Without dispassionately appraising the Hillary candidacy, can the Democrats learn enough from 2016 to perform better in 2020?
One reality that almost all find hard to swallow is that Clinton was actually rather successful.
She almost overcame the prediction of the infallible Prof. Allen Lichtman.
Her biggest achievement? She was the only the second Dem since John Quincy Adams (1825) to win the popular vote, running after a two-term same-party incumbent. (Gore was the first, in 2000.) American like to change things up, even when they're happy with things as they are.
Her party gained seats in both houses. What other loser can say that?
She was asking Americans to do what they had never done before: Vote for a girl. And they did, 48.1% to 46.0%
She overcame the Russians, Comey (twice), and 25 years with a target on her back to win the popular vote by about the same margin as Bush in 2004.
The course of World History was dangerously altered by an anomaly of mathematical distribution. Many analysts discount this. Many resent Clinton for not winning, who do not blame Gore.
In truth, Democrats just need to do what they've been doing. Four years of Trump's record, and four more years of demographic gravitation will extend that 2.86 million vote margin.
8
Kind of serious question here.....is it sexist if the next Democratic candidate for president is a woman and her slogan is, "it will take a woman to clean up this mess"?
Am I missing something here? Hillary Clinton, a woman, got three million more votes than Trump. That was in spite of being a horrible candidate who ran a corrupt and inept campaign. So please, spare me the lament that people won't vote for a woman. They did. She lost because she was a repulsive candidate and ran a disastrous campaign despite having the entire media establishment behind her and a one billion dollar advantage. Heck, even I held me nose, did my duty for country, and voted for her. So it really irks me when I hear Hillary supporters whine about misogyny. She blew it.
4
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. There is no question about whether a woman can beat Trump. What a stupid, counterproductive, headline.
5
Given the state of Trump land, Democrats who vote regularly will support whomever the party decides will be on the bill for 2020. The keys are fairly obvious to most here; the best candidate is the person who can pull the most swing voters, independents and moderate GOP voters to the blue side. If Joe Biden is the choice, he needs to get a VP running mate who could easily be envisioned as presidential as well (Corey Booker?). If Biden should be the candidate and win the office, he may become a single-term stabilizing force for his VP to run in 2024 and go long.
1
Standing on principle and propriety in 2020 about a woman or a black candidate has to recognise that the risk is another 4 years of Trump ( and the real threat of climate havocs and nuclear wars in the future ). First order of American political business is to get rid of Trump, unless of course the GOP suddenly grows a spine and help to throw him out of office.
4
How many of you believe that there were enough women voters who contributed to Clinton's defeat in 2016 ? The arithmetic of the Electoral College will deny the potents of the trend in the midterms election of the women.
We have to win a few states where sexism is apparently rampant, so unfortunately, I conclude that we can't take the risk with any female presidential nominee.
2
I would like to see woman who did to "make it" on her husband's coat-tails....my dream candidate is Kamala Harris....wow!
Insanity is repeating the same mistake and expecting a different result.
Forget the leftist - progressives. for now. If we want to oust Trump in 2020, we need to focus on winning and you can only do that by relating to the average American who doesn't want extremes from the Left or the Right - we need a leader from the Center with a bit of the Left thrown in. If the Democrats are in self-doubt as to whether a woman candidate can beat Trump, then don't run one now. Once Trump is beaten, then in future elections we can build a party with a woman at the helm. Women are becoming more numerous in Congress already - just keep it gradual until we reach a point where the majority of voters - particularly Republicans - are comfortable with the idea. We don't need "in your face" politicians putting off people before they are ready. And Elizabeth Warren is the most off-putting of them all. I'm a life long Democrat and I just don't like her. She is far too polarizing. And Bernie, please step aside - we really need to win this one as the Trump experiment has failed dramatically.
