and he will be acceptable to voters, and, to position Harris, who will be the President afterwards, IMO>
2
Biden totally regrets those hearings and has apologized, so let's stop the dated sound bites of unyielding, unforgiving criticism.
Ask Anita Hill: I bet she would support Biden.
2
Here is the very bad news: Nobody can beat Trump unless there is a real voter revolt in America. The Mueller report, if it ever comes out, will do little. Look at all the awful things Trump has said and done, the horrendous appointments he has made and the damage they are doing. Look at his position vis a vis the Saudis, their Prince, and their bloodthirstiness. Trump will not do what is appropriate in that situation and his base doesn't care. Trump is a two term president and any woman nominated is cannon fodder.
6
The problem is the Mueller report promised so much, but will ultimately deliver so little. Very underwhelming.
2
As a lifelong liberal, one thing has become abundantly clear to me. If the Dems have any hope of winning in 2020, we must make our case based on jobs, jobs, jobs. It can’t be based on anti-Trump sentiment, but on a solid platform of what we will accomplish in office. Right now I’m not inspired by any of the front runners as their only message is hating Trump but with no solutions. Don’t get me wrong, I am appalled by our current administration and want nothing more than to see it as a one and done. But the current course of trying to shame voters into voting him out of office only seems to be making those who voted for him double down. Offer a viable alternative based on issues and hopefully we can win.
9
@Debbie M.: Healthcare, healthcare, healthcare.
5
Making it about jobs is meaningless. Because we are going to lose millions more jobs in the years to come due to automation. And there's nothing on the horizon that will provide jobs to replace the ones lost to automation.
What jobs do you think politicians will provide? Jobs as longshoremen? Highway crews? Mining? Telephone operators? Factory jobs? Forget any jobs funded by government. We've already lost millions of govt jobs due to tax cuts. Both my parents were govt workers, both of their jobs no longer exist.
If automated driving takes off, forget making money as an Uber or Lyft driver. Forget teaching - The GOP is going to take down the public education system. They'd prefer everyone reach their kids at home.
They'd also prefer that sick people die.
3
What is concerning is that both the author of this piece and many (but not all) of the posters, do not realise that none of these potential female candidates stand a chance against Trump in 2020.
17
Elizabeth Warren, for the country's sake, please remove yourself from the Democratic field. We need a presidential candidate without baggage; one with a positive, objective platform; and one who can actually win in 2020. Because it's going to be a tough campaign.
13
@Sunny
I disagree. Warren is a good fighter, just what is needed.
Give her a chance in the trials of politics. She will either wither in the fights or excel and get stronger, which is just what we need. She calls out Trump. That is a prerequisite to winning for Democrats. No more Ms. Nice Gal please. Earn my following with your battle abilities.
2
@Sunny One should add she has been an excellent Senator for MA and should continue to be so for as long as she cares for the job. But NYT publishing this article at this point in the game is almost cruel and disrespectful. It was unfortunate, but she will not be becoming president, not soon, not ever.
2
Delusions of Positivity aren't going to win against Trump.
1
My preference would be a) Harris b) Warren c) Gillibrand. I would have Warren as A if she were younger.
Any of these 3 women would be a fine president.
If moderate/centrist/“reasonable” people of both parties truly care about this country and the spirit of citizenship that unites us and makes the country strong in the most important ways, they will not just vote for whoever is running against Trump, they will recruit family members, friends, coworkers who might otherwise not vote, and insist they do. 2018 could be a pivotal election. 2020 must be.
I’ll vote for a bowl of yeast cultures at this point...
2
I'm a moderate liberal. but now we're only pushing for female candidates? I don't care if the candidate is male or female. I just want the best possible candidate. and unless you are one of the blinded alt-left, you see that none of these 3 women are viable candidates.
29
@bored critic: No one is pushing these candidates. It's a story about an unusual number of women thinking about running. And, you may have notice, white male candidates, have been 'pushed' throughout our history.
5
@bored critic . They are not viable candidates because they are not on TV laughing about immigrant children in cages and saying "womp womp."
We live in a sewer.
4
We need young, youthful candidates not the proven to be the same-ol-same-ol candidates. Forget the 70 plus picks. Go young with 50s on down. That’s what America needs. These old pols do not know my young family of 5 struggles and what we truly need or they would of done something about it. Yes, there’s a place for them in our party but not as heads of state. Their theme song should be the gospel If The Lord Should Take Me Now (I’ve had my chance). Biden, Clinton. Sanders and Warren have had their chance and look what we got: a dangerous fool in the Whitehouse and dozens of his out of touch old crotchety cronies in power hurting all of us and the future of America.
I have no problem electing a tested younger women
as president. But my political hopes are on someone from a state house who has a history of achievements from passing good laws and looking out for families, jobs, workers, heath care and rebuilding America. There is one such person who got capital punishment abolished with a Republican controlled state senate, balanced two budgets,
refinanced state schools, universities, health care and jobs, has already gone through the presidential primaries and is good to go. Governor Martin O’Malley.
Compare him running against Trump or the youthful and experienced Ryan or Niki Haley. He will wipe them clean. O’Malley and Harris 2020! That’s the Ticket! I predicted the voters are going to be looking for a steady-hand and level headed executive like M.O.M in 2020 & not Trump!
1
You are forgetting the best candidate of all....Senator Amy Klobuchar. If she decides to run, she will win it all. She is progressive, and exudes HOPE.
18
As a Democrat, I would just like to see the party get back to running a reasonably fair and especially open primary. I would like to see the Democratic Party establishment sit this one out and let the actual voters decide the nominee instead of trying to stack the deck for a specific candidate before even a single vote is cast. If the establishment can keep their paws off the process there will be several female candidates in the field instead of just one.
6
Trump could nail the 2020 Elections if he changes the VP to Nikki Haley. When Trump's second term ends in 2024, Nikki Haley can run for the Presidency with Mike Pence as her VP. Must consider strategy!
3
This is why I re-registered from Independent to Democratic after the last election- so I can vote in the 2020 presidential primaries. I still consider myself firmly in the "I" camp, and wish we had a viable third party that encompassed a middle ground that embraces both fiscal moderation, common sense and cultural progressivism. I have split my ticket in most elections, but this year, I will be voting straight 'D'. And while I voted for HRC because she was, in fact, a smart, well-informed and highly experienced MODERATE, I fear the Dems will blow it. I would love to see a female president in my lifetime; I am more concerned with seeing someone ensure that Donald Trump does not get another four years. I will support the candidate most likely to beat him.
6
We saw what happened when a segment of Democrats rallied around Hillary and "our first female President" agenda, ignoring her baggage and extreme un-likability. The DNC push her to the point of sabotaging the Bernie Sanders campaign and putting Trump in the White House.
We need a candidate that can attract the independent center, has high likability ratings, and can actually win. Whether that is a woman or a man shouldn't figure into the equation. I applaud these woman for running and challenging the status quo, but stop with the "because she's a woman..." arguments. That's not enough.
8
Let me preface my analysis by saying I am biased in favor of Democrats who have traditionally demonstrated a deep caring for ALL Americans regardless of party or gender. I mean ALL Americans as they promoted and accomplished policies and programs that greatly benefited everyone's economic and health security since the days when Franklin Roosevelt brought America out of the Republican triggered Great Depression with his creation of Social Security and the Works Program that got America back on it's feet where it has been since.
As much as I love, admire, and worked hard for Hillary Clinton, we were all overrun by the alpha males of the Republican party led by Trump. Clinton confronted the brute power of males as a dignified woman. It was doomed from the start and even I didn't expect it.
I learned. The simple facts of life I learned is that in a fight, any fight, a woman is no match for a strong male.
52 % of our nation is comprised of women and not all lean to moderate or liberal. Although men comprise an almost equal share, they are far better fighters than women, and politics is a fight as we saw.
I hope any Democrat wins in 2020 to save the nation from this downward spiral of hatred and anger, but we need strong men to defend the women, the infirm, the weak, the sick, and even Republican followers who were manipulated by professionals against their own well being.
We need more Roosevelt's, Johnson's, Kennedy's, strong men to protect the vulnerable. A Champion.
3
Dems have no chance against Trump unless (and I said this when Hillary won the nomination of her party) they SHIFT TO THE RIGHT. Here's your only chance "Michael Bloomberg." I'm sorry if he's a guy, but that's it.
7
@Mark Here's another thing... Dems have a guy right out of central casting, Hollywood-handsome Gavin Newsom. Do you think you could do something with him? No, we want to focus on pot and open borders. That's what's important to us. What happened to this party? Maybe we'll get serious after the next election?
4
Its time to give the woman a chance to clean up Washington. I'd vote for someone who has a solid history championing for the people and doesn't bend with the wind.
2
I’m scrolling through all of the comments, and it seems like the NYT picks and most recommended comments are all stressing the necessity of a candidate who is “electable,” who can go against Trump and not alienate the opposition party, who is not super progressive, etc. I would like to remind everyone of who our president is. It’s 2018. Nobody has any freaking idea what “electable” means anymore. How can anyone look at 2016 and say that a progressive blue-state woman can’t win? Centrist? Trump got elected!!!! As far as I’m concerned, I don’t think we should count anybody out just yet for being too much this or too little that, and I think overcautiousness can lead us down a slippery path towards picking a hollow candidate who doesn’t have a clear stance on anything. Let’s keep our options open for now.
7
Landrieu / Harris !
1
Why focus on gender though...?
10
@dcfan
Voting FOR someone based on gender makes no more sense than voting AGAINST someone based on gender.
7
@dcfan: Because we have a history of males presidents and this is interesting to those of us who are not male. I preferred Sanders but ended up voting for CLinton. So I won't vote for someone 'just because'she is a woman. Still it's heartening to see more female candidates at all levels.
4
I fear you are entering into the realms of pure fantasy here. If it weren't so sad at least I could laugh about it.
12
I nominate Hillary Clinton for the 2020 Election.
2
Only a seasoned tough guy capable of intimidating small t trump: John Brennan 2020!
1
Ummm, don't we have a mid-term election first? Why isn't that the top story?
5
I know I will get pushback on this but I think it highly likely the first female president will be a Republican woman.
9
First, do he Democrats still have “Super Delegates “? I was a registered Democrat who voted for Bernie in the primary. I was so disillusioned both by the Super Delegates completely controlling the Democratic Party and how bad a candidate Hillary Clinton was, that I changed my affiliation the day I voted to Independent. Then Inhekd my nose and voted for Clinton, more because I could never bring myself to vote for Trump. I will not rejoin the Democratic Party until they get rid of Super Delegates. And many more democrats should join me.
As to the three women, I like Warren because she will “burn down the mission” to quote Elton John. The other two are so clearly political opportunists. But I think only a white male could win for the Dems, after two terms of Obama and a Hillary nomination. If you want to win, Democrats, it must be a white male this time. That said, in 2016 my real choice was a third term of Obama. Alas for the FDR amendment!!
3
Over the summer, the DNC voted to scale back the role of super delegates going forward. Establishment party leaders were not happy. Don’t know all the details, but the control of super delegates has been curtailed.
Getting rid of Dark Money. Keeping and building upon Obamacare/ACA, giving workers equal leverage from those billionaires that pay 4% or less total in taxes, growing markets nationwide. I sure with the NYT would ONCE mention issues over gender, ONCE point out truthful lack of the party in power in al three branches, that claim to be victims somehow.
1
WHY must it be a woman? The focus should be on winning, and if a plain vanilla white middle-aged guy makes sense - and it does - do it.
22
If a large portion of the Democratic electorate is clamoring for a female candidate, the that can’t exactly be ignored; nor spited by just throwing in a white middle-aged male regardless.
2
@37-year-old guy. They should be clamoring to win.
1
Sorry.
If any of these fine women decides to run in 2020, they will be vilified just like Hillary Clinton was in 2016 and will not stand a chance.
My hope is that Michael Bloomberg gets enough traction in the next few years - he will destroy Trump in a one on one debate, unlike Mrs. Clinton.
3
Why exactly, are there ANY headlines right now that emphasize the 2020 presidential election? Vote: November 6, 2018.
4
Who cares about history. Never mind the left has only won the White House since Truman with charismatic, men, under 56, who are DC outsiders, who appear liberal. Never mind Hillary losing us the White House, Senate and Supreme Court. Let's keep doing what doesn't work. Don't misunderstand I would love to have Warren or Tulsi as President. But women will lose votes to men, even on the left. And 2016 and 2000 show how close national election can be and how we can not afford to lost even hundreds of votes.
Unfortunately, it is too soon for her, but I like Mikie Sherrill who is running for Congress in NJ.
She is far more impressive than any of the other candidates mentioned so far. She looks like the complete package:
Married with four kids, US Navy pilot and Annapolis graduate with missions in the Middle East and Europe, speaks Arabic, served as Russian policy officer in the Navy, MS from the London School of Economics, law degree from Georgetown and Assistant US DA in NJ. She is smart and well-spoken, Her Naval and academic training have made her physically and mentally tough. She could probably beat up Don Jr. with one hand tied behind her back. Except for experience, I seriously challenge any of the other candidates to match her for accomplishments.
Perhaps in a few years. I will continue to watch her progress.
2
I believe the first female president will be a woman with a military background who is a moderate from either party.
I don’t see Harris, Warren or Gililbrand having what it takes to beat Trump. It is not PC to say this but a white male candidate (Biden?) is the Democrats’ best chance to top Trump.
3
@Lynn in DC
A previous commenter jogged my memory - Mitch Landrieu, the former mayor of New Orleans, would be an excellent choice to run against Trump.
I like Elizabeth Warren but her cluelessness about the issues that DNA testing has raised in Native tribes is a turn-off. She's one of those people who are very good with numbers but have trouble recognizing social nuance. She romanticizes her Native ancestry but she doesn't seem to have done her homework on how Native people feel about DNA. A teacher whose dog ate her homework really bothers me. But I certainly would vote for her if she were the candidate. I just worry about what other homework she's failing to do.
3
I'm amazed at all of the anti-Gillibrand comments here about her treatment of Al Franken, after she effectively forced him from the senate without being due process.
Now is not a good time for Democrats to be talking about the value of a fair hearing....not after your treatment of Justice Kavanaugh.
3
@Anne Way big difference between the two. Al Franken resigned based on Gillibrand's mob judgement of a prank.
kavanaugh did actually criminally assault someone. Unfortunately, only one republican had the courage to do the right thing and vote against him...and, kavanaugh did not have enough character to withdraw...much like his biggest fan, the electoral college president.
8
It's not about women. It's about winning. Less time should be spent worrying about who is going have a shot at being the first this or that, and more on how this train wreck of a government is going to be put back on the tracks.
12
I agree a woman should be elected to the country's highest office.
SUSAN COLLINS for president!
4
@Anne We already have a traitorous misogynist in the White House, and that's not going so well, so let's not elect another one.
3
Despite all of Trump's antics, the election will not be about giving a chance to the ones once bullied. Just like in 2016, closeted Trump voters will come out strong. No, not "the base", but the folks whose investments have grown steadily in the market for the past two years.... or the folks who enjoy their concealed-carry permits, or just the old-thinking ones that prefer traditional roles for women but would never say it outloud. Moral ground has not been America's strong suit. There's no point in assuming that will change NOW.
The key to this election is educating voters, not just presenting them with the polar opposite of Trump and asking to choose sides.
Elizabeth Warren is not the answer for me, and neither are The Clintons, or others mentioned here. I don't want to bash every Trumpian decision and talk about it constantly with my friends: it's draining.
I don't have investments or a concealed-carry permit, but I have a lot of student debt. I want a rational and balanced leader. I want to have faith in my future in this country.
2
I am a Democrat but will stay home if any of these people mentioned our candidates. I am not for "free" education for everyone and open unlimited immigration, etc. We have enough problems without adding to our debt. We need someone with real solutions. Take away Trumps insane remarks and Russian influence and he could be a person I would vote for again. The Democrats offer nothing in terms of helping the middle class except on healthcare. I dont believe they are "socialists" but offer nothing but feel good solutions that everyone else has to pay for with no benefit to Americans already living in the U.S
8
National deficit exploded under trump. Let’s all try to go with facts for this election
2
Time for a revival of the Broadway Show "Stop the world I want to get off." Abe Lincoln couldn't get nominated today. Nobody would listen or care what he'd say, wasn't photogenic, wasn't a cross dresser and had no known traces of Native American ancestors.
6
Three is fine. Looking forward to when there are 3 woman candidates and no one mentions it because it's not unusual.
2
I'm a female Democrat and I wrote many comments last time saying that running Clinton was dangerous. Here we go again. We need to run someone who can win, not necessarily a woman. After seeing the headline, I could only think of one woman who has the stature and experience to run, and that is Elizabeth Warren. If I had thought a while, I might have come up with Kamala Harris, but Kirsten Gillibrand would never have come to mind. And I am an avid news and Twitter reader.
All of these women have serious negatives, either lack of name recognition or questions about past decisions (Harris). We shouldn't take this risk again.
If Bernie Sanders is polling well, he should be the candidate. Yes, he also has very vocal detractors. But he is the most popular politician, period. He could beat Trump. Let him pick a VP candidate who could draw the Democrats that don't like him and that would be a much less risky strategy than Warren, Gillibrand, or Harris. Not a guaranteed win, obviously, but it may be the best chance we have.
I am very sad that Elizabeth Warren is saddled with the native American heritage controversy, since I admire her work immensely. But in this era of sound bites, bots, and whipping up political emotion, it is, unfortunately, a problem.
5
@Hdb Bernie would definitely, easily beat Trump. He would also scoop up a lot of those coveted Independent votes that Dems seem intent on losing because they assume for whatever reason that Indies all lean right (many, if not most, actually lean left, not right). Refusing to run people like Bernie is what results in people staying at home, voting third party (not that I'm against that-- it's long overdue), etc.