5
You are so right. I fully agree and endorse your remarks. I don't think a woman, from either party, can win the presidential race in 2020. We have more misogynists, many open and many more closeted, in our midst than the media and pundits have admitted. Of both genders. That was the unavoidable evidence of why so many voters lied to the pollsters in 2016 about their voting intentions. Anyone but a woman would have defeated Trump. So forget about a woman being elected as Potus just yet. By all means, select a woman ( so many are so qualified ) as a VP on the ticket. In fact it's pretty mandatory to do so. And, yes, no "in your face", polarising candidate, even in the VP position. We need candidates who come across as less partisan, more centrist, and running on a solid platform to restore our democracy, to restore the dignity of the Presidency and to repair all the damages Trump has inflicted on the country, its reputation and its moral standing in the world. Misogyny has inflicted a horrific nightmare on us in 2016 and since. Let's be wise and don't repeat that mistake. Very sad to admit this also - no African-American no matter how gifted and how qualified can win in 2020. The liberal media is too darn "liberal" to see the bedrock of American prejudices. That is why it was "fashionable" to attack "political correctness". For those who miss it, take a look on YouTube on Beto's remark about "taking a knee" by athletes.
2
Besides the numerous issues/policies which I would like early and regularly candidate reports on, I would also like early and often the data re financial contributors. Both direct and super PAC. Chicago University school of political science, Columbia University, and the London School of Economics all reported the undue influence that Citizens United plays in elections. It will assist in directing campaign donations for we the less well heeled and in deciding who to assist in their campaign. It is the initial sorting. Hugely important to see the field and not just the graced.
1
How about a Republican woman? The primaries are coming up, Trump is unpopular, you never know....
1
Aren't you giving too much power to the current man in the White House? It would seem that anyone with a brain and a sharp wit could unseat this lying mob boss and his soldiers.
3
Those who now say "you can't Run a woman" are just plan foolish. Did Democrats say that when men lost in 200o and 2004? If a woman is wins the democratic Nomination it needs to be someone that does not have a high negative rating. Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota fit that role, so does SenatorGillibrand of New York . First we need to see and hear the candidates and go from there. Gender in 2020 should not be a reason to hold back a good candidate. We don't need to go back to 1920 thinking.
2
Doesn't it depend on how the person presents him/herself and how much time the media gives him/her to do so (rather than to denigrations by the opponent from the other party , however ridiculous they may be)? Trump was considered a joke when he entered the primaries, but proved to have a presence, handlers and media time that vanquished his opponents. Until we see how these new individuals comport themselves and the coverage they get, it is not a question of their sex, just like it was not a question of Trump's misogyny that should have disgusted women voters.
Many campaigned with their young children and made their personal stories central to their message. They were not afraid to challenge incumbents.
___
There is no denying the centuries old belief that mothers are the primary caregivers in the home. In offices, women WERE relegated to low-level/paying positions. It was women who WERE the teachers and school counselors; Currently 82% of Social Workers are female (https://mic.com/articles/30974/almost-82-percent-of-social-workers-are-female-and-this-is-hurting-men#.n51oYxqfX).
As the child's primary caregiver, most teachers [still] being female and an overwhelming majority of social workers being female, from infancy we're all taught to believe "mother knows best."
HRC lost in flyover country because of the rebellion against someone telling everyone else she knew what was best for them without knowing their INDIVIDUAL plight/hardship.
There is not a balm and one size fits all band-aid to salve all wounds.
10:58 CT
1/6/19
‘There’s a Real Tension.’ Democrats Puzzle Over Whether a Woman Will Beat Trump No Tension As There Is NO CHANCE!
Let's get real. Biden can beat Trump. He is a fighter when pushed and knows how to restore a Government that has been blasted into Chaos. VP could be youthful, possibly female, but we need sensitivity and experience, now!
1
Stop worrying about finding a candidate to beat Trump. He won't be running in 2020. He will either resign or be impeached/indicted, or challenged in the primary. Maybe he'll drop out to save his kids, or have a sudden health problem that sends him home to spend more time with his family (hah!). Let's just stop talking about Trump.
2
How about we remember that a woman won the popular election—by over 3 million votes. A woman with history, baggage, and, as it happens, qualifications. We’ve crossed that bridge already, so why all the hand wringing about whether or not a woman can run and win? The best candidate regardless of gender should be the nominee.
3
'...Americans may not want to “take another chance” on a female candidate, Ms. Cusack said, after Hillary Clinton was met with mistrust and even hostility in swing states...'
A non-sequitur to say Americans would be taking a chance on a female candidate based upon the mistrust & hostility met by Sen & Secy Clinton.