3
@Hdb bernie is still not a Democrat and still has done nothing in congress that makes him outstanding. And, he is too old. (I'm an old woman, so hold any ageism charges.)
We need a Democrat--woman or man--young enough to serve two terms.
2
As one who is not comfortable at all with Republican ideas, I hope that Democrats do not pick any one of the three women in this article. To do so will automatically ensure the election of a Republican president. Sorry ladies, you are far too liberal for the majority of folks in this country. The candidate has to be someone left of center, but near the center to win. How about one of the Castro brothers or someone like Mitch Landrieu?
5
Okay, first of all, Kamala needs to sit down. She just joined the government 5 minutes ago. Meanwhile, Warren overplayed her hand with the DNA nonsense, which was not well thought out and about which she should have consulted with actual Native Americans before saying anything. Gillibrand has the best chance of those three, but even her odds are slight. I think the main thing for her will be getting her policy positions out there; I know her because I am a New Yorker, but I'm not sure how well, if at all, the rest of the country really knows her.
10
Is anybody else suspicious about the timing of the current migrant caravan out of Honduras? Seriously, 2 weeks before the U.S. midterms and a direct funnel into Republican programming, the same party that's famous for using internationally engineered "October Surprise" as a campaign tactic?
The need to flee persecution in Central America is not seasonal, and while we all should understand that the original reason for organizing caravans is to protect through power in numbers a very vulnerable group, they are nevertheless organized, not spontaneous. Who organized this one to start now, and to what social media, influence, or whatever else are they subject?
I've long since stopped believing in coincidence with this administration or in Republican campaigns that don't have a planned and expensively executed October Surprise.
10
A women president is possible. To understand the path to a Democratic win in 2020 look at a map of the US. There are a bunch of states that if I were a democratic candidate I wouldn't waste a second of time campaigning in. These include all the states that have 2 Republican US Senators, The block of southern state, small in population ( NC,SC,GA,MS,LA, TN, KY, AR,) then look at the republican firewall right in the middle of the country (TX, OK, MO, IA, OK, KS,NE,SD,ND,) That's a lot of states but many are small in population. there is one more cluster out west ( UT, ID,WY) and Alaska are wonderful 49th state has 2 republican senators.
Okay now look at the States with 2 democratic senators, which include most of the states with large populations ( VT, NH, NY,MA,RI,NJ,MD,DE, VA, IL, MN, WA,OR,CA,HI )
now lets look at the states that have one of each, a republican and a democratic senator ( ME, WV,AL, OH,IN, MT,CO, PA) With a few states up for grabs in tight senate races-FL,NV.
The democratic candidate must be one who can win those states that are 50/50, Especially PA and OH and Florida.
We have to stop looking at the US as one big country when its actually politically 3 countries. One that will never vote democrat, one that will never vote republican and one that is up for grabs. The 2020 election is a race to win over the 6 or 7 swing states and that's it. So ask yourself -can a women win in PA and OH.
4
When there is only one woman candidate, it is easy to play the sex card. When there are multiple then the play becomes much more muted and ineffective. And just as I am sure there are whites that will only vote for a white candidate and men that will only vote for male candidates there are women who will vote gender first. But if there are three women and three men on the ballot, don't you think that the gender card might be overridden by other qualifications?
3
@Whatalongstrangetrip ~
"And just as I am sure there are whites that will only vote for a white candidate and men that will only vote for male candidates there are women who will vote gender first."
I do believe there are more women who will vote for the male candidate than men who will vote for a woman.
6
I think a ticket with two highly qualified women is where we are going! How about a one term Warrn/Harris ticket, so that Harris can own a substantial portfolio and groom for a 2024 presidential run?
The cabinet has so many wonderfully well qualified women candidates, too. I'd be delighted to see strong, competent, servant leaders charge out of the gate to lead the Democratic party forward.
Now, we the people, need to do our due diligence, make sure we vote in every election for every position, support a free and independent press, demand robust investigative reporting, hold our elected representatives accountable for good governance and fair representation of all constituents, and demand that the Democratic party integrate leadership development and succession planning from here on out.
There should never again be an over-representation of any age group and of any ethno-racial group in the government's leadership.
Leaders and legislators must look, sound and identify with all of us.
2
Kamala Harris is the only one of those mentioned that I would be interested in as a candidate. It may be too soon for her though.
I would vote for Biden. Definitely not Corey Booker--he is too reactive. Biden can win; Harris could do so but I am not sure if yet. She is definitely cool, calm, deliberate, and very savvy. A leader. Warren is not presidential; Kirsten damaged herself too much with taking out Al Franken...I just cannot stand her brazen self-interest in that action.
9
Agree and agreed!
2
That Warren took the Pocahontas bait was dismaying and disqualifying. Take Michelle Obama's advice and don't go low.
9
@James,
Better check your privilege. Senator Warren was the first woman of color at Harvard Law school. She has overcome so much and is arguably from the most disenfranchised racial minority in this country.
You crazy Trump supporting San Francisco conservative!
6
@WillT26 Unless your tongue is in your cheek (which it well may be), try not to assume facts not in evidence. Claiming that you're of Native American descent 6-10 generations back as Warren has done is an affront to most Native Americans.
Suggesting Warren not engage at Trump's level and follow the precepts of decency outlined by M. Obama isn't exactly Trump supporting either.
@James,
I subscribe to the 'with us 100% or against us 100%' philosophy- so, yeah, I am basically a member of the Resistance. You're welcome.
You feel dismayed? Senator Warren does not need your approval to run for President. And Native Americans don't need you to speak on their behalf.
Wait a minute- Native Americans don't need me to tell you that they don't need you to speak for them either. I am stepping in and trying to speak for them- stealing their story.
I'm so sorry James. The wokeness is rising! The wokeness!
Fun fact: In many tribes it is quite common for members to have as much, or less, Native American DNA as Sen. Warren has. So if it is nurture, instead of nature, anyone can assume an identity just by assuming certain mannerisms, ways of dress, speaking a certain language, or following specific cultural practices.
3 female front rummers mean another 4 years of Trump.
11
Please, please, please not Hillary and Bill!
Elizabeth doth protest too much.
1
Senator Amy Klobuchar?
13
I just loved it when she kept her cool with Kavanaugh as he attempted to turn around her line of questioning on her:
“Cou-could you answer the question, sir?” “I have no drinking problem.” Lol
I think she has great instincts and her midwestern bona fides would be crucial; she sounds great to me!
9
No they don't.
Another Female nominee means another Trump win. And if Trump wins again, I'm selling all of my stock and waiting for the market to crash once again. So, go ahead and hype up one of these spineless women who won't inspire their base to come out and vote. Trump will have us at war with all of our allies and the economy in the Great Recession by 2022.
9
Kirsten Gillibrand is nothing but a ruthless opportunist -- a Republican who became a Democrat because it was expedient, a hypocrite who drummed Al Franken out of the Senate because he was standing in the way of her presidential aspirations, but has been curiously silent about GOP representative Jim Jordan, who looked the other way while the young men on the Ohio State wrestling team were being raped by the team doctor, a do-nothing who does nothing but harvest e-mail addresses by relentlessly tweeting out "petitions" as if she can't do her job without them.
I will stay home and let Trump burn this country to the ground before I EVER vote for Kirsten Gillibrand.
15
@Jill C.
Not only did she run Franken out, without the Ethics investigation he requested, she also welcomed an accused rapist onto her campaign stage with her.
Hypocrite indeed!
1
Warren/Hirono in 2020! They'll sweep Massachusetts and Hawaii.
Also, parts of Manhattan.
9
@Wine Country Dude And probably lose every other state except California and New York.
5
Oh God, the Democrats just don't get it. If you want to beat Trump in 2020, you must nominate a white, Christian, hetero male, preferably from the Midwest or South, preferably a military vet. Sexism drove much of Trump's voting base. The ONLY way to beat him is to take identity politics out of the mix, focus on the issues, and get loud and dirty if need be. A woman or POC, no matter how qualified, will not stand a snowball's chance in Death Valley of beating Trump. Nominating one would be a gift to the GOP.
26
You’re absolutely correct...Democrats must nominate a conventional white man to beat Trump...No novelty acts this time...no giving away votes...as close to Center as they can get...
4
Too many women running? Are there ever too many men running?
12
Biden & Warren would be the dream team.
4
@Jean Biden OK, Warren not so much.
3
Look out for Nikki Haley.
9
@Smoke em
Agree. She is terrific. So is Susan Collins.
3
@Anne
Collins?! You're kidding, right?
1
Don't be surprised when Donald Trump drops out or loses the Republican nomination to Nikki Haley and she becomes the first female President in US history.
14
Kamala Harris releasing her economic plan today shows Dems finally have a frontrunner with tangible platform to pit against the Repubs. She's going to launch into the stratosphere, and as long as she stays on the POSITIVES of her plan, and pitches solutions as opposed to tarring Trump and smearing every one of his voters as racist, she will have a stronger chance than anyone else in 2020.
5
@Brock She might sweep California but the rest of the country barely knows who she is,
2
The way things rarely are, but I wish they would be:
“It is the close of a busy and vexatious day -- say half past five or six o'clock of a winter afternoon. I have had a cocktail or two, and am stretched out on a divan in front of a fire, smoking. At the edge of the divan, close enough for me to reach her with my hands, sits a woman not too young, but still good-looking and well dressed -- above all, a woman with a soft, low-pitched, agreeable voice. As I snooze she talks - of anything, everything, all the things that women talk of: books, music, the play, men, other women. No politics. No business. No religion. No metaphysics. Nothing challenging and vexatious - but remember, she is intelligent; what she says is clearly expressed... Gradually I fall asleep -- but only for an instant... then to sleep again -- slowly and charmingly down that slippery hill of dreams. And then awake again, and then asleep again, and so on. I ask you seriously: could anything be more unutterably beautiful?”
--- H.L. Mencken, In Defense of Women, 1918.
5
I think DJT will be elected in a landslide, and Tulsi Gabbard and Jim Jordan will fight in 2024.
I am a D. and I predicted Trump will be elected as soon as he launched his candidacy.
2
Well anyone of these women would make a good, if not great, President! However, if they make the mistake of running to win BECAUSE they are women, then their campaign is doomed. I suspect that this played a part in Hillary's loss. At the end of the day, what do you stand for? This is the $64billion question. What programs and policies will you put forward that benefit BOTH women and men. Running on the basis of being a woman is sure fire one trick pony.
7
Amy Klobuchar is the best (as yet undeclared) candidate on the field... Firm, calm, measured, cheerful, but no pushover. Rock-solid, but personable, and perhaps most importantly, she's able to speak plainly in direct, un-eggheadlike language. She's a winner.
30
Just win.
3
Democrats won't win by playing identity politics.
Based on overall accomplishments, socially liberal bonafides, and strong business growth success, I propose Senator Klobuchar - who passed more legislation than any other Senator in 2016 - with Governor Hickenlooper - who has done outstanding work with Colorado's economy - as her VP.
Real work. Real results. That's what it's going to take to beat Trump and that's what it will take to restore our democratic republic.
17
I disagree with her politics but Warren has at least national exposure and experience.
The fact that a freshman, Senator Harris is even being mentioned, shows how shallow the Democratic bench is. Come back in 4 or 5 years and we'll talk.
Senator Gillibrand. Who? Outside of New York and DC no one except political junkies have heard of her. Again an indication of a very shallow and undeveloped Democratic bench.
To resurrect an old saying: "Houston, we have a problem."
4
@Bruce1253 Yes, the readiness with which everyone is accepting Harris as a serious potential candidate is startling. Especially given that we are here at the same publication which endorsed Cuomo the massively corrupt failure because his progressive, popular opponent lacked enough experience...
How many Democrats did we hear in 2016 say they didn't vote because the candidate wasn't perfect? Come on! You are never going to have a perfect candidate. In the meantime, we have a seriously flawed president because Democrats stayed home on Election Day. Let's support our candidates instead of picking them apart.
8
Ugh, people want boutique politics these days. It doesn’t exist! Lol
2
We democrats know how to lose. Republicans are wrong on a lot of issues but they win.
None of the democratic women have IT.
8
Of the 3 women in this story, there is 1 for whom I will definitely not vote: Gillibrand. I have not forgotten and will not forget that it was she who threw Senator Al Francken, a very good senator, under the bus. He did not deserve it. A woman or a man who has treated him this way does not deserve to be considered for the position of POTUS. I don't care who the Republican nominee will be: I will not only vote for Gillibrand, I will urge my friends and relatives to do the same.
45
My preference is for Senator Amy Klobuchar. She has experience, knowledge, and composure. She comes from mid-west and can appeal to people from middle of America as well as from both coasts. She should select someone like Julian Castro as running mate. This ticket will attract women, Latinos, Democrats, Progressives, Independents.
32
I firmly believe that the Democratic Party should nominate a female presidential candidate for the 2020 election. I think Amy Klobuchar is far superior than the other female candidates mentioned in this article. I hope she runs.
23
@Sam the misogyny gap in 2016 was daunting...I hate to say it but I don't think a woman can win given the culturally retrograde state of our society at the moment.
I don't think the time is now to fight for a female president. We can't win on the MeToo movement. If so, Kavanaugh would not be sitting on the Supreme Court. Yes, women are angry. I am angry. I will support anyone who wins the nomination, no matter who that person is. I hope that everyone will. But if it's me, I would not put a woman up against Donald Trump unless we want to lose. And we will. There are very few people who can beat Trump. One term presidents are extremely rare. If we're serious about beating Trump we should not make it easy for him.
4
The Democrats need to bury the divide-and-rule identity politics. I won't support anyone in the primary who seeks to atomize us and trains us to focus on our tribal differences. Let Trump do that.
Obama had it right -- there is more that binds us than divides us and he was elected twice fairly easily. I want someone who speaks to what we have in common, especially the broad working and middle classes who far outnumber the 1% and the wealthy people who dominate both parties. It could be a woman, it could be a man, it could be someone of any race or ethnic background, but give me someone who people actually like, and who wants to bring people together rather than divide them. Maybe that's Warren. Maybe it's Beto O'Rourke. Maybe it's someone like Andrew Gillum, who combines the best of Bernie and Obama. It most certainly is not someone like former Big Tobacco attorney Kirsten Gillibrand, whom half the base can't even stand.
13
@Chris Gray bernie is still not a Democrat.
3
This picture of Elizabeth Warren in this column says it all, "Trump easily defeats hysterical Warren in 2020".
Folks, I am a lifelong socialist woman who has always voted for the democrats. 2020 is just too critical to our democracy and our Country's future to have a person like Warren, Harris, Clinton, Biden, Sanders, Booker, etc.
These are not normal times. Full stop.
We need Independent voters! Badly. And, so does the GOP. None of these candidates listed could go toe to toe with Trump and none of them could entice the Independents or moderate republicans. As much as I want a female president, this is not the political time for it. We have to wrest control back from the GOP stronghold. The GOP have masterfully engineered voting districts in their favor and continue to successfully block voting rights across this country for minorities and others. The odds are in their favor for maintaining control for a very, very long time, especially now that the Supreme Court is in their pocket!
We have to play the long game here. We need a moderate Democrat who can woo the Independents and the remaining moderate republicans who are utterly flummoxed about what has happened to their party. An extremist left, angry mobster is not going to do that. We need someone like Michael Bloomberg: white, male, billionaire.
It is disheartening to say this, but "Hear My Roar" will have to wait. I am willing to wait for the sake of my children's future.
9
@Mike Franz I agree with most of what you say here, but it's funny how you and so many others tend to talk about Independents as if they lean right. I am one of many Independents who actually lean left-- further left than most Dems are willing to go. So running a centrist is no surefire way to absorb/attract Independent voters.
1
@Mike Franz
Warren is not electable based on that photo. Would you vote for that?
@Mike Franz
I tend to agree and would offer Terry McAuliffe as a possibiliy - paired with someone like Klobuchar.
I think a Harris/O'Rourke or Lamb ticket wins easily.
2
@Bull Moose 2020 after Beto loses the Texas senate race, which he will, he will sink below the surface once again.
2
Biden/Warren 2020. Obama appointment to Supreme Court. Beto/Ocasio-Cortez 2028. You heard it here first.
5
3 women from deep blue state? Sorry seems like a recipe for another failure.
Amy Klobuchar would be a much better choice.
26
@Neighbor2 Klobuchar has NO charisma.Tulsi Gabbard is the only one who can win, in 2024.
1
I am sorry to say it but all three have no chance. I am a woman and I would have voted for Warren in 2016, because I did not know her well, but know that I do, she is a LIGHT WEIGHT. First thing, the candidates ought to know how to fire a crowd, be great public speakers, and think outside the box, more than just Trump is bad. They are boring!!!
18
There will be a lot of talk about male guilt, and this will naturally limit men's interest in voting for Democrats. Perhaps if these Senators offered indulgences for male votes...
4
Hillary lost in 2016 because of her obvious disdain of straight white men - particularly those in law enforcement. These three candidates seem hellbent on doubling down on that same strategy. Please tell me the common definition of insanity again?
9
I'd love to have a female president. But we learned from 2016 that a woman can't win.
5
No, we learned that Clinton baggage wasn't enough to win.
10
Hillary has been warned to stay away for the next few weeks. The fall out for hew bashing of victims at the hands of her husband will never end. She needs to go away forever.
17
For the sake of the future of this democratic country, the Democrats cannot afford to lose the presidency in 2020.
Somehow Trump has managed to bring out the worst and elevate his throw-back male base's testosterone levels and has also convinced GOP women to "stand by their man" Trump--no matter how demeaning he is and how basically cruel his policies are. Therefore, 2020 is not likely to be the Year of the Democratic Party Woman president. Possible perhaps, but not probable.
So given the upside down and backward-looking situation this country is in, I think it may need to be another white male running for the Democratic presidency in 2020. This needs to be a genuinely stellar person, with superb communication skills and an effective sense of humor (Trump has no sense of humor), who displays all the character, impressive experience, competence, strong leadership, and positive traits Trump lacks.