In those regards she was and is unique in the characterizations - false and unfair and untrue in this observer's view - with which opponents tagged her as well as F P Clinton over decades and and at a cost of almost certainly hundreds of millions by political opponents.
Outrageous to choose a candidate on the assumption that that defamation could be transferred to every - or any - Democratic woman.
Full disclosure: no suggestion here that such is impossible, particularly in view of the consistently high rate of approval maintained by PT up to this minute of his presidency.
But the assumption without more is just that, an unsupported if fear-generating assumption. And to proceed on it would imo be to risk a new low in our country's current descent which PT's supporters have precipitated.
1
I voted for Hilary in 2016 but would now reconsider, after two very nerve-racking negative experiences at rallies here in L.A. Was almost knocked down by a caucasian-hating young Hispanic woman while simply listening to city leaders, Bill Clinton, Kobe Bryant, and legislators extole what needs to be done- Secret Service did nothing to stop it. O.K., so it's not her fault folks are crazy, but I began to see who her base was- no thanks. Elizabeth Warren's presentations are shrill, yes as a female I said it, not because she's passionate but because she's unlikeable. Not all females are shrill (RBG, Kamala Harris, for example). We need an adult in the race, not an adolescent screeching in protest. Come on ladies, act like dignified intelligent people if you want to attract converts from the right who'd cross over, given a reasoned responsible approach to issues.
2
Let's refrain from beginning every article on 2020 with a picture of Hillary Clinton. Reminding voters of her inept campaign is depressing and not helpful. Let's stop quoting 'super-delegates', pretending they were somehow mirroring the will of the people. They were part of the problem in 2016. Let's back away from 'identity politics' and focus on finding and supporting candidates who can appeal to voters from states which do not border that Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Amy Klobuchar comes to mind as one example of a viable candidate who just happens to be a woman and who could quite possible carry states that the Clinton Campaign ignored.
2
How is it that a very conservative country like India has had a female prime minister, but the United States, supposedly much more open and sophisticated, is not sure it is ready for a female president?
Americans need to focus on policy and strategies to get where we want and need to be rather than on superficial qualities such as gender, looks, likeability, "shrillness" and other external qualities of candidates.
We need a president whom we can trust, who understands and cares about the needs of all our citizens, not one we can have a cup of tea and chat with.
2
If I’m remembering the 2016 exit polls correctly, Trump got 53% of the white women’s vote. Despite his clear misogyny, multiple marriages, and his open contempt for women, 53% of white women voted for him. That should be a warning to the Democratic Party leaders and voters when it comes to choosing a 2020 presidential nominee.
1
Time for pragmatism. Campus leftists were calling Hillary supporters fascists last time around and we see where that got us. Before that we had Ralph Nader, and inadvertently, that led to Bush election and the Gulf War. For once, Dems have to have some discipline. Politics is the art of the possible. We cannot divide the party if we are to win. We have to support a centrist candidate, male or female, black, white or Latino. Centrist. It's great to talk about 70 percent tax rate etc but it is not the way to win.
1
I don't believe the 2016 presidential race came down to a matter of gender. As close as the vote was, had it not been for Clinton's baggage and some issues with her credibility, she would have won. Granted, she was running against a buffoon, which raised her voter numbers, but the result was not based on gender.
A qualified woman can be elected president.
1
The biggest headwind against a female candidate right now is coming from the Hillary supporters who still refuse to accept, despite all evidence, that sexism was not the only reason she lost, or even the main reason. Clinton was a uniquely problematic candidate. The oft-cited "30 years of GOP propaganda" was and still is a very real fact, regardless of how much of it was or was not true. So was the Comey factor. So was the Bill factor. And on top of all that, the thing that her die-hard supporters absolutely refuse to acknowledge, is that for all her knowledge, experience, and qualifications, she was a tone-deaf candidate with a completely inept and incompetent campaign team - none of whom had won an election since Bill's last run.
None of the new crop of potential candidates arrives with any of that baggage.
1
I would love to see a woman become president. However, this election cycle has nothing to do with Hillary but everything to do with Trump, who has unleashed the most vitriolic speech in those who formerly kept their mouths shut but privately railed against women and minorities, - anyone not them. I am fearful that more of those who hate will come out if the Dems nominate a woman or person of color. I do not like to say it but I think we had best nominate a white man...the best one we can find. At least we take that card away from them and take some steam out of their anger. If the language escalates further, I fear physical violence is not far behind.