This strategy would take the race-gender-ethnicity-sexual orientation card out of the deck and level the playing field in 2020, which basically undercuts Trump and the GOP playing their ugly marked-deck racist-ethnic-gender-sexual orientation card.
5
Ms. Gillibrand trashed and defenestrated Sen. Franken, the person I and most Minnesotans had voted for twice. There is simply no way I could support her in any political contest.
54
Don't forget Hillary. She really is back in the picture.
Democrats just don't get it.
Hillary actually thinks she can beat trump. She thought that last time and look what happened.
Please Hillary you had your chance. You are a two time loser. Give it up for the sake of the Democratic party.
17
Hillary? Wow, Putin really is pulling the strings.
6
I think people are missing one of Kirsten Gillibrand’s points. Fighting for women’s rights isn’t sexist. It’s more fair. And in the long run, more fair is better for everyone.
3
about time!
1
While these candidates all seem qualified to run for and serve as President, I feel that coastal liberal candidates will not fare well in our current Electoral College system. Viewed by many in middle America as condescending elites, these candidates will be spurned or ignored here in flyover country. Indeed, no Northeastern liberal has won the White House since JFK, and the dichotomy grows ever stronger. The most electable Democratic candidates will likely emerge from the heartland. President Klobuchar anyone?
10
I always appreciated what Elizabeth Warren had to say when Bill Moyers would interview her on his show. I was pleased when she entered politics. But I agree with the others here that she has more value and can do more for us in the Senate, where her command of economics can help steer policy. Harris and Gillibrand? Too polarizing. I think a winning combo that could take Dems past 8 years would be Biden/Klobuchar.
If the Dems keep the Clintons muzzled, have a come-to-Jesus moment with Rooseveltian domestic policy, and give needy Americans more of their concern than illegal aliens, they might actually have a chance. Because even many liberals want border control.
6
If history holds, the first woman president will be a conservative woman, sad to say. It's possible for a progressive woman to get pretty close, but she will have to have some X-factor that Warren, Harris and Gillibrand just don't have. They need to stay in the Senate and help Democrats take the majority there. Meanwhile, they need to scour the country to find that progressive X-factor woman to groom as the Second Female President.
5
I don't care if a really good outstanding woman runs in 2020, I am not sure the white male base of trump or any party is ready to vote in a woman. A woman candidate will have to have a very strong policy platform, a squeaky clean background (no questionable comments or photos or actions), and really mesh with the people. I am not sure there are any of those running as yet. And I am sorry, I do not want a republican female, even Nikki Haley. Republican women would be subject to the male rule. Republican women are not allowed to stand strong for themselves. They have to ask for republican male permission before doing anything. Warren is not a good choice because she has baggage. Just saying would love to have a woman of strong values both in home & politics & won't back down when faced with Graham or McConnell.
5
@Nostradamus Said So IN 2024, Nikki Haley becomes the first female President of the United States.
3
No one wants to create consumer protections in mortgages, banking and healthcare more than Warren.
I would vote for her.
11
Do not ignore Tulsi Gabbard, a Democratic Congress member from Hawaii. I find her the most balanced on policies and the best able to present them in terms that are close to universal in perspective and persuasiveness. The Democratic nominee in 2020 will suffer from having had any identity with the U.S. Senate. Tulsi is short form in her messaging -- follow her on Twitter -- a veteran who champions peace and a progressive whose ear is tuned to a majority of Americans.
76
Voters should do their homework on Gabbard. Articles like last year’s in the Jacobin problematize her “pro peace” persona, and underscore an early social conservatism (i.e. bigotry) from which she has ostensibly “evolved.” She does seem strong on healthcare and the environment. Not saying that politicians should be blamed for opportunism, but I put the progressive bona fides of Warren and Harris above those of both Gillebrand and Gabbard.
@Stephen C. Rose I agree, Tulsi would be my choice over all of these other women. My first choice however would be Sen. Tammy Duckworth, (D)Ill. Like ms. Gabbard, she is a veteran and has similar views. In fact i think a Duckworth-Gabbard ticket would be awesome.
@Stephen C. Rose Love Tulsi. Hope she runs.
Native midwesterner Senator Amy Klobuchar checks every box the Democrats should have for a successful nominee.
Klobuchar has all the characteristics we need in a president - smart, tough, thoughtful, ethical, proven willing to work across the aisle to get things done, funny, nasty to nobody. Like Barack Obama, she's brilliant, dignified, decent, patient, willing to listen to everybody. Klobuchar shows respect to everyone, whether she agrees with them or not. Who doesn't want a return to that kind of politics? And like Obama, she has a great sense of humor.
Klobuchar is resolutely middle-class and in touch with the concerns of middle-class Americans. She's grounded, decent, honest.
Klobuchar is admired by Senators in both parties and has proved repeatedly she can reach across the aisle and work with Republicans. She has been without rancor or rudeness - as was evidence when Brett Kavanaugh tried to bully and intimidate her in his Senate hearing. Klobuchar repeatedly stood up to Kavanaugh's hectoring of her in a polite but firm manner without any acrimony or show of temper.
The Democrats can't do better than nominate Amy Klobuchar.
Now we just need to convince her to run.
Run Amy run!
22
Agreed - Klobuchar for president! With Hickenlooper as her VP!
4
I guess this is a replay of 2016, when the Times decided Democrats wanted Clinton to be president.
They embedded a reporter with her campaign 2 years before the election, and virtually ignored Sanders, never mind other possible candidates.
Not all Democrats are as fixated as the Times on having a woman president. Some of us just want a candidate who can beat Trump.
41
My 6th grader came home from school this week explaining the dynamic in his school's student council election. He mentioned that there was no point for him to run because there are more girls in the class and they will all vote for ______ because she's a girl. I got halfway through a response trying to suggest that people should vote based on the candidates skills, positions, ideas, etc. but then I caught myself. I realized that my top two news sources (NPR and NY Times) have devoted nearly endless coverage to the idea that women are running in many elections with the implicit or explicit suggestion that people should vote for them because they are women. And then it hit me that adult, intelligent, presumably thoughtful news institutions have resorted to 6th grade behavior/thinking and we're supposed to think this is a good thing. We CANNOT accept this. I understand the history. I understand the challenges. But we CANNOT make people's immutable characteristics the most important thing. In fact, we need to be doing exactly the opposite.
29
One of the things missing from American politics (I know, it seems like we have a surfeit of politics, why look for more!) is that the DEMs have not set up 'shadow secretaries' similar to Canada's 'shadow ministers' for all major areas of government. In Canada, the 'shadow minister' is the go-to voice for consistent rebuttals of the government's plans and policies. Each shadow minister - and shadow prime minister - is ready to give their party's view of the issues. In the onslaught of lies and misdirection from the horrible Russia-House-on-the-Potomac, we need someone to consistently speak for the opposition. Ideally it would be an active politician who is the head of the party. Unfortunately, given the way the media is covering politics, any DEM or Independent who comments on the daily lie from Trump is always undercut by a comment that says, 'would-be presidential candidate.' That weakens the content of the criticism, and we need solid criticism based on facts - now more than ever!
2
Take a look at Mitch Landrieu. it has to be somebody who can win....and not on Trumps terms of engagement. btw,
There is no harm in Dems insisting on a strong border. You don't need a wall. We could provide better help/enticements to our neighbors down South to stem the flow, strengthen/enforce laws against illegal hiring and provide a pathway to citizenship not available to illegal entry, etc.
3
Warren and Harris would make a formidable joint ticket. Gillibrand is a naked political opportunist.
7
As a Republican:
Please run Elizabeth.....you can do it, you're smart, articulate and have your finger on the pulse of the new America waiting to emerge, but only with your help!
Let nothing get in your way, not headlines, DC banter and certainly not Trump!
The Dems can win this!
5
Too old
1
Why not Hillary Clinton, the star of the party?
7
I'll vote for Harris or Gillibrand, but do so holding my nose. I just don't LIKE them; they seem like opportunistic grandstanders. Warren is in a different class altogether, and I used to be enthusiastic about her running, but her absurd, dumb, 'unforced error' in reacting to the Pocahantas thing had me saying, 'Oh, come ON!'
I'll take shaking my head in embarrassment over holding my nose, though.
5
Yep, once again women candidates have to pass the "likeability" test. You just don't like them. Swell.
7
What abour their politics? It’s kind of sad that the Times only mentions “paid family leave” as a platform.
I personally hope that a Republican woman gets nominated one day soon.
That would signal change.
3
Dems need to face facts. In 2020, only nominating 'an old white guy' has any chance at all. Nominate a black or a woman, and there is no chance.
These are the facts on the ground. Given that predudice and bias has been so whipped up by the Trump/MAGA mob.
5
How about Sen. Amy Klobuchar? She looks mighty good to me.
17
Wow - get ready to lose if gender is a litmus test.
17
Amy Klobuchar would make a great president. Her response to rudeness &aggression directed at her by Brett Kavanaugh indicated this former federal prosecutor can take anything Trump can throw at her. Klobuchar is middle class - she & her husband live like normal middle class Americans without great wealth. Klobuchar can make a good case she knows what our lives are like because HER life is like that.
Kamala Harris would be a fine running mate. Harris is smart & tough & doesn't take any garbage. She hasn't been in the Senate very long & I'd prefer her as the veep nominee. Harris is an outstanding senator.
Kirsten Gillibrand made a fatal mistake when she led the Senate posse that forced the premature resignation of much-loved & admired progressive Senator Al Franken. After harassment accusations - several of Franken's accusers appeared to be GOP operatives & connected to FOX NEWS - Franken requested a Senate ethics investigation into the charges against him & vowed to cooperate fully in that process. Instead, Gillibrand led a loud-mouthed mob that forced Franken's resignation without a hearing or chance to defend himself. This was ugly & tragic. In this time of #metoo, when many men are spooked some men have been forced to resign their jobs without due process, the unfair punishment Gillibrand masterminded against Franken should disqualify her because she's not interested in fairness or due process. We don't need a candidate with that baggage. Men won't vote for her!
44
@fast/furious
Absolutely spot-on assessment of Kirsten Gillibrand. I couldn't agree more!
4
@fast/furious While I agree that Senator Klobuchar had remarkable composure in response to Kavanaugh, that isn't enough to make her win the presidency. Hillary Clinton was about as composed as anyone could be during her Benghazi hearing(s), and during the debates with the aggressive Trump!
News flash-no northeast liberal (man or woman) has been elected POTUS since JFK over 50 years ago. No way Gillenbrand or Warren defeats Trump. Better come up with some other ideas. I am not commenting on their abilities, views, etc. Just reality.
9
No way am I voting for Gillibrand. Not after she treated Al Franken, a strong liberal, and didn't even give him any sort of due process. After watching the GOP stick together time and time again to further their unpopular agenda, I'm sick and tired of watching the very small percentage of the Democratic Party that is obsessed with political correctness and identity politics destroy our party. A recent Atlantic article showed polling that 80% or more of Americans HATE PC culture, including huge majorities of Democrats, young people and minorities. Most Americans also dislike hate speech, but they are sick and tired of far left "call out culture" over minor slip ups, a long past stupid decision and just outright trivialities. Furthermore this small, but loud, PC faction never seems to have anyone's back when they need it most. Democrats need to stick together and focus on what Americans care about such as health care, social security, living wages, Medicare and not on back stabbing likes of Gillibrand. Otherwise we will just lose and lose and lose again.
30
How about Amy Klobuchar and Corey Booker?
Appoint Warren as Sec of Treasury
Frankin as Sec of State or HUD
Harris could run DOE and take on the oil industry
2
The first woman President of the US will be Nikki Haley.
Democrats: read it and weep.
11
At this point the only viable candidate that comes to mind would be Joe Biden. I don't think any of the 3 female candidates could win. Maybe one of them could pair up with Biden as V.P. We cannot afford to mess this up.
8
“And Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts left little doubt about her intentions when she released a genetic test indicating she has Native American ancestry — a move to blunt Mr. Trump’s taunts alleging she had mischaracterized her heritage.”
That seems to be a rather generous interpretation of results indicating 1/1,000th Native blood!
5
@James, she's more likely 1/64th. In case you don't think that's appreciable, go back and review documents from the slave period, when if that had been 1/64th African American, the person would have been designated "sang mele" by law in some parts of this country, a term which comes from French and literally means "mixed blood", and along with similar but more familiar terms like "quadroon" are beyond infamy.
BTW, is that oh so honorable god-king of yours going to pay up to a charity of Senator Warren's choice, or will it be like everything else in his rotten life, a scam, a welsh, and a lie?
2
Dems stumbling blindly toward another route by listening to poobahs and pundits telling them America “needs” a woman rather than listening to what voters actually want! Nothing in article references poll numbers saying any of these women are actually popular. Biden and Bernie routinely double or triple any of them in popularity.
9
@James
But women feel that they are entitled to at least try.
Don't you want to be fair?
47% of women voted for Trump. Enough articles about inevitable victories based on identity. Biden would make a better candidate than any of these three but probably won't run.
5
Michael Bloomberg is more accomplished and authentic and independent than every single potential Democratic candidate combined
9
Anybody but Gillibrand ! I like Amy Klobuchar , level headed , articulate , and intelligent without taint of obvious ambition . Have listened to what they all have to say and how they made their points and Amy stands out , she also looks more Presidential . Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris will do too . Gillibrand is too unbending , and has proven that . Too ambitious at the cost of others.
5
@sm respectfully disagree. Gillibrand is a fighter, but she’ll work across the aisle. All of her policy successes have been bipartisan - 9/11 Responders Healthcare, end Don’t Ask Dont Tell. I’ve known her for a long time. She listens.
1
@Elizabeth Thompson
Look at the comments on her FB pages. Her self-serving stunt on Al Franken is disqualifying for many former supporters.
Amy Klobuchar would be a much stronger candidate than Warren, Gillibrand, or Harris. Getting elected in Massachusetts, New York, or California, is no indication of ability to carry tossup states in a general election. Minnesota is a slightly blue-leaning swing state: Trump only lost it by around 40,000 votes in 2016. Klobuchar looks set to win handily there this year. She's smart, well-liked, and respected - even Judge Kavanaugh had to apologize to her after his sarcastic answers. She's a progressive who won't alienate moderate voters, which is something I can't say of the other three mentioned in the article.
9
It's painful how anti-individualistic calls for a man or a woman to run are. There are 300 million men and women in this country. Maybe each candidate should be evaluated on his or her genuine merits, rather than some irrelevant external factor. I think Warren, Harris, and Gillibrand are somewhat lousy, personally. And I'd make a very high bet with anyone that any of them would lose in the general.
5
Perhaps we should wait for the Mueller investigation to present its conclusions before assuming that Trump will run in 2020. There are other Republicans waiting in the wings...
2
@alexandra - bingo. John Kasich would make a great president.
2
If Democrats cling to this idea of it being time for a woman president, they're deluding themselves. Instead, there should be a mix of male and female aspirants, rather than women only, all with the qualifications to be president. Give the independent voters a legitimate, logical choice. And stop using the term "progressive." It connotes to many voters that there is only one choice.
1
Let’s get a winning ticket!
Amy Klobuchar on the number 2 spot
with Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, Mitch Landrieu, former mayor of New Orleans or possibly Senator Sheldon Whitehouse at the top of the ticket.
In my opinion, none of the women profiled in this article has a chance of defeating Trump.
5
All three of these candidates are anti-ICE, anti-deportation, pro-sanctuary cites and totally silent on ideas to secure the border.
That alone will insure that any one of them would get vanquished by Trump in 2020
10
Amy Klobachar 2020 No one else will do. She is brilliant, non-controversial. Faced down an attack from an expert judge and didn't flinch. So much that he apologized to her.
20
Harris, Gillenbrand, and Warren are among the most qualified of prospective Democratic candidates for the presidency. They are intelligent, ethical, and experienced. And they are tough. They have moxie. They are capable of righting this wreck of a Trump ship which has created more ominous and threatening storms than Mother Nature herself. They will stand up to the likes of Putin and M.B.S. and recommit to our allies in Europe as well as to our neighbors to the north and south of our borders.
Yes, they happen to be women. And I am speaking to both Democratic men as well as Republican men. Get over yourselves. We elect leaders who can lead in spite of gender, race, ethnicity, or religion. We, but for the grace of God, had our first African American president, a man of character and dignity. How I miss Barack Obama. And by darn, we can, should, and must have a woman of similar character and ability being our next POTUS. It is way past time...
2
It seems that the democrats are set to to loose another election. If Gillibrand is the candidate I may even vote for Trump.
6
None of these candidates that that special combination of star power/charisma/presence that's needed to become president.
I don't agree with her policy wise but the most talented, charismatic, likeable and commanding female politician in America is Nikki Haley
She's got the best shot at becoming the first female president
73
@Luciano She has ZERO original bold ideas. She is like a Republican ROBOT.
2
@Luciano
I'm a big fan of Nikki Haley too. As a liberal Democrat, I am almost ashamed to admit it. She has the total package.
However, as a conservative Republican she is just wrong on too many issues to win a national election. Remember, Trump won by posing as an economic populist.
We Democrats have three women who can match Nikki Haley's electric charisma and intellect: California Senator Kamala Harris, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and a new star who is in the process of gaining national acclaim, Arizona U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-9) who is in a tight race for retiring U.S. Senator Jeff Flake's seat.
With that said, I believe that either Warren or Harris will become the first female to win the American Presidency in 2020. If either wins the nomination and loses to Trump, I think Sinema will stand a good chance in 2024.
2
@Luciano Harris has those qualities.
5
USA is not yet ready for a "woman" president was proven with thumping majority in 2016 . I do not seen anything changed in 2020. I am not a optimist is this ( sic! ) and that social change needs to come from grass roots of American politics from both GOP and Dems . My daily interactions and the brazen Trump comments about women shown more love by women across America either openly or in the heart.
That tells me we will have another term of Trump and who knows if we will be real lucky to have a real banana republic in USA to the cheers of Putin. Current congress and senate has so far proved me decisively correct. Hope they will stand by my assumption in future too.
1
Joe Biden should have run in 2016 and likely would have won. I hope he runs in 2020. He has the experience few other Dems, male or female, have. Turning any election into a Battle of the Sexes will be dangerous.
9
At least Elizabeth Warren has accomplished something in the area of banking law (you can argue if what she did was good or bad, but at least she did something).
What have Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand done that even slightly makes them worthy of the job of POTUS ?
Yes, they make speeches, what have they *accomplished* ?
5
@G
Kamala Harris was Attorney General of the State of California, and a very popular figure in a huge State.
Elizabeth Warren has never held a high executive position in a large State, and she is stuck in the DNA native American quick sand - irreparable damage of her own doing. Not the temperament that could win a majority of the electoral votes.
1
Please Senator Klobuchar, please throw your hat in the ring. Of all the names listed in this article, you have the best temperament to lead this nation.
8
“We’re overdue, let’s put it that way,” Ms. Breed said in an interview. “It would be great to finally see a woman step up and run this country.”
This is exactly how Hillary Lost - having the attitude that it's "a woman's turn", rather than explaining why she is the best person for the job.
6
I really don't care if it's a man, a woman, or a giraffe. Dems need someone who can win. Elizabeth Warren cannot.
23
A lot of the comments here are revolting. What did these women ever do to you? They are smart, capable, and would certainly do a yugely better job than the current occupant of the White House. Yes, the Democrats should nominate someone who can win. I defy anyone to tell me who that is with certainty – and why it can't possibly be any of these three women.
4
Don't fergit Amy Klobuchar!
8
Kirsten Gillenbrand lost my full support when she railroaded Al Franken out of the Senate.
At the time, I thought she might have a point, but now I'm thinking she just saw it as an opportunity to get rid of a political rival.
I'm open to hearing what she has to say, but her actions then rubbed me the wrong way.
15
Harris is the only with a prayer of beating Trump.
2
The country needs a gatherer, not a hunter.
4
"...the political energy among Democratic women this year far exceeded anything she saw in 2016, when Hillary Clinton stood a chance of becoming the first female president. "
When (and if) a woman is elected President, one of the reasons will be that Hillary put some big cracks in this glass ceiling. I still lament that she didn't break through especially in light of trump's daily dysfunction.
2
The consensus seems to be that only a center-right Democrat stands a chance. I think even this assessment is probably too optimistic. America is now an extremist failed state. We can deny it all we want but the evidence is overwhelming.
4
I hope Hilary does NOT listen to the naysayers and runs again so that we can prove to the world that this past election was stolen from her by winning the. Presidency in 2020.
I AM WITH HER!
3
If there is one lesson from 2016 that the Democrats must learn, it's that their preoccupation with identity politics over the past 40+ years is a losing strategy. Americans are increasingly, and rightfully, repulsed by divisive politics that appeal to identities around race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, and immigration status. Democrats need to keep their focus fixed on the substantive issues of health, education, climate, fair taxation, fair trade that are of importance to nearly everyone across this vast nation. In choosing a nominee, they need to focus on the merits and qualifications of the candidate in helping to bring about needed changes on those substantive issues -- regardless of the person's race or sex or other irrelevant personal trait. A strategy aimed to ensure the chosen Democratic nominee ticks certain boxes on the identity smorgasbord is one destined to guarantee a two-term Trump presidency.
2
I seriously doubt whether any of these three could win. None of them have the common touch. None will appeal to working-class voters. Clinton had her own baggage, but we cannot afford to assume that’s why she lost. Unfortunately, women candidates are at a big disadvantage, and they will need to have a centrist message and a lot of personal appeal to overcome it. Some candidates seem to take the wrong lesson from Obama’s success. They should remember that he ran and governed as a moderate. And democrats had a big advantage in 2008: there was no incumbent running, and the outgoing Republican was leaving office with the country in a frighteningly vulnerable state. In that crisis, Obama looked like a steady hand, which he was. It being a steady hand was not enough for Clinton. And she was more moderate that Harris or the hectoring Warren, and arguably even than Gillibrand. Don’t get me wrong, I would vote for any of these three if they were the candidate. But I would do so with a sinking feeling. And I do think a woman could win. I just don’t think that these ones could.
4
Nancy Pelosi
The most dominant and committed female member of the Democratic Party ever.
Republicans trying to use her to dissuade the public from voting Democrat will see that strategy backfire as people truly reflect on her character and her ability to absorb the brickbats thrown at her from members of both parties.
Trump should be so strong and have such sterling integrity.
5
Certainly it's long past time for a woman to be President, but that doesn't mean Americans will vote for a woman just for that reason. Barack Obama wasn't elected because he ran on a platform of "It's time for a black man to be President", he had good ideas and energized the voters. If anything he won DESPITE being a black man.
So if these. or any other women, hope to become President they had better have much more to run on than their gender. They had better have a platform that ALL Americans can get behind, and it needs to resonate. Job creation, health care, true immigration reform, prison and judicial reform, infrastructure, restoring honesty and integrity in our elected officials, de-tribalizing America. And rather than focusing on just the #MeToo meme, how about pushing for getting the Equal Rights Amendment ratified and finally getting the Constitution and the laws of our land to agree with the Creator: All PEOPLE are created equal.
If women believe that gender shouldn't matter, then it really shouldn't matter - that's true equality. If a woman wants to be President, then she has to have the best message. In the end that's what voters base their choice on. I hope there is a woman who can find that message and finally break the last "glass ceiling". But the reality is that even more important that electing a woman President in 2020, is getting rid of Trump.
3
Is winning a majority of the electoral college in 2020 important?
I hope we don't end up saying "Democrats lost the presidency once again to Trump because the general electorate is prejudiced against women" as many people said in 2016.
In the primaries, vote for the candidate who is most likely to win against Trump unless you want Trump for another 4 years.
4
Elizabeth Warren I'll consider. On economic fairness, she's been a one of a kind that's hard to match. Kamala Harris has a reputation that hasn't been covered as much by you people back East, and would get my primary vote in a heartbeat. The service you're seeing from her as a senator on the national stage is what we've seen in California year after year. Totally top notch. As the stark difference between Obama and Trump has shown those who cared to notice it this way, the presidency is now a job that is difficult even for the brilliant, and a horror show when occupied by less.
Kirsten Gillibrand? No thanks. Last election featured two candidates running as New Yorkers, Donald Trump, who apparently represents New York business to a T, and former New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Look how that worked out. We don't need any more New York in the presidential race for a long, long time. Even if she had called for Jim Jordan to resign over his conduct at OSU, which she didn't, forever imbuing her leading the charge to force Al Franken out with the taint of hypocrisy.
The Dems should find the best candidate and then run IN ALL 50 STATES. They should either keep the image masters and talking points advisors on a very short leash or fire the lot of them, so we get a candidate who speaks their mind. But it should be the best person. Specifying gender as an eligibility criterion, with all due respect to London Breed, isn't big tent, and won't be perceived that way.
5
It should go without saying that there is no way to have a proportionally representative government without said government actually representing its collective constituencies. Without women in government in larger numbers, our government will never possess the perspective required to best serve the interests of all Americans.
That being said, the messenger is not the message. It would be a tragic mistake if the Democratic Party repeats some of the mistakes of the last election cycle, allowing candidate preference to pose such an enormous obstacle over party unity.
Having a woman elected to the presidency is important, but it’s not the only important thing. This moment should make that fact more clear than ever.
None of this makes any difference. Women are not a problem and never were. The fix is in: Bernie Sanders is the new Ralph Nader; whomever the Democrats nominate, they will fall short in the Electoral College insuring Trump a Second Term. It won't be because the candidate is a woman, should she be nominated.
3
Nikki Haley's qualifications vastly outshine those of these Democratic wannabees.
As a governor, she has actually managed a political entity for several years, and now has foreign policy experience as well.
How do Gillibrand, Harris, and Warren stack up against that ?
They are relative lightweights.
(But, yes, they can make speeches)
7
Can we move toward supporting a current D Governor for President—-many competent D women Governors with material executive experience running a state and also getting R support for passing laws. We need to be focused on getting things done for lot of folks in need and not just being critical of others.
1
I think many NYT readers vastly underestimate the hatred towards women throughout this country. I can guarantee if the Democrats nominate a woman to run against Trump, she will lose. Many women have a much harder time being elected to elected office, even in liberal states like Massachusetts where I live. I've seen it again and again and again and again. I wish this wasn't true. But that's the way it is. And the goal should be to get Trump out of office in 2020. And let me add that I voted for Hilary Clinton and I'll be voting again for Sen. Warren next month.
13
Until a Constitutional amendment dictates one male and one female senator from each state, we will never have equality.
2
Ivanka Trump could beat Donald.
1
Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton twice proved how being a female Democrat frontrunner is meaningless.
She lost to a young black guy named Barack Hussein Obama and an old white guy named Donald John Trump.
The nations with the most Muslims aka Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh have or had female heads of state/government.
And there has never been an American Hatshepsut, Boudica, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel nor Theresa May.
Because the Founding Fathers only expected that white Anglo-Saxon Protetestant men who owned property like themselves were divinely naturally created equal persons with certain unalienable rights that qualified them to vote and lead in our divided limited power constitutional republic of united states.
MAGA does not include women except as daughters, mothers and wives in secondary subservient supportive roles.
7
Gillibrand? Yeah right. I don't see the extreme left-wing of the party, which has taken over, voting for a white person- even if that person is a woman.
Harris and Warren are both women of color. Harris is also a first generation American. Both are from extremely liberal parts of the country. They encompass so many more identities than Gillibrand (or Klobuchar).
Really tough choice. I am really upset that I may have to vote based on policies. The Democratic Party should try to find a candidate with a more diverse background- a lesbian, illegal immigrant, woman of color with a physical disability would probably appeal to a lot more demographics.
2
@WillT26
Nasty, but funny. I take your point.
3
Democrats do not need a presidential candidate who will to maximize their share of the popular vote (that is not the metric that matters) or "excite their base" (Trump has done that plenty). They need someone who can sweep the industrial Midwest.
They are very unlikely to find such a candidate in California, Massachusetts or New York. The stakes are too high for such a double-down.
5
Obama's campaign wasn't about "electing a black president". Female candidates need to follow his example. Hillary Clinton didn't -- she got on a stage with Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright and this happened: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/gloria-steinem-madeleine-...
I still voted for her, but she did not benefit from that.
Kirsten Gillibrand has gone on record saying we need more women in government. Do we? Does the gender of a representive matter? It may, but I don't think it should. That aside, "elect women" is not a message that's going to resonate. Imagine if Obama's message was "elect black people".
Hope, change, civility (thanks Trump), and progress will be the themes of a successful Democratic campaign. Running on gender will backfire. Obama was accused of "pulling the race card," but it didn't stick because he wasn't guilty.
Look at Angela Merkel -- the most successful female leader of a large country in history. She has downplayed her identity as a woman, and it's worked. Running on identity is a mistake I hope these women won't make.
8
Never forget that the woman won the popular vote by a few million votes the last time.
7
Policies are one thing but responding to your constituents is another. I voted for Kamala Harris and had some inkling about her ambitions but am still disappointed in her office's response to Californians. I am part of a all-volunteer nonprofit coalition that has been trying to get her support/ response to a medical issue and it has been miserable. I don't mean they have to agree with us: just listen and tell us yes or no. This is not my first time at the rodeo: I have had numerous contacts with other Congressional offices through the years so expect that offices can be very busy. But hers is especially difficult as they did not respond to emails and calls. I live in San Francisco but it took calling DC and Sacramento to get any response. I will not be voting for her as President: it's simply arrogance to think you can ignore your constituents as a first-time Senator.
2
Women of the world, take over. 'Cause if you don't the world will come to an end. And it won't take long.
3
?? If any of these women - Gillibrand, Harris or, goodness, Warren - are our 2020 candidates, we might as well cut to the Trump 2020 Inauguration Ball.
20
Anybody who wants the job is, by definition, defective.
4
Good luck with that!!
Republicans will be in power for a while
6
Men are not going to vote for women who don't believe in due process.
15
Please run Warren. Trump will demolish her and we can move onto Trump 2020.
5
Will not happen, sorry.
I remember the biker woman who, in 2016, said "a woman can't be president", as her male companion nodded agreement. That stuck with me, and I feel it's still in the minds of many potential voters as we move away from the traitor in the WH. I want the dems to win on 2020 and, regardless of these women's qualifications, I still believe this country is hopelessly stuck in uneducated ignorance, with a huge misogynist undercurrent. I think the better choice would be a strong male candidate (if one can be found). I realize that sounds somewhat absurd, but I don't want there to be any chances of another traitor term, especially given the voting history of white women (repub).
Just look at the despicable GA governor's race (repub candidate is secretary of state, RUNNING the election process,and suppressing black voters!). The 2020 presidential race will be worse.
4
Warren, maybe. Harris? She asks tough questions at a few publicized hearings and now she's presidential material? Gillenbrand, no way because of how she threw Al Franken, one of her own party, under the bus without a by your leave, just for being stupid before he became a senator, not for having committed crimes, for Pete's sake. I'm surprised no one is mentioning Oprah anymore.
5
Sadly it looks like 4 more years. All good people and qualified. None will beat Trump. Biden still the best bet and the Democrats should have been on their knees begging him to do so in 2016. But if you can't count on Democrats' expertise on losing and bringing sticks to a gun fight, what can you count on?
11
Bank on it:
Kamala Harris will be the first woman President in US history; hopefully not the last, considering hw men have botched the job, time after time.
4
Once again you are feeding the 2020 beast, when all energy should be focused on Nov 6, 2018. This is not a horse race so stop covering it that way.
4
Elizabeth Warren is the Howard Dean of this pack. She does not have the temperament to act presidential. She might be able to energize her base in Massachusetts the presidential race is completely different people that she would have to appeal to. She made Hillary look calm and conservative just standing on stage next to her.
2
The point is to win, not just to have a woman candidate on the ballot (think Hillary Clinton). Let them all run for the nomination and see who excites the rust belt states. My own personal choice is Biden and Warren.
1
Elizabeth Warren will just be a repeat of the disaster that occurred during the 2016 presidential elections. She's a woman that is cold and not relate-able to the average undecided/moderate American voter. She will only inspire the core, far-left base. Moderate Democrats and independents will be turned off - and she will fail to turn a single Republican voter blue.
We need somebody like Bloomberg, Corey Booker, or Joe Biden - these people are not far left socialists and they have an appeal that might actually make them favorable to independents, moderates, and even open-minded conservatives.
4
This female couldn't care less about electing a woman president. I care about electing a president who works in my interests. Of these three, the only one who has a strong possibility of getting my vote is Warren. Despite her latest incredibly boneheaded move.
Warren seems to be the only candidate who gets to the root of the problems that excerbate inequality and creates policies to address them, instead of just offering bandaids. The influence of monopolies, nimby opposition to housing crises, rigged healthcare systems - she's on all of it. I wish she'd just stay away from the grandstanding and the identity politics and focus on the economic stuff.
Sorry Ms. Gilllibrand, #me too just isn't enough to get my vote.
Dems were talking about Harris for potus before she was even elected Senator. Huh? Since there doesn't seem to be anything stellar enough in her background to warrant that, i can only conclued that she's already bought and paid for, and not by the people. With California moving their primaries up in the schedule, looks like they're already trying to game it for her. I'll pass.
1
I will only vote for a candidate that supports Medicare for all.
7
While all three women will likely be candidates, they appear to me to be younger re-packaged versions of other past candidates who never greatly inspired voters. The public is sick to death of the current inhabitant of the White House and at the same time my impression is having someone who has been angling for the job (like these three have), won't generate anyone near the enthusiasm as an outside the box candidate like Obama was. A female candidate that would scare the Trumper's to death is Tulsi Gabbard. She has principals and the guts to stand up to anyone (including her own party), would diminish Trump in a campaign, and would generate Obama level enthusiasm from women, college kids, and even old white guys who respect veterans and don't like people who got out of the draft over bone spurs and then are seen playing sports involving running. I hope the Democrats pick someone as far away from the Hillary mold as possible, so we don't have more years of Trump.
1
Stability. Composure. Moderation. Presidential. The Anti-Trump. If you want the White House, stop thinking about votes and start thinking about electoral votes. Forget the die-hards on the right or left, and focus on the great swing voters in the great swing states. If you think there is a mandate out there for a hard left turn, think again. No offence ladies but what the country needs is the steady-sure grandfatherly hand of a guy named Joe. Biden, the Anti-Trump.
6
Unfortunately I think the Democrats will lose. They just don’t get what people need and want. Medicare for all and free college education. This is what middle class Americans need and want.
4
Amy Klobuchar.
She’s a woman but most important, she’s the best qualified person so far.
3
I fear it would be a terrible mistake for the Democratic party to have a woman run against trump in 2020. His base, and I fear a great many others, are too entrenched in misogyny to vote for a woman.
The most important thing we can do is remove trump and other retrograde republicans from office. We need to stop the stacking of the courts with fundamentalist conservative judges and the halls of congress with science deniers. If a woman heads the ticket in 2020, no matter how qualified she is, we risk a powerful backlash and likely loss.
Increasing the number of women in office this fall would be an important step toward changing the minds of the American electorate to be more open to a woman as Chief executive. It would be wonderful to see a woman elected President but it is far more important to see our country return to Democracy.
4
Neither Harris nor Warren could possibly win a national election due to the simple fact that their politics neither capture the center in their own party nor the majority of independent voters(who lean republican to start). If that is the plan, uh-oh Rover.
1
It would be a mistake to run because you are a woman. It would be a mistake to run a campaign based on being a woman.