1
In the 2016 presidential election, Trump was helped by being male. A female political candidate (still) can't act the way he acted and win. The Democrats are going to win in 2020 not by running candidates who acts like he did, though, but by running candidates of any gender who appeal to broadly inclusive coalitions that reach out to business interests and moderately conservative voters, including the financially strapped middle class and much of what at least used to be organized labor. Warren did this for decades in her writing and research before she entered politics. Obama won in 2008 and 2012 by doing this, as did Laura Kelly in Kansas (!) in 2018.
1
She has no chance. Period. Sorry.
1
If you want to guarantee Trump’s re-election have him run against either a woman or a black person. Sad but true: nothing would rally Donny’s base more.
1
Democrats are really going to have take a long hard look at 2020. IMHO, PC is going to have to be put on the shelf, and a united front is a must, this is not a time for “rogue” or maverick self styled candidate. It truly bothers me to say this, but I believe the Democrats have no choice but to run a white male. Please do not label me a racist, but, I do believe this is the prevailing attitude in our country!
Tom Franzson. Brevard NC
2
This is an easy one. Joe Biden. RUN JOE RUN!
Some in the Democratic Party, which likes to characterize itself as a big, inclusive tent, are engaging in the very attitude that has always excluded minorities from full participation in society. They stereotype the less than ideal behavior of one member of a minority group, in this case, female candidates for president, to the entire group. Remember, a large number of male candidates lost to Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican primary, and no one is arguing that a male candidate can't win against him.
I recall reading that a reporter who was assigned to cover the Clinton campaign remarked that, when Elizabeth Warren headlined a Clinton rally, there was so much more energy and passion than with Hillary Clinton alone. Elizabeth Warren, and all other female candidates, should be evaluated on their own merits.
1
@ch...Women are not a minority group.
1
Claire McCaskell: Exprienced. Sturdy. 65 years old. For the long haul. Knows Washington. Is deeply respected in Congress, as her victor for re-election is not.. Middle West. With a female veep like Kobouchar. Or Kobouchar.for President and McCaskell for v.p. Or John Sarbanes for Veep. Or Sarbanes for president with McCaskill as vice president.
1
Misogyny is certainly alive and well in the age of Trump but keep in mind that women go to the polls more than men. Having said that, they can be just as misogynistic as men! Let's quit talking about candidates as men or women. Can we please talk about what they stand for and whether voters like them? Barrack Obama felt like a long shot to many as did Trump, but they both won because that's what people were looking for. Those running the Democratic Party should quit trying to second guess the people. Let the process play out with the people voting. Bernie just might have won over Hillary but the committee picked Hillary, right?
What are the people ready for? Personally, I am sick and tired of men running the show! Can I say particularly, white old men? Can I say that more clearly? Look at the new House we now have? Clearly some of us are ready for diversity and the female candidate. Look to this last election. It warms my heart to see native Americans in office. It's about time America!!!!....for women, for people of color, for people who practice freedom of religion (which we haven't condoned), for the young and the old, for everyone and not just, can I say it? Old white men!
2
Geez. Hillary Clinton received millions of more votes than Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Does that say anything?
I like Warren. A lot. But I’m not feeling excited about her, & she kind of stresses me out. Much like HRC, she feels “old school” to me, using an old school (aka self-righteous white guy) approach that keeps her on a tight message & coming across as really intense & serious. Much like HRC, I want to see who she really is, to lighten up, to go completely off message & talk to me like she’s my friend, not my mother. As a single mom dealing with real life, I want to know she gets me & that I can trust her. She needs to watch & learn from Michelle Obama - an honest Mama who speaks her mind, shares her real challenges while laughing & loving her way through it all. Please Ms. Warren, let us in. My door is always open!
@JennaLee
She shows who she is when she speaks. She is genuinely that passionate and spoke like that before she ever considered entering politics. Look at her interviews from more than 10 years ago. In fact, her passionate demeanor and and policy focuses are similar to Bernie Sanders’, and no one makes these comments about him. Are you really more concerned about a candidate’s personality than her policy accomplishments and proposals?