7
Any person man or woman who accepts the mantle of higher taxes, bigger government, and socialism will only win three states. That is reality! Deal with it!
4
Or win the popular vote
1
STOP TALKING ABOUT 2020.
Stop trying to avert OUR attention from the midterms coming up. If the New York Times actually serves WE THE PEOPLE, as they claim, you will talk about the blatant voter suppression and voter role manipulation by the Robber Baron's republican operatives across OUR United States of America.
Do you really care about 99.9% of us? If so, start acting like it.
3
Haven't we learned our lessons. Hillary, despite a distinguished resume, lost because we are a nation of patriarchal mysoginists. If the dems put a woman up there, we will lose again.
3
@BlackJackJacques
Hillary didn't lose because she was a woman. She lost because she is Hillary, and is not very likable.
4
Big mistake. Democrats can't risk splitting the vote like last time. We can't have rival factions. We need to unite around ONE candidate now and start campaigning for that person YESTERDAY.
It truly pains me to say this, but the novelty of the first woman president is not going to win against the Trumpsters. Their half of the country just won't go for it. Let's put someone in the White House for the next 8 years who can calm this country down.
Yes, he is old. And white. And - gasp - man. But it will be impossible for Trump to come up with a stupid nickname for him. He is unassailable. His name is Joe Biden.
Come on, liberals. Let's get our act together on the same page and do this!
3
I hope that all three of these women decide it just is not worth it and drop out of the race asap. We need to fight fire with fire - we have to have someone who can speak Trump's language and has a chance of winning. The stakes are way too high to risk losing. It's Avenatti 2020 for me.
3
@Erin
Just because the Reps won with a candidate who is a bankrupt fraud doesn't mean the Dems should do the same.
2
All three of these women are leftists, no matter how much they try to cloak themselves in traditional liberalism. A thin electoral majority of country will reject them as such even if they pile up votes in Silver Spring, on the Upper West Side, and in Compton. The first female president will be the former governor of South Carolina, and current UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, in 2024.
6
Given how narrowly Hillary Clinton lost, with all her baggage, I don't think a woman candidate is the problem, I think the problem would be having the wrong woman candidate. Elizabeth Warren has a lot of the baggage Hillary Clinton did, she has a hard time talking to people in anything but policy wonk talk, and she has a hard time connecting to people. The Democrats need a candidate, male or female, who can talk to people, not at them, and be in front of a campaign on the ground, not listening to Sabremetric calculations the way the Clinton campaign did. Obama despite being black could connect with people, people voted for him because they believed he cared, because he spoke of their problems (despite flubs like talking about the cost of food and mentioning the price of arugala, something not many ordinary people eat or know what it is). Likewise, while I think it is not harmful to trumpet having the first woman president, I think the whole "women hear me roar" and the whole "if you are a woman and don't vote for hillary, you are a traitor" would be a very, very stupid thing to do; focus on the real issues, the horrible tax cut, health care, jobs, point out how the "Trump boom" has not helped most Americans in a real way (not just jobs, but good paying jobs with benefits, and real pay increases), and have the woman as president as one of many things to be proud of.
While I’d love a woman President, the country overall wont vote for her. We just ran the most qualified candidate and lost in 2016. Sad to say, we need an exciting younger white male Dem to run. Maybe Castro can be VP.
2
Gillibrand is DOA among progressives for what she did to Al Franken. Harris is from California, and will have little appeal to voters in the Midwest/Great Lakes.
The Dems might want to remember that the last three Democratic Presidents were from Georgia, Arkansas, and Illinois.....not from the east or west coasts.
9
The Democrats may expect a female front runner for president but it does not necessarily mean a winner. These three women lean too far left not only for men but also for women voters. They may appeal to the coastal elites and liberal parts of the country but they will not appeal to those in middle America and more conservative parts of the country.
We will eventually have a woman president but it must be the correct one. The presidency should be determined on qualifications and experience and not based on a person's sex.
3
As a politically engaged voter in the state that Sen. Susan Collins continuously betrays and disappoints, I'd be glad to vote for a democratic woman who isn't representative of the failures of our government. I felt that Hillary Clinton was representative as such, and I think that is high on the list of reasons why she lost (although personally I did vote for her out of desperation). People my age, millennials, point blank do not want someone who kowtows to the interests of banks, corporations, and other generally sneaky affairs - we want someone who cares about people and what is best for us. We need help on health care, student loans/higher education, programs that help young mothers, etc. That's why we loved Bernie so much; he seemed to have a concrete plan for those things. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton's ego seemed to supersede her desire to do well for America so she refused to acknowledge Bernie's success rates with young people.
Give me someone genuine who sticks to her principles and wants to make things better for my generation so that we can do the same for the one that follows us, and I'll vote for her.
1
I could at this point get behind Warren or Harris, though I confess to feeling I need to get to know more about Harris to be "all in."
Gillibrand? Nope.
She insisted Al Franken resign from the senate immediately. Without the Ethics Investigation he requested. That seemed a bit questionable to me, but I thought well, OK, she feels strongly about METOO, so I could accept it as sincere.
BUT...she was also happy to share her campaign stage with Bill Clinton, who was accused of FAR worse than Franken, including rape.
Not OK. She appears to me clearly to be a hypocrite and a political opportunist.
But a lot of us on the Left--who were rightly angry at the GOP during the Kavanaugh hearings--also looked the other way when Bill Clinton was accused by several women of sexual impropriety. We, like Gillibrand, need to take a long look in the mirror.
12
What policy positions do Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand hold that makes them frontrunners compared to Senator Warren? Warren made some mistakes recently, but at least she inspires people. At least she had some major legislative accomplishments and appears to legitimately care about the issues she brings up. Harris and Gillibrand honestly just seem to be purely career focused, no different than the Mitt Romneys and Hillary Clinton of the world
1
Senator Gillenbrand must address her crusade against former Senator Al Franken before she even considers running for President. I, a female, am still furious that she did this. Many, many others are angry as well, did she not read the hundreds of online comments expressing this at the time? Senator Warren, as much as I admire her, does not have the charisma to win. The Democratic Party must employ emotional intelligence which unfortunately lacking. Unlike my peers and polls I knew Clinton would not win. I voted for her but the anger on the street was there. I knew this. It was obvious yet the NYT as well as other media outlets did not get it. The media still does not get the anger for Gillenbrand- I noticed the NYTs skirted this issue as well when it happened. I would vote for her over a Republican but I remain angry. She must address this or many people will stay home. No kidding. The majority of the electorate wants to like their candidates and this must be addressed and assessed. My gut reaction to candidates has never failed me.
3
Until Senator Warren adds her name to the long list of Senatorial Cosponsors for Israel Anti-Boycott Act S.720 — 115th Congress, she will NEVER get my vote.
That goes for Booker, Bernie, Gillibrand (who did cosponsor and then suddenly withdrew last year) and any other Democrat who announces candidacy.
For the record I am not a single-issue voter and have historically voted Democrat going back to Jimmy Carter. I find this BDS campaign appalling- it is a crossroads of liberal philosophy. One mindset calls for progressive action but to still remember and protect our friends. The other mindset is far more dangerous, is susceptible to propaganda, and has shown a willingness to turn its back on friends.
2
Gillibrand and Harris are corporate democrats in my view. Warren not so much. Lets have someone run who supports single payer, having the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, trust busting, environment friendly and staying out of our bedrooms.
Good luck with all that.
us army 1969-1971/california jd
4
To all those in these comments saying that we need to elect a female president, I have only one question:
If the Republicans ran a female and Democrats ran a male, would you vote for the woman?
Less generically, if the Republicans ran Condoleeza Rice (Hey! She's black, too! Two Democratic boxes checked!) against Joe Biden (an old white man by any standard), who would you vote for?
See? You don't want a female president, no matter how experienced or qualified. You want a Democrat. Admit it, you'll vote for whoever the Democrats run in 2020.
Democratic disindigenousness and hypocrisy are getting so obvious and tiresome. Just give it a rest already, will you?
13
@Elfego
Brilliant dismantling of this silly Democrat claim of supporting women.
They also don't believe Senator Menandez's accusers - even after #BelieveWomen.
What frauds!
2
Yup...
Amy Klobuchar!
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
Tammy Duckworth
2
This is probably the wrong place and time to bring this up but here goes.
The job of First Lady in the White House belongs to someone
Who Stands for and Does something!
Melania Trump has to be the single most Useless woman to ever occupy that position. She whines she is “the most Bullied person in the Entire World”. REALLY??????
That “Be Good” slogan of hers is beyond the pale pathetic!
Kirsten Gillibrand is a less qualified Hillary Clinton with just as much baggage and half the charisma. She would be easily susceptible to Trumpian attacks, and many Democrats still have not forgiven her for the way she back-stabbed Franken. If Gillibrand wins the nomination, Trump will be a two termer. If she somehow wins the Presidency, I doubt she'll put in a good performance.
Warren has served the people of Massachussetts well, and is an incredibly smart and capable person. I look forward to re-electing her. Yet, she is too decisive on the national stage, and the DNA fiasco has already put her likely campaign at a disadvantage.
Now Kamala... she has star power! Would be great to have an Carribean-Indian-American president, and she was a great Attorney General and has been a fearless Senator. Democrats basically have two options, rally the base, or appeal to moderates. Biden or Bloomberg could do the latter, but Harris is uniquely qualified to energize young people, women, and minority groups.
2
@Jules
Well said!
Gillibrand not only back-stabbed Franken. She did so while also welcoming Bill Clinton--accused of far worse than Franken--to share her campaign stage.
5
Interesting choices.
In order to win, would not the Democratic party potentates need to have a serious chat with the Clintons on how and where they would participate in campaigning, if at all, in 2020?
Democrats need to bring out the Saunders voters in droves, who still see Hillary as less than honest and credible. And then there is Bill, whom many feel should be serving time in the same cell with Trump for seriously disrespecting women.
5
Gillibrand and Harris are lightweights without legislative or policy accomplishments. Warren's focus on her "Native American Ancestry" of approximately 1/64th of her ancestry will be a debacle that will haunt her and shift the conversation from her strength (progressive economic policy), and she may have already been too liberal to win swing states.
The Democrats need a real candidate who can actually offer something besides saying, "I'm not Trump." He may have the charisma of a boiled potato but at least Sanders had some tangible ideas and policy visions that he rallied around rather than focusing on a naked appeal to identity politics.
3
Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand are excellent candidates for the Presidency. They are both smart, tough, articulate and pretty. Yes, I said "pretty." Elizabeth Warren is perhaps the smartest, toughest, and most articulate Senator in Congress, but she won't win. She has the Hillary Clinton factor. Warren and Clinton are strong women of a "certain age" who will not garner the votes of straight men (and many women). The Democrats would be better served if Warren replaced Schumer as Minority Leader.
1
I love the photo in this story! It captures the energy of the campaign trail, and the determination of people turning out for midterms. I hope you put it in for the Pulitzer. Kudos to photographer Melissa Golden.
@Kathleen Warnock
This is why the Dems will lose. You think this picture "captures the energy of the campaign trail." Everyone else thinks it shows that Warren in unhinged; it's the 2018 equivalent of the Howard Dean scream.
2
@GMooGm see ya at the polls.
Kamala Harris is too far to the left to secure the votes of non coastal elite voters, plus she comes across as nothing but angry and entitled. I know plenty of SF Dems who don’t like her. Warren is a far better bet.
6
So FDR was too left? All Americans would benefit from Medicare for all and free college education. Why can’t Americans have the benefits that citizens of every other first world nation have? Why do our taxes have to go to the bloated military industrial complex?
2
Too many people here remember her DA track record. She turned her back on law enforcement and the city has been engulfed in a wave of car vandalism, home burglaries, and drug abuse. Harris equals more crime.
1
I like Elizabeth Warren, but she’s too old (as are Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton). My money is on Amy Klobuchar.
1
While I still believe Hillary Clinton would be the best President, I do concede she was not the best candidate. So of the three mentioned in the article, Kamala Harris certainly would be my choice. I understand the NYT institutional bias toward a fellow New Yorker, but Senator Gillibrand would do better to stay in the Senate and hope to be in the Majority within the next few years.
Elizabeth Warren very clumsily stepped over Democratic campaign messages, and detracted from the news that Senate Majority Leader McConnell is planning to attack Social Security and Medicare. Her DNA might have been exciting to her, but it could have been saved for after the elections. She did Democrats a great disservice and for that has dropped in her value as a Presidential Candidate. I hope she too will remain in the Senate.
Harris was great at the Kavanaugh hearings and spoke up against bad policy and untruthful testimony. I would like to see her as a candidate.
5
After what Ms Gillibrand did to Al Franken, tell her not to bother.
Rather than let the process in place work, she threw him under the bus and demanded he resign. To me that looks like an opportunistic move by someone who cannot be bothered with process and that means she has no business anywhere near the Oval Office.
Fir 2020 let us encourage everyone to run, but let's not get hung up on this "let's elect a woman" thing. Let's support and elect the best candidate we can field and get them elected- man or woman.
41
My gosh, the US is overdue. Britain had two female heads of State Ms Thatcher and Ms May , Ms Merkel has been chancellor of Germany since 2005
Unfortunately, none of the three has the political acumen of Ms Merkel, Ms Thatcher, or even Ms. May
Ms. Haley does, see her astute moves re Trump, but ...
9
@Gerhard . Nikki Haley is about as astute as Kanye West.
@Gerhard
Ms Haley has my vote
1
Where is Amy Klobuchar? Republicans would make Senator Gillibrand into an updated version of Hillary (same state, same Senate seat). To me, that's a good thing but not to many others.
9
All partners past and present of potential 2020 candidates should expect intense scrutiny of their pasts, going back to high school at a minimum. All candidates should anticipate the same kinds of questions about past and present partners' behavior, both before and after the couple formed, that Mrs. Clinton just handled so non-adroitly about her husband and Monica Lewinsky. I don't know if this kind of questioning is fair. I suspect it isn't. But fairness left American politics a long time ago.
5
@Observer of the Zeitgeist. Agreed. America doesn’t need any more candidates accused of rape and sexual assault as both Bill Clinton on and Trump were.
@SW, I think you're being facetious, but do we want a #metoo claim brought against a First Husband, or against the partner of a Democratric candidate in the latter stages of a campaign? After the Kavanaugh hearing, I'm sure the GOP will be happy to hunt one down that might not be as uncorroborated.
Let’s nominate the candidate—male or female—who can help us oust Trump and restore civility to our country. I deeply wish to see a female president, but our metric is experience and clout, not simply gender.
8
swing voters in swing states
In our lifetimes those are the only voters who actually elect our presidents. Look at the election results for every president back to Jimmy Carter and you'll s the results only come down to a few states that shift back and forth. And within those states, it's about 5% of the voters that swing.
The DEMs must pick a candidate that can connect with those voters. Everything else is secondary.
2
It isn't about the candidate.
It is about immigration. Legal and illegal.
The Democrats are sunk, no matter who runs, if they do not change their positions on immigration.
It pains me to see so many citizens choosing illegal immigrants over our democracy.
12
@WillT26
'It is about immigration. Legal and illegal.'
Very good point.
But the Democrats have huge baggage on this matter, which will be thrown in their face time and time again.
Obama ran promising all 'change you can believe in' and 8 years later nothing changed in immigration.
The next Democrat contender will have to answer up for that; he will be relentlessly asked to explain how nothing changed in 8 years of Democratic WH.
If the contender says 'it was the GOP congress blocking progress', they will be asked how he plans to keep a promise Obama failed to keep, when we have a GOP congress right now.
Although I am sure the Democrat will reply 'yea, but this time is for reals', and his fans will cheer him for that and vote party line anyway.
1
Nobody wants open borders. Neither do we want to tear apart families.
@Zejee,
Sure- I read the press releases too. The Democrats will strenuously say they don't want open borders but their policies will be to have open borders.
A Democratic majority in Congress means 22 million illegal criminal immigrants will be given citizenship and tens of millions more will be imported every year.
Of course they won't say that before the election.
Having two or more women in the primary will make it a legitimate competition to select the best candidate.
The entire subtext of HRC's campaign was "Vote for me because I"m a woman". It was a big reason why so many men AND women did not vote for her.
It may be true that it is time for us to have a female President, but it has to be the right woman. May the best woman win.
5
You had your shot, Senator Warren, and you blew it.
You likely cost the Democrats any chance of retaking the House.
Quit campaigning.
Just. Go. Home.
20
If they are going to run a woman, it better be the right woman. Elizabeth Warren is not the right one. Hectoring, strident and generally unpleasant. She can't win and we do need a win.
26
Sorry, but the NYT has to cast its net beyond New York, California and Massachusetts. How about Senator Amy Klobacher from Minnesota? She's someone who is respected throughout Washington and has worked diligently to find common good across party lines. And she isn't the party hacks that Harris, Warren and and Guilfoyle are.
24
@Jon,
If Gillibrand runs the Democratic Party will already be fielding a white woman.
They cannot afford the optics of having two white women run.
1
In the comments here, I'm seeing the usual Republican ploy of jeering at Democratic women, and predicting ignominious defeat because of them. They won't do this to Nikki Haley. To the contrary. They'll crow about how open-minded they are.
Remember how they cheered for Sarah Palin? I don't remember their objecting to her voice, or the alarming nonsense she spewed. Last time I heard about her, there was (another) police call involved--this one, her husband leveling a gun as her son came through the window at them. I believe it was a dispute over a truck.
2
I think it had something to do with her, well, perky nature.
2
I am a white woman. I am a life-long Democrat. I am a senior citizen. I am a liberal. This may be the last vote for president I will cast in my lifetime. It is preposterous for me to do so based on gender as a deciding factor. As a side note-none of these three accomplished yet polarizing senators would get my vote. I'll wait for a candidate with the stature of Susan B. Anthony!
16
Frankly, I think a woman such as Kathleen Sebelius, who hails from a state like Kansas and who has not been running to the left would stand a much better chance of winning the Electoral College than any of the three showcased in this article. Senators Warren and Harris have painted themselves into a far left corner and their recent showboat antics have done nothing to depolarize the country. Perhaps Sen. Hillibrand has escaped that tendency although she hails from a true blue state, NY.
What 2016 showed was that the Democrats, even running against a "deplorable" like Trump, had little hope of winning most of the states not on the East or West coasts and that's a major problem. Whoever runs for the D's will win the blue states. The question is, can someone win all those Red states and tossup states in the Heartland? Someone needs a good message on social issues (income inequality, tax reform, campaign reform, education) while escaping the corrosive identity politics that polluted the last presidential election.
2
@Khal Spencer "Senator Gillibrand". Oops. I guess I am still thinking about Hillary...
@Khal Spencer - the most important 2 words in your comment --- "Electoral College"
1
Picking the best person for the job means picking a leader and fighter. Warren qualifies and should be on the short list. The GOP attacks on her suggest she would be a feared opponent. Man or woman, the (D) nominee has to champion the important issues where the GOP pays lip service to at best, and actively works to harm us at worst.
4
Can this not wait for November? Right
Now comments would be more useful on which midterm races need attention and support,
3
Dems, just get Joe Biden to run already and win in 2020!
6
I don’t believe we recognize the enormous barriers that gender roles play in conservative, swing votes and even dem votes. Many will never accept a female candidate because it violates their basic world view. That’s why we still hear about “lady doctors” and how men “babysit” their own children. Gender roles are embedded and there are severe penalties for any woman who violates the prescribed roles.
1
What is important is getting Trump out of office specifically and the Republican majority generally. Democratic must run the BEST candidate - not the female candidate, the Hispanic candidate etc. And what was the point of Harris asking Kavenaugh whether he spoke to a person at that law firm. It seemed very important at the time and she certainly implied that she knew who Kavenaugh spoke with. So what is the follow up???? What was she trying to prove?
1
Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillenbrand would both make excellent presidents, and could easily defeat Trump. Warren I am less sure of, but she should still run.
77
@Andrew - do you think the steel workers of western Pennsylvania and the autoworkers of southern Ohio are going to vote for Harris or Gillibrand?
In the end it is they who shift the Electoral College one way or the other.
12
@Andrew Warren ....no I say
1
Why not?
Here we go again: focus on identity politics, while lumping together "moderate and liberal" anything: strong indicators that truly paradigmatic change will be unlikely to originate with any of the entrenched politicians mentioned in this article
6
Gillibrand started her campaign when she hamstrung Al Franken over unsubstantiated harassment claims. Franken was the only legitimate Democratic challenger in 2020, and she knew it. Trump will get another 4 years as a result.
23
If Trump is not impeached, I think the best bet in 2020 for the Dems is Biden or Bloomberg.
4
The women running have no sense of timing or strategy. Wait until after the current election to start your campaign!!
I am very optimistic about the turning tide of Women running for office and hopefully getting elected to respective offices in 2018, I find it to be very encouraging to watch people who in the past have not typically had a voice make their voice heard!
However, I am very worried that if Senator Warren wins the Dem primary, she will lose to President Trump in the same manner Hillary did. I believe that to the average voter/less informed person, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference between Warren and Clinton. And Trump will use the same tactics to demean, and eventually win over voters, that he did with Hillary in 2016.
6
But thanks to Senator Warren and her spectacular - and spectacularly ill-timed - flameout, the tide is going out. Rapidly.
5
Gillibrand, yes, Harris, yes, Warren absolutely not.
4
Please, listen carefully. Warren has no chance. No chance.
I agree with her POV on nearly every major issue. But she will not win. The goal, it's really pretty clear, is to unseat Trump. At any cost.
At.
Any.
Cost.
23
@SD
Won't stop me from voting for her if i determine that she's the best candidate.
@rtj
You go girl!
This is why the Dems can't win elections
@GMooG
I'm not a Dem. I'd vote for Warren, but i'm actually figuring on the Dems making a mess of things yet again. Maybe this will be the year that an Independent gives voters disgusted with both parties something to actually vote for.
With apologies to Elizabeth Warren (and more so to Michael Bloomberg), I'm getting really tired of candidates who will be 70+ when the election happens in 2020, yet the next generation -- the Obama generation, mind you -- is woefully thin in terms of talent and charisma. The Democrats have a huge leadership vacuum, partly of their own making. On the one hand, the failed leaders like Pelosi -- who showed now ability to lead in the healthcare debate and who presided over disastrous congressional campaigns for a decade -- keep in place a seniority system that prevents young stars from rising. On the other hand, the state-level losses have left the Democrats with precious few governors from which to draw a candidate. The baby boomers need to get the heck out of the way and help progress happen.
17
It is way too soon for the "will she, won't she " game.The first big task is to elect as many of the great women who are running in the midterms as possible.When you talk about running against Trump you should realize that he may be a wounded candidate by then depending on what the Mueller report shows.The greatest goal should be to retake the White House.There are some candidates who are likable and appealing and should be considered - democrats need to win the presidency, with a man or a woman.Let's see who emerges as a compelling candidate.
86
@JanetMichael Nice "The Good Place" name.
1
@JanetMichael It’s actually not too early for will she, won’t she. All serious candidates will have to declare within 4 short months. It is too soon for a coronation. Plenty of good men and women candidates AND I think there will be a subtext, fair or not, of making the argument, why not a woman.
@JanetMichael
Please go read the piece in Politico. Dont get your hopes up for the prophecized and much hyped Miracle of the Mueller report. Truth is, we might never see that thing. Mueller isn't the lone stranger on a white horse come to save us, far from it.
If there isn't a clear prosecutorial path forward re; Trump - both the WH and the GOP will not release it, or pursue charges.
The best way out of this, is pursuing all the "little knives" out there that are already cutting him and his family up. Death by a thousand cuts is the key. We just need to support the Dems, and others, and get them to expose him and sue, and sue again to help bleed him and his family out.
As well as undermining his cabinet appointments. Next in the cross-hairs, Zinke! Then Carson, and DeVos.
In ordinary times, I would be delighted to have all 3 of these women in the primaries for the presidential race in 2020--plus Amy Klobucher and maybe some others who are extremely competent but not well known.
But these are not ordinary times by any means, with Trump, the GOP, and the tainted (whiney, highly partisan) Kavanaugh Supreme Court judge running this once great country into the ground faster than a speeding bullet every day they are in office.
My advice to the DP is not to do what is did last time and choose its entitled big fund raiser insider, while shutting out any and almost all other people to run.
I am originally from MD, and Martin O'Malley was a viable option, but he and Bernie were ignored, not only by the party and at every debate, but by the media.
This time the DP should run lots of candidates--women and men--and see who will be the strongest candidate to beat, bury, and shut Trump up and persuade voters that the double-dealing, Janus-faced GOP is not their friend.
My hunch is it won't matter if the DP presidential candidate is liberal or moderate, but it will be someone with character, integrity, and a true "leader" personality who can boot the disgraceful Trump and GOP back in their proper place at the bottom of the swamp where they came from.
9
Some of the exact commentators who continue to blame every episode of the Trump presidency on Bernie Sanders (as opposed to myriad other factors) are the first to comment "I will NEVER vote for [Democrat X] for president."
Interesting. So the 10% of Sanders supporters who backed Trump are to be blamed for every misery in America....but you'll have no problem staying home on Election Day if someone like Elizabeth Warren is the nominee.
STOP MAKING PERFECT THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD.
You are right to criticize the Sanders defectors, but only if you learn from their mistake. We are in the middle of a national crisis with an unhinged tyrant pulling the levers of all 3 branches of government. 2+ years before the election is not the time to start issuing ultimatums for who you will and will not support.
7
I will not vote for any candidate who does not support Medicare for all. This is a life or death issue for many Americans. We have waited long enough.
2
The 2020 election needs a democratic candidate who can articulate the simple vision:
We as a nation are in the wrong path. We lie, cheat, vote for liars and cheaters and refuse to acknowledge that we are not who proclaim to be: a special one in front of the Higher Being and everyone else in the planet.
We are opportunistic and just think of our pocket books (is proof was even needed look at our relationships with Iran and Saudi Arabia over time).
We need to have universal healthcare, free public education, reverssl of the tax cuts for the One Percent, gender equality, new infrastructure, free access to the internet (our tax dollars already paid for it as anyone who cares to know can find out about ARPA etc).
So, can Warren, Harris, Gilibrand and Klobuchar deliver these things? Then I am for anyone of them independent of their gender, color, race, preferred ice cream flavor or whatever.
I know one person who can deliver. He happens to be a septugerian male we a wry sense of humor. He really looks like Larry David too.
5
Just stating what should be obvious to Dems...totally unelectable. Must be able to understand how to win, versus how to feel good.
12
It appears that women's shock, anguish and utter despair at Hillary's loss was premature and overstated. Life does go on.
4
No!!!! Not Gillibrand. Please not Gillibrand. She does not respond to her constituents nor does she let people know when she has town meetings. She’s my senator. How could I vote for someone who doesn’t care about her constituents?
18
Our country needs the democrats to field only the most qualified candidate and if that is a woman, great. What we don't need is infighting nor the type of opportunistic positioning that caused Al Franken to be railroaded out of the Senate. Having a strong candidate who can energize the voters, who can inspire people to believe and improve this country not harken back to some mythical time. Those bygone realities included women as second class citizens, discrimination against any nonwhite males, discrimination against religions not Christian. Let's remember accurately. I want a candidate who can really deliver a presence and win not a candidate whose "turn" it is. Let's be smart. Obama's newest ads for voting are correct; don't let your grandparents decide the world you live in. Democrats need to capitalize on youth and what matters not whether or not it's a woman's turn. And while I support a woman as president I believe it is more important than this.
247
@MWG
Thanks for reminding us that ageism is the only prejudice that remains 100% PC! So far, however, voting rights do not expire at any given age. A few other facts you might wish to review:
We are not dead, yet, kiddo - and I'm thinking it probable that our gen, (in between fighting numerous wars and raising families) has managed to make it to the voting booths in larger numbers across our lifespans, and across race/sex/regional demographics than today's youth. I would venture to say that our life experience, even though most of it apparently took place in the Jurassic era, counts for something. A tiny bit of our rapidly disappearing grey matter is even devoted to issues broader than self-interest. Prior to digital force feeding, we read, wrote, protested, voted and thought for ourselves. We did it without Instagram. Some of our attention spans even today exceed 140 characters. Fancy that! (Yeah, it was way, way out, man.)
Grandparents or not, try to imagine yourself at our age. All our healthy habits and medical miracles mean that you're going to get even older than we have. You might need to factor that possibility into your values portfolio. The world is much more complex than black and white - grey matters! And like it or not, we are still in the game.
@MWG. I agree in general but take issue with your Franken comments. When a man grabs a woman’s body parts as a prop, it is he who is being divisive, opportunistic. The Senate Ds did the right thing.
@MWG
Serious point about Senator Franken. Gillibrand made that happen and she will wear it for the rest of her career. Her nomination is a non starter simply because Republicans will be all over it as it feeds into their own pathetic narrative about male victimhood, Gillibrand would be their dream candidate. Our worst nightmare, Gillibrand v. Trump.
3
I hope that the Democrats do nominate a woman in 2020. I am willing to consider voting for Sen. Harris, Warren, or Gillibrand. But I would prefer the woman conspicuously overlooked in this article: Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is ostensibly less progressive than the others, but possesses the common sense and decency necessary to restore trust in our government.
419
@Chris Rasmussen Senator Klouchar would be my choice over Senator Warren, as the latter projects the most stridency and least warmth.
2
@Chris Rasmussen I'd love to see a woman too, but no Gillibrand, after what she did to Franken, (MN) I don't trust her. Klobuchar is level headed and experienced,,,,which is what we need after 4 years of tweets that the media continues to follow.
24
@Chris Rasmussen
Yes!!!!!
2
As a woman over the age of 60 I would love to see a female president in my lifetime but any woman running for this office will have to answer the same questions as any male candidate would if she wants my enthusiastic support.
Does she have have any real life executive experience? Was the city, state, department or company she ran better or worse off after she left it? Did she have any notable achievements that might tell us how she’d govern?
Do I agree with where she wants to take the country? What are her views on the issues I care about?
Does she seem like someone who is able to talk to the other side without unnecessarily antagonizing them or worse yet giving away the store in an effort to be liked or to have a win, any win to her credit? Is she someone people respect? Does she seem animated by something other than personal ambition? Will she be someone who will be able to say no to her donors or to her base when it’s it’s in the long term best interest of the country to do so? Will she fight for what’s right?
Does she have the ability to communicate with a broad range of people using both traditional and social media? Does she come off as someone I wouldn’t mind being sitting next to on a long flight? Does she seem to have a sense of humor? Like it or not these are important to many Americans.
None of the women mentioned in this article meet all of these criteria then again neither do any of the male candidates on the horizon today.
Game on girls!
195
@Brooklyncowgirl
I would say that Elizabeth Warren goes your criteria perfectly.
@Brooklyncowgirl
I agree with what you say except for the last line which you state ..."neither do any of the male candidates on the horizon today. "
I feel Michael Bloomberg fills the bill as a successful candidate who brings with him the necessary executive experience as mayor of New York for 12 years, creator of an extremely successful company and who's views on women's rights, gun control and foreign policy are in line with mine. Unfortunately in this climate of increased anti semitism, I can't imagine he would win because he is Jewish. A real shame.
2
@Brooklyncowgirl
Is she Marla Maples or Stormy Daniels or Oprah Winfrey?
Can she walk on water and raise the dead?
Can she make the Sun rise and set?
Who is her father and who is her husband?
1
I would like to see an assertive, highly intelligent, knowledgeable and capable woman of high integrity become president if she could convince me she had the best interests of the majority of U.S. citizens at the top of her agenda. I do not want another person of either gender in that office who genuflects to the corporations and oligarchs who currently run our country. I'm not sure any of these women meet that standard but I can't think of any men who do either. Politics is by definition corrupt.
67
think you need another look at Harris and Gillabrand...they ABSOLUTELY live up to it..and more!@
Great -- if the woman is the best candidate.
If we run a candidate like Hillary Clinton we will lose again.
And given the current occupant of the Oval Office, we cannot afford to lose.
14
The last time we were "determined to have a woman candidate," we had things like:
Lining up the supposedly unaligned superdelegates before the primaries/convention
Leaked DNC emails that showed a thumb on the scale for Clinton, which led to the resignation of the leadership at the DNC
Leaked questions before debates
Debates scheduled for the worst possible times (eg, weekend nights right before Christmas, at the same time as major football games, etc)
We ended up with a candidate with the 2nd lowest approval rating in the history of presidential elections (Trump was #1), who lost to Trump.
We CANNOT be obsessed with the gender of the candidate. We need someone who will win.
18
Identity politics is racism and sexism, and a dead end for the Democratic Party. Identity politics tells us that some people are more deserving to be elected just because of their gender (HRC), race, or sexuality, and that is wrong. Identity politics alienates those who are placed in the "less deserving" category, meaning men (Bernie), whites, and straights. Men aren't judged on their abilities, they are lumped with "the patriarchy." Whites who have worked hard are told they got where they are just because of "white privilege." Women should not be excluded, nor should we elect anyone just because she's a woman.
18
Woman or not, one thing is crystal clear even from this side of the Atlantic, if the Dems go with Warren it will condemn the world to another 4 years of Trump.
She just doesn’t have it. She is more “School Principal” than “President”.
American politics is so facile that facts no longer count. Image is everything.
To beat Trump you need a “Cage Fighter”, Man or Woman. Someone who is sharp, fast and brutally tough. You need someone who can speak “populist” and looks the part. Cage Fighter.
26
I will never vote for Gillibrand. Her treatment of Al Franken was disgraceful. He wanted an investigation & hearing. He never got one. Hard to shake the feeling that she was trying to rid herself of a popular opponent.
68
I agree. I can’t stand her for what she did to my senator.
4
I will do everything I can to get any one of these women elected president.
The idea that Democrats need someone more centrist in order to win could not be more wrong. We’re not going to get Republicans voting Democrat — but we do have a shot at getting non-voters to vote. And we do that by nominating a candidate who is honest, authentic, and who genuinely stands for something. All 3 of these women fit that bill. I can’t wait to throw my full support behind them.
124
@Bubbles
Too progressive and the Dems lose. It's really that simple. I was and continue to be a Bernie fan. But Trump would've mowed him down. Put a true progressive up against this vile man, and that person will lose.
2
I don’t think you realize how important health care is to the majority of Americans. I will only vote for a candidate that supports Medicare for all. This is a life or death issue and we have waited long enough. Get big insurance and big Pharma out of politics.
@Bubbles Bernie Sanders proves that you are sadly mistaken. He got a lot of non-voters to vote. And look what happened. Vote + Split = President Trump.
We cannot risk a divided field. I would like to be wrong. But I am not.
Make that four women running for the nomination. You just know Hillary will be back! Why shouldn't she?? As NYT commentators like to point out, she won more than 3 million more popular votes than Trump. Warren, Harris and Gillibrand did not.
3
@Richard
Every Republican I know is hoping that Hillary or Warren will run. Think about that.
2
Whoever it is, better be clean, have a thick hide and be prepared to get dirty. With Trump, politics has become a sty, slinging mud will be par for the course.
3
Warren and Harris are cannon fodder for Trump. Their names may as well be "Hillary" to conservatives. They have to be avoided. Gillibrand could work, but I don't see how she fits being from New York.
Democrats' best move is to base the ticket on a strong-fundraising, inspirational moderate from the South or Midwest to carve off the centrist Republicans, independents, and conservative women in swing states who don't approve of Trump, but would vote for him on principle if they felt Democrats were too liberal. Each vote swung is two votes. (A Beto O'Rourke type would be perfect, but he has too little experience and will likely be coming off a loss.)