3
Likeability is not framed by gender. I can really like a Nikki Haley and really dislike a Donald Trump. Clinton and Warren are both extremely unlikeable because they are so harsh, clumsy, and out of touch, not because of their gender.
3
Democrats need to face the fact that Trump and his GOP syncophants have so poisioned the electorate that only a white male has any chance of being elected President in 2020.
2
The only way to ensure another loss like Hillary’s is to nominate Hillary again.
2
The real puzzle will be weather an authentic human being can beat Trump in 2020. Personally, I don't care if that human is male or female; transgender or gay; black or white; Muslim, Jew or Christian.
I'd just like to see a real human re-occupy the White House. The current biped doesn't qualify.
Unfortunately this is just another example of the NY Times political coverage choosing to replace achievement and policy with identity and a perceived "intersectional" oppression as the arbiters in which to judge someone's character and electability. Lerer, Chira and throngs of other writers on this staff are doing this regularly and it seems to be the new brand of this newspaper.... If the mainstream media thinks they can cover 2020 like this and expect Americans to share and agree with this narrative they are severely mistaken. You don't guilt people into giving women and minorities power. This newfound media obsession with political representation over substance is extremely detrimental. This article is another chapter in that pathetic saga.
2
What a headline. It’s already an established fact that a woman got more votes than Donald.
@Mary...Then why isn't the "woman" President?
2
Gender is not the issue. Like it or not, the successful president must be likable. On the surface Trump seems to disprove this but his base was fed The Apprentice and they continue to root for the television anti-hero actor trying to play the role of president. Senator Warren should do the Democrats a favor and not run. She has the same fatal flaw as Clinton: most of us just can't wait for both of them to stop talking. Senator Kamala Harris is a pit bull and would make a wonderful AG. She tried to be nice and sweet on Ellen but appeared affected. Amy Klobuchar has the qualities to win. She is tough, smart, likable, experienced, wholesome. If she had Beto O'Rourke for a running mate, they would make a formidable team.
@joe...Never watched The Apprentice, but the long running docudrama called The Liberal was quite informative and formative. The Liberal was produced and directed by the Democratic Political Establishment first aired ca. MCMLX. The trailers promised a vision of a utopian society, but The Liberal delivered a resounding dud at the box office. The Liberal's enduring legacy is the rise of a former New York Democrat turned NBC TV star political neophyte upsetting the entire political establishment and its propaganda machine. The second installment of The Liberal is about to be unleashed. It's subtitled Elm Street Redux.
1
@joe Clinton and Warren speak and present very differently. Clinton is very calm and measured, and Warren is very passionate and inspired. They’re only similar in that they are of the same demographic, with Warren being just a few years younger than Clinton. It seems, for some reason, that many people have issues with older white women, but the reason is unclear.
1
@joe
There were a lot of black people on The Apprentice so I doubt the base watched. They continue to root for Trump because they like his overt racial politics and how "he says things no one else will say." The base only gets upset when Trump abandons racist talking points. Trump's first set of comments about Charlottesville condemned neo-Nazis, the KKK and white supremacist groups. When David Duke reminded him via tweet that white people were the reason he was in the WH, he then made the fine people on both sides comment.
1
Watch what happens when Nikki Haley runs for president on the GOP ticket.
2
I think Haley could well be our first woman president.
3
There seems to be an assumption here that the first female president will be a Dem. This is shortsighted. With a reshuffling, Trump could put Nikki Haley on the ticket, teeing her up for 2024.
5
This column is nonsense; hopefully it does not accurately reflect the consensus of Dem so-called "strategists." Hillary Clinton lost because she was Hillary, not because she was a woman. She lost because her baggage of tying her fate to that of her misogynist man instead of divorcing him15 years ago was not exactly a great symbol for women to rally 'round. She lost because many voters, indeed many women, voted for another woman, Jill Stein, instead of her. Moreover, 3 years of Trump running and "serving" has rung in a seismic shift in the country that even dimwit Dems have realized, and Trump's ascendance has caused the Repubs to ignore or marginalize-e.g. Justice Kavanaugh. The most absurd of the arguments is the comparison between Beto O'Rourke and Stacey Abrams. In realpolitik terms, the most significant difference b/t those two is their race, not their gender. Plus Texas has more electoral votes. Can we please get a new set of "geniuses" to run the Democratic Party?