Putting a mild progressive in the vice presidential slot to help unify the Democratic Party could be alright, but the plan should be to corner Trump as far into his base as possible and then cut the thread by which he is hanging onto centrist conservative support.
Democrats have to view this as an opportunity to broaden their base—the biggest opportunity they've had to expand support since Civil Rights.
Moving too far to the left now completely destroys the very real possibility that Democrats can permanently take a significant chunk of support out of the Republican Party because of Donald Trump's divisiveness and win in 2020 while doing it.
The country may be ready for progressive policy, but that's different from being able to win the presidency with a progressive candidate.
6
Why is Medicare for all “too far left”? This is a life and death issue for most Americans. Every first world nation on earth provides free health care for all citizens.
Kamala Harris- ok as my senator but frankly not likable enough to be a presidential candidate. Kirsten Gillibrand went after Al Franken with no cause, of the three I trust her the least. Elizabeth Warren - ok, maybe. Are men no longer permitted to run?
23
@Jeff. There are many of us in San Francisco who do not like Harris. The DNC should b asking why. And I would be happy to vote for a man if he is the best candidate and has no bad sexual conduct accusations in his closet.
2
@SW
Nobody cares what people in San Francisco think. Don't take offense; it's just reality.
The Reps don't care because they know that the people of SFO are far too liberal to ever vote Rep. And the Dems don't care because they know that, whoever their candidate is, even if a conservative Dem, the people of SFO will vote for the Dem, and not the Rep.
The Dem's need a candidate who unifies, not splinters, the party and voters. Doesn't matter what gender or race. Age will matter though. And it should. Fresh blood please. Get Ms. Warren off the stage. She splinters. And she's passing the age threshold. Come on, do we really need someone pushing (or over) 70 running! We already have an aged party, the old white man party, the GOP.
4
Democrats: working diligently to come up with new and inventive ways to lose slam dunk elections.
15
Sorry, after what these women did to Al Franken, I can never support them.
14
The Democrats need to beat Trump. That is the reality check in 2020. It is not whether it's a woman or man that runs, it MUST be someone who can beat trump, and that the middle class workers would vote for.
344
@Never Ever Again Amen. Do something novel Democrats. Win.
@Never Ever Again Fine. But look at history. JFK, Carter, CLinton and Obama. All men. All under 56. All charismatic. All appeared very liberal during the campaign. All DC outsider. Hillary, Gore, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry all failed to tick several of those boxes and lost.
@Never Ever Again
Sherrod Brown
2
There are many Republicans who are as anxious to get rid of Donald Trump as Democrats are. 2020 might be the year when a three-way race among Trump, a true moderate Republican like Mitt Romney running as an independent, and a popular Midwest Democrat like Amy Klobuchar, could siphon enough votes away from Trump to sink his awful presidency. Even if we ended up with Romney as President, we'd all be the better for it.
3
@Capt. Obvious . "There are many Republicans who are as anxious to get rid of Donald Trump as Democrats are. "
Total nonsense. He's opposed by zero Republicans.
I am a non-practicing progressive liberal of the Center, neither a Trumpist, nor Clinto-Sandersite. But I see a Democratic woman President in 2020 as no more than wishful thinking.
2
They only need one good one. The Democrats bigger problem will be mitigating the damage that's going to come from the Clinton Speaking Tour that's going to take place after the midterms. Is there anyone at the DNC that can tell these two people to stand down at least until the Democrats shakeout who's running in 2020?
11
I continue to be skeptical that Elizabeth is running. (I am a constituent and I adore her).
She knows that she has the attention of the media and of progressive donors. She knows that she can raise money. She knows that she has, more than any other member of the Senate of any party, the ability to mobilize people and nudge the eventual nominee toward her ideas.
But she also knows that she is too far to the left to win a general election. And she's not stupid about her age. Most of all, I don't think she is going to put her husband through the rigors of a campaign. He's a quiet guy, and they just got a new dog.
I could be wrong, but I don't see a long -lived Elizabeth Warren campaign for the presidency.
8
The headline is incredibly misleading. It suggests the article’s object is some shared collective sentiment(Democrats “expect”), but then offers no evidence beyond individual opinion to back up the phenomena. The only other possible purpose of the article judging from the headline is to point out an obvious fact (3 women intend to run) and note that Democrats are attuned to this reality (who isn’t?) therefore they expect it, much like I expect the sun to rise. I’ll going to go ahead and infer the former usage of “expect”, which is closer to “demand”. And given the absense of any information on this apparently categorical sentiment, I’m going to go one step further and infer that it is the New York Time’s editorial and gender teams that are doing the demanding, or at least they believe that by imputing a consensus preference for female candidates on Democrats writ large, it will become closer to being true (and they will have made the world a better place for doing so—read: activist journalism).
I voted for Hilary. I’ll vote for whomever is the Democratic candidate. Love Warren’s politics, don’t think she’d make a good candidate.
If gender is one of the top 3 issues in the 2020 elections, as the NYT is intent on having be the case and which a female nominee will almost ensure, Trump’s chances at re-election will be greater. In the face of climate apocalypse, gilded-age inequality, plagues of addiction, and a medieval criminal justice system, I wonder if it’s worth the risk
6
The dilemma in the primary system for both parties, but especially for the non-incumbent party is that the candidates have to please the hard core based (very Leftist of course in the Democratic party) and then be able to win the general. It's hard to see how any of these women will be able to win a general election, so it looks suicidal for the Democrats to nominate any of them. A winnable candidate will be in the Obama mold: with hardly ANY track record, so we can project our hopes and dreams onto him or her. Look elsewhere for a winnable candidate.
79
@Jason McDonald "It's hard to see how any of these women will be able to win a general election."
Why? You assume because they're women that they "leftist"?
Of course Warren is, but Gillibrand was historically very conservative, and Harris is pretty much right down the middle (and both to the right of Obama)
You don't need to be a white man to be a centrist (or a winnable candidate)
@Jason McDonald When you write "the candidates have to please the hard core based (very Leftist of course in the Democratic party)" are you referring to the support for better and more affordable health care; support for women's choice; support for education, especially affordable college; strengthening Social Security and Medicare; and the fight for a higher minimum wage....those left wing ideas to Republicans are really quite centrist to the country.
@Jason McDonald Two words: Joe Biden. Obama "evolved" on his stance on gay marriage. Biden can "evolve" over the Anita Hill thing.
1
Message to DEM and IND voters. Stop worrying about who might be on the ballot in 2020 and focus on who IS currently on the ballot in 2018.
Message to aspiring DEM candidates, announced and unannounced. After Nov 6, please go back to your desks for the next six months and put together a coherent message and a winnable strategy for 2020. Oh, and maybe perform some useful governing while you're at it.
5
I hope someone convinces Warren and Gillibrand to take a seat and be quiet. Especially Warren, the DNA thing (among other things) was an embarrassment. I'll take a closer look at Harris.
2
FOCUS PEOPLE! The most important election in decades is weeks away. Speculating on 2020... come on.
5
I suggest Oprah who is the only person trusted by many Dems AND Republicans. The only one who might be able to restore or build bipartisanship. Elizabeth Warren is a scold and has a tin ear, traits shared by Hillary Clinton, and myself if truth be told. Harris should stay in the Senate for longer before seeking the presidency. Maybe an Oprah-Bloomberg duo, either one as prez or VP.
@Barrie Grenell You know it's really sad, I wish it had been a joke but in talking to some friends this came up and they said the same thing, and made a very convincing case...To beat someone like Trump you need someone with his mass appeal, TV charisma etc.; but also, for the good of the country, someone who isn't a fascist sex criminal. The really funny is that no one in the room, myself included, was saying that they personally *wanted* Oprah to be president; only that she was the only one who could beat Trump, or at least the only woman.
1
As an aside, with Mueller's report coming down the pike, I would not automatically assume the Democratic candidate will be running against Trump.
If by chance he IS the candidate, he will be a severely crippled one. Or better yet, he will be wearing an orange jumpsuit to match his hair.
3
Joe Biden as presidential candidate and Gillibrand, Harris, or another smart, outspoken woman as running mate. Then, after the first term, Biden steps aside and his vice president runs and wins. If Biden treats his vice president like Obama treated him - a coequal partner - this will be a sure thing. Biden is the only certainty at a time when the Democrats have to win the White House from the destructive mob and its mob boss that are currently there.
5
I won’t vote for Biden unless he supports Medicare for all.
Country can't afford Medicare for all, but everyone that needs it can get a job and buy it.
@Zejee
So in a contest between Biden and Trump, you'll vote for Trump?
If we have an identity politics candidate we will have 4 more years of Trump.
2
Wait. Is this article’s message seriously “voter’s won’t know what to do when there’s more than one woman”? If there’s anything abnormal about it, it’s because having equal gender representation is long overdue. I look forward to the day that no one woman has to carry the aspirations of millions, but that having many women running for president is a normal, boring reality.
1
The only chance the Democrats have in 2020 is Joe Biden. He would be a serious threat to take the Presidency simply based on his higher level of socially acceptable decorum compared to Trump. These three women have no depth, credibility, or following.
112
He’d guarantee a progressive third party candidate. It’d be good for Trump
1
@RCS. I like Biden’s politics but frankly he has a history of having wandering hands and whispering in women’s ears that is creepy, and his repeated conduct has been caught often on video. My female friends feel the same way.
@RCS
Amen
I feel bad for Elizabeth Warren. She started out with so much potential. Only to burn it away with a poorly thought out strategy of shamelessly fawning over Hillary Clinton as America's only hope.....a ridiculous proposition at best. For all apprearances, Ms. Warren has cracked under the pressure. She FEARS the future, she has dedicated herself to a task that is no longer relevant. She is tackling an issue from yesteryear, that "women are oppressed and need more positions of power"....when she herself is already in power! She is failing her own Massachusetts constituency by travelling the nation, posing as a presidential candidate......finally it appears the locals in Massachusetts have had enough of poor Ms. Warren's theatrics......Geoff Diehl, one=time democrat himself, seems the better choice. in this Massachusetts Senator 2018 contest.
But is Elizabeth Warren old enough? ;)
Maybe need someone older like Biden or Sanders.
3
Democratic candidates from New York, Massachusetts, and California??
And Uncle Joe from Maryland, too?
GREAT electoral strategy!
Democrats never seem to be able to get out of their own way.
1
Right now the Democrats have no messenger to articulate their message.
Obama was a once in a generation politician, someone like that comes along rarely.
Unfortunately, this is still a center right country...it is changing but not fast enough for the 2020 election.
Having said all that the Dems need to find a person who can embody and hold hid/her own with Trump on the platform,, they also need to be authentic and they need to know how talk to the other side in a constructive way.
Beto O'Rourke has the beginnings of it--he is articulate and does come off as authentic but it is too soon for him.
Blomberg, has the bonfides to go toe to toe with Trump but his business background may be hard to swallow with some people in the party.
Warren, Harris, Gillenbrand are progressive (maybe too for swing states) but they come from very blue parts of the country.
The party cannot make a "McGovern" mistake again...however, at this point I do not see anyone emerging to lead.
80
@Mgk
"Unfortunately, this is still a center right country...it is changing but not fast enough for the 2020 election."
Right, except that the center-left candidate, HRC, won more votes than the GOP-nominated puppet. That sentiment is a popular trope, but it is not exactly correct.
That is probably splitting hairs, because your comment is dead on otherwise.
@Mgk Warren may be no Obama, but her core interests are bread and butter, kitchen table stuff for most Americans. That puts her head and shoulders above other progressives. Kamala Harris might be good at duking it out with Trump. Gillibrand is a fine Senator.
@Homer
Agreed...but she did not win votes in the right area of the country. I have to deal with what is rather then what I would like it to be.
The criteria should consist of one thing: nominating a candidate who can win. Period.
474
@The Poet McTeagle That would be the Bernie Sanders/Tulsi Gabbard ticket...
@The Poet McTeagle what about qualified? Honest? JUST WIN BABY is a silly thing to pick someone for. Its not a popularity contest....well, it is today, but it shouldn't be.
@Joe
Oh, please god! Please run a Sanders/Gabbard ticket.
- said every Republican, everywhere.
Trump cannot be underestimated. Economy will be fine until 2020. Trump can effectively communicate to non-college educated people and that group is the majority. Republicans are united and they can push their agenda through Trump as President. Tax cuts to the rich and Supreme Court nominees will not be winning issues in 2020. Trade wars will help Trump. Democrats should stay on message of living wages, health care, education and gender equality to draw the support of blue collar Midwest and women votes. Elizabeth Warren has the best chance of defeating Trump with Mark Warner as Vice Presidential choice.
Funny thing is - I like Elizabeth Warren as a law professor, but I could not care less about her Cherokee DNA. I did a genetic test also, and unexpectedly found I was "10% Scandinavian" but in no way does that make me Norwegian myself!
It appears that something unexpected must happened in our family several generations ago, but does not have any impact on either who I am today, nor who Scandinavians are today.
It is possible we will celebrate St. Lucia day this year, just for the fun of it, but thats all because I - the real person that I am - is not Norwegian and never will be.
1
While I despise Trump and the way he has handled it, Elizabeth Warren's use of her minuscule Native American (or South American indigenous) roots earlier in her career is a legitimate controversy. She has found a small workaround with the most recent DNA test, but as a general election candidate it will still be baggage.
4
Thank you. As a tribal member, I agree. I am as blue as they come but there is no way I can support her.
2
I hope these 3 highly qualified women, and any other Democrats considering a run for the presidency, quietly and maturely cooperate with each other to honestly determine who will be the most electable, and then throw all support to that person.
We REALLY don't need an 'because she deserves it' candidate, nor a contentious divisive primary in 2020.
We need a mature, highly electable, highly likable candidate without unnecessary baggage who can communicate clearly and eloquently a different path to ALL Americans.
I understand the primary process that distills both candidates and issues, but this time around, we really just need the most electable candidate with a very minimum of division within the Democrats, and a very minimum of manipulation/control by the DCC.
3
Media Coverage = Free Advertising = Votes.
The only Democrat (female or male) that has a chance of winning in 2020 is one who has a real platform and will garner as much media coverage (social media, cable/basic television, or print/internet media) as Trump. While a democrat, I have to admit that Trump has mastered the art of media coverage and free advertising. Unfortunately, as an incumbent President who is constantly in the public eye, Trump already has a huge advantage.
1
Let's work on voter education to minimize the number of "voters determined to nominate a woman".
We should all be focused on nominating the best available candidate, not the best among the subset who are female.
3
It's exciting to anticipate these three strong candidates, regardless of gender, as part of the 2020 race. However, I'm disheartened by the many, many comments here that either disregard the completely obvious and relevant gender issues in our politics and society and by saying it isn't a factor; or that they're looking for the "best candidate", ignoring the implication and history that those words are code for "white male"; or those that say we need a man to beat Trump and "women's" time is later. Gender IS a factor. It's not identify politics, it's reality. And gender is certainly ONE of the deciding factors in how I'll vote, for this election and until there is parity and equality in representation - and therefore opportunity - across the board in our country. It IS possible.
1
In 2016 we were told Bernie Sanders was not "electable". HRC was chosen. She got a majority of the vote but she was not elected.
I could care less whether the 2020 nominee is male, female, other, red, yellow, black, white, tall or short. So long as the nominee is actually electable.
That begs the question WHO elects the president.
In short, swing voters in swing states. Only a handful of states, and a handful of voters within those states, really decide who our president is going to be.
Only ONE criterion matters in selecting our 2020 nominee. Who is the best Democrat to connect with those voters? Everything else is secondary.
I hope that the 3 women mentioned in this article and any other people considering trying for the nomination are NOT doing it for personal ambition or gain, but rather because they believe that they are the best candidates to reach those voters who actually elect our president. To pursue the nomination for any other reason is to toy with the fate of the American people for selfish reasons.
2
Please keep Elizabeth Warren out of the running. She has too many embarrassing behaviors to allow her to win over the country. Remember there are not enough super liberals to win the presidency but there are if you add centrists. Let's not lose this next president to the Republicans or the fate of the country will go along with the fate of the earth.
4
As a woman who is full of rage against the current president and the blatant sexism and violence against women and people of color, I urge the democrats (and reporters who are covering the election) to not over-simplify and make this solely an identity politics game. Hillary Clinton lost for reasons that did not have to do with her gender. Politicians on both sides try to avoid dealing with the serious issues in our country- let's not fall into this trap by making this election only about gender. There's too much at stake. May the best wo/man win.
6
Statistically speaking, Senators make bad presidential candidates. Women or not, none of these three have a good chance at unseating an incumbent because of their lack of executive experience. If there was a woman governor or vp, different story.
2
As much as I admire these women, I don’t see a path to victory. Don’t forget that much of the country is conservative, and there’s still a broad Trump base.
If centrists like the Clintons couldn’t get the message to the working class, the progressives sure ain’t going to do it.
1
Call me crazy, but I don't see a winner among them. I wish I did but I don't. Sen. Warren is the best known of the three, but I see no evidence at all that she has broad-based appeal outside her home state. There certainly was none on display in 2016. Gilibrand is too lightweight and Harris is really too green.
18
The Democrats don’t need to appeal to Republicans. They only need to turn out the minorities and young people who stayed home for Clinton and re-capture some working class whites. Kamala Harris.
23
@PeterC - "re-capture some working class whites."
That's VERY important. But specifically, we're talking about working class voters in swing states. The race really only comes down to a few swing states.
1
The only way a Democrat, male or female, can unseat President Trump is to successfully attack the narrative that our economy is strong and as a result of Trump’s and the Republicans’ tax-cut plan.
If the eventual Democratic presidential nominee cannot effectively challenge this narrative, Trump will be re-elected.
The way to attack the narrative is to highlight our great wealth and income inequality and the socioeconomic problems it has caused for most working Americans in the middle and lower classes, such as wage stagnation.
A moderate-New Democrat cannot effectively make this argument because the prescription for resolving our low-wage, anti-family, socioeconomic problem-producing economy cannot possibly include additional tax and regulatory relief for the wealthy and corporations.
This reality will either eliminate fiscal moderates as serious contenders for the nomination or force them to move leftward on economic issues.
The question will be which moderates can comfortably wear the navy-blue mantle of the progressive economic justice movement championed by U.S. Senators Sanders and Warren.
Likely candidates in the first-tier, U.S. Senators Booker, Harris, and Gillibrand, have already acknowledged this political reality by either sponsoring or signing onto living wage bills in the past year.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, who has strong labor support, has supported efforts to increase the minimum wage, but is against a universal basic income.
9
A woman won't lose because she's a woman, but she won't necessarily win, either. The key is a candidate who can articulate a positive vision and not merely attack Trump. That candidate could well emerge, but hasn't yet. We'll see.
8
I would love for us to have a female president, but first and foremost, we need to be able to beat Trump. Are we sure we aren't repeating the mistakes of the past by suggesting voters are ready? Satisfying the anger of liberals isn't going to win the election.
9
@WhatMacGuffin
Indeed, center left will win not progressive yet.
Clinton governed successfully because he was center left, that is, he compromised and found common ground...he was able to host one of the most successful economic periods in the history of the country.
The party needs to not be pragmatic in trying to beat the disaster that is Trump.
If we want to win do not nominate a woman or minority candidate. It’s sad and controversial to say, I know, but I believe Trump would beat any such candidate handily right now.
13
Women are no more monolithic when it comes to politics than men. Democrats ought to be weary of allowing anatomy to determine their presidential candidate. In 2020 the American electorate, unless significantly enlarged by millions of new voters will be just as ill-informed as the ones that elected Donald Trump once and George W. Bush twice.
Democrats must choose a proven politician who is ready to lead with a platform that appeals to working class voters. One that can take a punch and hit back. One that can appeal to men and women, young and old, black and white, Asian and Hispanic voters. One that is not afraid to take an unpopular position on one controversial issue, as Mario Cuomo did on Capital Punishment, and still win. One who does not reverse their position on a controversial issue as Hillary Clinton did on free trade, and lose.
We may, as a nation, be ready to elect a woman President, but the Democrats need to nominate a winner with a proven capacity to run a dynamic campaign, arouse the electorate and stick with a platform that can appeal to the vast majority of people.
13
How about the best candidate?, how about a candidate who has an actual platform?, a strong positive message, how about eschewing sexual politics?, identity politics, in fact any politics that are not issue based . And by the way, if the Dems do nominate a woman they will lose.
41
Not even Oprah?
@Richard Frauenglass While I can agree with the sentiment of the problems associated with ID politics, all 3 of these women are established politicians with a track record, or a platform. The current POTUS is such a lying crooked human who is destroying moral decency, and alliances that have maintained world peace and America's role as the leader of the world. Any Dem who runs for POTUS will likely win.
1
@Bull Moose 2020 -- Remember what happened to The Bull Moose Party? But, on the other hand, Progressive is a moniker much superior to Liberal.
Unfortunately, I think you overestimate the dissatisfaction with The Dear Leader. He has played to the baser instincts and has a strong following. And remember, it is not popular but Electoral vote that matters.
What a waste of time. All attention and money should be going to the midterms right now. Instead these selfish career politicians are campaigning for 2020, at the expense of the 2018 candidates and the Democratic Party’s image.
Warren keeps repeating her disastrous Native American claims, and Kamala Harris intentionally botched her Kavanaugh inquiry, thinking it was worth it for her 2020 bid.
I hope none of them win.
17
I fail to see why a qualified woman – be she white, African American, Latina, Asian or Native American – cannot be the next President of the United States in 2020. I think many of us fail to remember that almost 60 years ago, there was a young Democratic Senator from Massachusetts who excited the country with his vigor, intelligence, and ideas for a better America. This Senator was not considered electable because he was a Roman Catholic. Nor was he considered electable because, at 43, he was regarded to be too young and inexperienced. And yet – he confounded his critics and detractors, ran a dynamic campaign, inspired millions across the country, and was elected as the 35th President of the United States. So, don’t say it can’t be done. BE WILLING TO DARE TO BELIEVE IT CAN BE DONE. AND HELP MAKE IT HAPPEN. "¡SI, SE PUEDE!"
5
@Wes
If I remember correctly, though, Kennedy only just barely beat Nixon -- much too close for comfort if we want to get Trump out. With voter suppression and gerrymandering now supported by the Supreme Court, we should try to run someone with extremely wide appeal. It's sad, but it's harder for women to win perhaps partly because the feminist movement is perceived as upper-class. I admire Hillary Clinton, but groaned when she sent glass-ceiling style fundraising letters into rural Iowa.
Please please please can we not have a campaign focused on identity politics? I don’t think I can stomach another four years of Trump.
61
@Concerned Democrat 'Identity politics' is what, exactly? Equal rights for women? Why don't we scream about identity politics when the Republicans get buys disenfranchising black and Native American voters?
What the Democrats need in a candidate is someone who passionately and clearly explains that global billionaires and the global corporations they own have captured most of our politicians and are making policy with little input from We the People. Trump is a global billionaire who doesn't even bother to hide that he doesn't care what the People think, but is just using the Oval Office to make himself more rich and powerful. But many more of the global 1% are making dark money contributions to enrich themselves at our expense.
The last thing we need is a careful centrist, who refuses to attack injustice or defend themselves and the country against lies.
It doesn't matter whether it's is a man or a woman, what matters is that they are loyal to the Constitution and will proudly and strongly defend it and the American People from the Party of Trump.
My money is on Elizabeth Warren. She is willing to say exactly what it's wrong and exactly how to fix it, and is not interested in appeasing a Republican Party that has given up on truth, logic, science, and attacks the spirit and letter of the Constitution every day. Warren gets things done that are actually good for the people like her brain child the Consumer Protection Bureau which has already ended such abuses as Wells Fargo opening millions of accounts without customer permission.
I'm willing to entertain other possibilities, but for now, this man says,
WARREN in 2020
9
The DNC seems hellbent on running a campaign based on identity politics.
Since you champion a person running on her 1/1000% identity, you might as well run the world champion of identity politics, Rachel Dolezal.
She's a woman who no question, identifies as something she is not, down to a sob story about being a poor minority and painting her face to look the part. She can even say her time in jail told her how minorities truly feel about the justice system.
might as well run with her.
14
@AutumnLeaf
A male must be of a 'certain' politics, a woman must be of 'certain' politics, and the ones in the white hats are the good guys/gals.
There is no easy way to sort the chaff from the seed. We wish there were, and the systems in place promote that belief that there is.
What is worth having, we'll have to work for.
What would make it easier; a news reporting industry that dealt in depth with facts only, a campaign process that wasn't such big business, and participants with a more accurate moral compass.
A utopian dream, or a possibility?
WE DECIDE!
A Warren Harris ticket please.
1
Funny photo of Elizabeth Warren, usually those funny photos are reserved for Republicans.
The NYTimes must be eyeing a different candidate to back...
28
Kamala Harris/Mark Warner
4
Current crop of so-called Democratic 2020 Presidential Female front runners have as much charisma, gravitas as Michael Dukakis?
6
I sincerely hope the Democrats will nominate a female frontrunner, who then can beat Trump. Not only to break the glass ceiling and make an impact on gender equility, but also to make this tiny man bleed on the shards.
131
@ErikAnother great candidate like Hillary? Someone who the party wants, and not the voters?
3
@Erik
Forget "breaking the glass ceiling"!!! Forget "impact on gender equality"!!! Forget "make this tiny man bleed"!!!
Emphasis on any of these is a formula for LOSING!
Focus on WINNING, please. Forget gender, forget revenge, forget equality. Without WINNING absolutely nothing will change.
It's the bottom of the ninth inning, bases loaded, two out. Do you want your best hitter up there? Or do you want to break the gender barrier, break the glass ceiling, or end your worst hitter's hitless streak?
Let's get our best hitter up there, please!!
1
Great ready to keep saying "President Trump" for 4 more years, folks.
8
Warren’s DNA test was a shot in the leg. If she still runs she’l be Limping all he time.
7
On multiple occasions Elizabeth Warren claimed she was a Cherokee. For example, an Oklahoma tribal cookbook published in 1984, "Pow Wow Chow," has recipes by "Elizabeth Warren - Cherokee." This was the second edition of the cookbook, so if Warren had somehow accidentally identified herself as a Cherokee in the first edition, she could have corrected the error in the second edition.
This book is currently for sale on eBay; check it out, possibly a collector's item in the making. Copies of her recipes are also available on-line; look up Elizabeth Warren Pow Wow Chow.
The minute percentage of Native American DNA (0.1% to 1.56%) that Elizabeth Warren is now crowing about would not qualify her for membership in any Native American tribe, at least in North America. In fact, the DNA samples with which hers were compared were from Central and South America--pretty much no Cherokees in those places--perhaps she's planning to run for office in Guatemala or Peru.
The tribal chairman of the Cherokees says Ms. Warren is not a Cherokee.
For Elizabeth Warren to have described herself as a woman of color and claim minority-status benefits is a travesty.
She is not credible now, and I do not think she will be a credible candidate for President in 2020.
13
@Ro Ma
And lest we forget, the recipe was taken directly from a NYTimes articles attributing it to Le Pavillion. Yum!
Warren is toast. Making identity about DNA was a bad move, for left. The dems cannot put up anyone who cannot draw voters of color. Warren has already failed the test.
8
Based solely on a majority of opinions expressed in this comments thread, I don’t think our country is ready to elect a female president. How disheartened I am that so many nytimes readers harbor such resentment for women!
1
I don’t care which gender our next president is as long as their last name isn’t Trump. The nominee must have executive experience, impeccable background, legislative chops, oratory skills and a very thick skin. I can’t wait to pull the lever in 2020!
5
Way, way, way too soon for any of this. There is an election coming up in a couple of weeks. Can't you write about that? Let's get through these things in real time, ok?
20
Except for Bernie, who’ll be blocked from the nomination again by the Wall St donors, the Dem field looks like a suicide pact. These three women are all hopeless. Zero chance of beating our Dear Leader. Klobochar is better than all of them, but she too would be easily mocked into mincemeat by Trump. It’s almost as if the bankers who run the party are really for Trump, for his obvious economic benefits for the rich, and are thus going to make sure a certain loser is nominated by the hapless Dems.
11
@Fred White
"Except for Bernie, who’ll be blocked from the nomination again by the Wall St donors..."
Which is why i wish he'd run as the Independent that he is. Would most likely get a significant chunk of bodies off of the couch.
Great. Three more deeply flawed candidates incapable of beating the most hated man in America.
9
@TLibby
Flawed?
Everyone is flawed. It is people like you who demand this non existent perfection are giving the election to the most flawed man in America.
2
I hope that Warren wins. She has spent her life achieving greatness not only as a woman but a Native American. She was able to persevere from not only sexists but racists. She could have just pretended she wasn’t a Native American being she is a blue eyed blonde with lily white skin. But no! She proudly stood up for what she is! I can’t wait for her to give her presidential acceptance speech in Cherokee!
5
Warren/O'Rourke 2020!
3
@Multimodalmama
Not a bad ticket.
if we look at the past fifty years, the only successful Democratic presidential candidates were either from the south (Clinton, Carter) or black ( Obama). if the Democrats want to win in 2020 they should consider these facts. the last northeast candidate who won was Kennedy but alot have failed since (dukakis, kerry, and many who didn't get the nomination eg ted Kennedy, tsongas, etc).
3
Warren needs to not run . That would be Hilary redux and just deepen the anguish and divide we are all living with. Please Sen.Warren , for the sake of the women in this country, please remain in the Senate and pursue the financial issues and policies that effect all of us living everyday life. That's your strong suit!
And if a Democrat wins the Oval in 2020 Warren becomes Secretary of the Treasury. Perfect job for her.
Personally, I'd like to see Amy Klobachar run .
Ideal ticket: Amy Klobachar and Eric Holder.
And Harris as Attorney General . She's a force.
But 2020 is too soon for her.
And please No Uncle - make us wince- Joe Biden. Everywhere he speaks it's like being trapped at the Thanksgiving dinner table with him and his stories...Geez,please not again .
39
@JV. Holder just shot himself in the foot for calling on Dems to kick their opponents when they’re down. Michelle Obama stayed classy and tried to overcome his not so oblique reference to violence by reiterating a call for integrity, but Holder is nonetheless damaged goods.
Please not Elizabeth Warren. I could not stand four years of her scolding.
11
I'd like to remind many of the critics here who are "fed up" with identity politics that being white and male **is** an identity as much as being a woman, a person of color, gay, etc. Being "white, male" has become the default against which all others are compared as "different."
14
Elizabeth Warren needs to do a reality check. Her campaign is not helping the Democratic party, and would be disastrous in a general election.
.
The election in 2020 is just way too important.
.
Elizabeth:
Look in the mirror.
Get a grip.
You need to sit this one out,
and,
like Hillary Clinton,
If you love your country, you need to be as quiet as possible during the 2020 campaign.
20
The Democrats haven't learned a thing. No strategy, still looking for the mythical white swing voter. They're sending Hillary to campaign with Andrew Gillum. I have donated to Gillum's campaign, but refuse to attend the big buck dinner near me because Hillary is going to be there. Perennial loser. No message. No firm conviction. After they fail in November, there will be a retreat to the center as the Republicans whip up their troglodytes. They'll win again in 2020.
10
Obama faced constant obstruction and discrimination during his presidency due to his race; that may pale in comparison to the opposition the first female president likely will face.
I'm a Democrat who's concerned about the future of this country. I'm female but I need more than a #MeToo ticket. I want a presidential team selected for their strength, integrity and experience. I will be watching to see which candidates rise to the occasion.
12
I would love to see Senator Gillibrand or Senator Harris take on Trump. Perhaps with my Senator, Jeff Merkley, on the ticket. I am less enthusiastic about Senator Warren because of her DNA/Oklahoma video, which seemed to fall into Trump's trap. Strategically Senator Warren needs to demonstrate she won't be mired in Trump's rhetorical idiocy, and that she can be a viable candidate to win. I feel certain Senator Harris would take on Trump the most effectively. As a Democrat, I look forward to the primaries when we can select a savvy, no nonsense woman to take on the malicious Trump administration and its horrific policies.
3
Like most men who are lifelong Democrats, I would welcome a woman President.
But first I need to know their positions on border security, bad trade deals, stopping the opioid crisis, creating manufacturing jobs that pay a real living wage and whether they can stand up to China.
This article is all about gender identity politics and not issues. Americans are sick and tired of identity politics which separate one group of us from another. If Sen. Warren is too far left on the above issues, that’s why I won’t vote for her. It has zero to do with her gender.
46
People vote based on emotion, then justify their vote with ‘facts’. So whoever runs in 2020 will need to satisfy the often subconscious needs of a vastly diverse public first - the need to feel recognized, respected, to have their aspirations assertively championed, to feel safe and secure, to be understood and fairly represented.
These are universals that transcend identity and the void in addressing these emotional needs in a positive way during the last election is what put Trump in the WH.
1
Anyone who's still fixated on Biden's role during the Clarence Thomas hearings has been hibernating for the past 25 years. Obama's V.P. has proven his credentials as a supporter of women's rights a hundred times since then.
3
@stu freeman. I can’t get out my mind the really creepy video during the Ashton Carton swearing in ceremony, which wasn’t the first time he’s been captured on video leaning into women, placing his hands on them, whispering in their ears, etc. Look at Stephanie Carter’s face in that video. If that isn’t a #metoo moment, which every woman I have ever met has experienced, I don’t know what is. I could not in good conscience pull the lever for a man with creepy hands.
@SW: Could you pull it for a man whose opponent is out to overturn Roe v Wade?
It's discouraging to see the long list of men (and a few women) in these comments who discard the idea of a woman president because she would not be "strong" enough to oust Trump. These types of comments show a deep bias against women in general. Didn't any of you listen to Kamala Harris question Kavanaugh in the first hearing? She had him squirming in his seat in his effort to evade the truth. Senator Harris is tough. Don't discount women out of hand.
14
Warren had a choice in 2016 primary. Did she validate her long stance against Wall Street rampant criminality and influence peddling by supporting Bernie Sanders, who made that a central plank of his campaign, and whom poll after poll showed was the strongest candidate running against Trump? Or did she support Clinton, the candidate who took Wall Streets blood money, praised them in speeches she refused to make public, and was the embodiment of elite entitlement and enrichment thru pay to play? Well she chose Clinton. That should give anyone pause in 2020.
10
@Xoxarle Wrong. Read a newspaper.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/09/elizabeth-warren-en...
@Xoxarle
Warren is the only 2016 Massachusetts superdelegate who will ever get my vote. (Hi Mike Capuano, enjoy your retirement. Perish the thought, Joe K III, and especially you, Seth Moulton.). 11 of 12 superdelegates declared for Clinton before the primary, thus letting the electorate know that their votes were considered worthless as the superdelegates were willing to overrule them. In a state where 51% of the voters are Independent (Unenrolled), they put candidate and party over constituents. Warren at least had the class to wait until well after the primaries to declare.
Here is the thing about the Trump voter that Democrats are still clueless about: they want a JOB. They want to be able to get up every day, go to work, earn a living, pay their mortgage, save a little money, and be able to send their kids to college. That's all they want. And until Democrats figure that out it's a lost cause.
35
Of course Democrats will nominate a woman, or an Indian, or anyone who identifies as anything but ‘American’. To repeat what Trump would say, I can’t wait for it! They will be re-exposed for the empty vessels of non ideas that they are. Resist, anger, violence is not an agenda that will won a big election, and these 3 are the poster children for the Democratic disaster coming.
6