2
When will us Democrats recognize that the last election was only proof of Clinton’s inability to get elected to the highest office? #NotAllWomen
3
It has been foretold. Both the Trump presidency and the burden for the successor, Lisa Simpson (daughter of Homer). Just change your name to Lisa Simpson and make history.
But, and here's the thing .... a woman DID defeat Trump. It can and will happen again.
@mulch...Yeah, there is that "thing". But, your "thing" does not mean squat in the United States of America. Here's the real "thing". Trump defeated two women in the "thing" that has counted in the US of A since 1789. Just as it was the "thing" that counted in 2008 and 2012. It fact, it is the only "thing" that has ever led to a Democrat being President. Quit beating a dead "thing" to death.
2
The Democratic candidate in 2020 will not really be running against Donald Trump. The contest will be between the Democrat and the wealthy donor class. The 2020 primary will be open and every Democratic hopeful will have a chance to compete and to communicate a vision for out country that inspires voters. That was true in 2008 when Barrack Obama demonstrated that he held a vision for our country that inspired voters. Hillary Clinton ran in 2008 and nearly won.
To think that Mr. Obama won because he is a Black man or that Ms. Clinton lost because she is a white Woman is rubbish. Mr. Obama won because he inspired voters.
Thinking that Democrats will choose a candidate based on race or gender is foolish. Democratic voters, Independent voters and Republican voters who are inspired by a candidate are inspired to get out and vote. Voters who believe that race or gender guarantees victory believe that the election is just a formality. Many of them will stay home on election day confident that one more vote in favor of the sure winner doesn't matter.
In 2020 Democrats will choose a candidate with a vision for our country that inspires them. That's why a Democrat will move into the White House on January 20,2021.
November 3, 2020, be there and vote Democrat.
@OldBoatMan...Talking about inspiring voters. Don't forget that the Republicans' idea of inspiration in 2008 was McCain and his sidekick [literally] "Cross Hairs" Palin. And, the Republicans were inspired in 2012 by "47%" Mitt and "Who is Paul Ryan?"
1
The Democrats are missing it YET again! Trump's election is backlash from 8 years of Obama through the prism is racism. The sad truth was, we WEREN'T ready for a black president. Again, the obsession over diversity and the Democrats' brand of identity politics projects the tone deaf impression that the party's only priority is minority advancement. Yes mysogyny WAS part of the Clinton loss. Unfortunately, a significant part of the white population does not want to take orders from a woman or a black man and they will be ENERGIZED to come out and vote AGAINST such a Democratic candidate. SEE election of 2016! Democrats best chance to take the WH is to field a white male candidate who can either engage the base OR engage working class whites WITHOUT mobilizing the anti Democrat vote! The best person for the job (potentially a woman) might not be the best candidate for the election. Too much is a stake to lose given the relentless and ruthless planning of the GOP and their resultant stranglehold on house legislatures, federal courts (including SCOTUS), etc. Democrats, be smart, united, and clever over the next two years and do not fall in love with a Hollywood ending. The stakes are real for minorities and best served by a D in the WH not by a concession speech in Nov 2020 for a minority candidate who was so close to making history...
2
I think that this is kind of a dumb article. Mrs Clinton made some mistakes, had some baggage, and had a media that wanted to keep the race close ( the emails every couple weeks ). Elizabeth Warren does not have any baggage except the 'American Indian' thing. She is a fighter. I really don't see her standing idly by while Trump stalks around her in a debate. Also please keep in mind Trump may not be running. Or he may get a serious challenge, And a name that pops up alot is Nicki Haley, who I personally can't stand.
Can a woman win.. of course she can... she already did by 3 million votes.
2
Clinton was a poor candidate every time she ran, but poor candidates who are male win - Nixon comes to mind. And good male candidates lose and we don’t say men shouldn’t run.
While not a good campaigner, Clinton would have won the electoral college but for the many forces outside of her control helping Trump, such as—
-Extensive, orchestrated, effective Republican efforts to disenfranchise African American, Native American, Hispanic, young people from voting. Blacks didn’t stay home for Clinton, they were thrown off the voting rolls. (Read Carol Anderson’s One Person, No Vote for analysis of 2016.)
-Russian interference via illegally funneled money through NRA, Russian & Cambridge Analytica bots and trolls blanketing the internet with disinformation concocted and targeted by collaborator Americans such as CA/Mercer family and their employee,Bannon, and by Roger Stone.
-Comey’s grandstanding interference at the 11th hour.
-Abdication by the media of their role by treating Trump as an joke and relentlessly beating fake Email story to death while literally lying that FBI saw no clear links between Russia and the Trump campaign (looking at you, NYT).
Don’t let the Clintons, or their hangover affect, lose this election. We need to combat voter suppression and disenfranchisement efforts everywhere, combat Russian & GOP conspirators, treat candidates equitably, and nominate the one people are excited about and will get out and vote for, regardless of gender or race.
"Still, exit polls indicated that a majority of white women voted for Mr. Trump, helping him seal crucial Electoral College victories in traditionally Democratic states like Pennsylvania and Michigan."
Sadly this is most likely to play out again if a woman becomes the Democratic nominee. I mentioned this a while back then a lady responded that "no way did a majority of white women voted for Trump." They sure did. And it might have to do with jealousy. They prefer to vote for a known sexual molester, multiple-divorced candidate than a woman with a track record and a resume with public service. At this point I'm so sick and tired of Trump and his deplorable behavior I wish we had a parliamentary system. Remember Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and how Trump spoke to him in a phone call? That was not long ago. Since they Australia already has a new prime minister without an election being held. If only we could get rid of Trump in a no confidence vote!
1
@Wayne...Well, you know, Australia [ as you noted], Canada, Great Britain and many other countries have parliamentary systems. In the new global order, it is easy to adopt a new homeland that suits one's politics. If you can't toleration it, emigrate, Wayne.
2
I am sick to death of these types of discussion -- they do nothing but solidify our divisions. We want to pick the individual candidate who has the best chance of winning. We need to evaluate them all as individuals.
2
Can a woman beat Trump? Look at the last election and then answer that question!
1
@SueSays...President Donald J. Trump. Next question.
4
Can we please remember that Hilary won by over 3 million votes?
1
What happened to the best person for president be the one positioned to beat Trump?!
This fixation on white, black, Native American, Hispanic, Asian, Arab, man, woman, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jew, etc., etc...
We Americans are all one. Let the best person win.
2
No woman currently thinking of running can beat Trump. He denigrates opponents in a uniquely unsportsmanlike way, there are no depths he will not sink to, no verbal filth he will not employ to smear their names. Make no mistake, these insults and nicknames stick. His anger toward women reporters has been growing over time, now he refers to many of them as "stupid." He would take any woman running and use her gender against her. GOP operatives used photos of Clinton looking poorly and called her "weak and dying" on a National Inquirer cover. Unless an unimpeachable steel-plated woman is found, it would be best to save this potential "first" for another election. it's not worth the risk of losing and being stuck with Trump again. We might not survive it.
4
Um, a woman did beat Trump. By more than three million votes.
1
How to address the issue's "real issues"? What kind of person would conquer global and governmental misogyny, as bumbled through by Comey and exploited by Russian troll monsters? Ms. HRC reminds me always of two things: an anecdote of McCain apologizing publicly for a fundraising joke about Janet Reno being Chelsea's "real father", and Lady Macbeth's famous line "unsex me here." Numbers aside, I recall that I, as I believe many others, did not vote FOR anyone in the last presidential election. I voted against the horrifying specter of Donald pretending to be in charge.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote for president in 2016. That speaks for itself regarding the question of whether The People are ready for a woman president.
The misgivings Democrats like myself had with Hillary Clinton were about her positions, policy ideas, tactics, and track record—they were based on the issues, in other words. I just hope I live to see the day when a candidate’s gender is no longer relevant as a qualifying factor in and of itself.
2
The problem is less about gender (women) than geography (coastal). Someone like Amy Klobachar would make an excellent left-of-center candidate of good sense, character, and deportment.
By 2020 all this business about Women is going to, if not backfire, then be displaced by what is then the REAL news of the day, month, year.
For one thing men are going to be sick and tired and fed up with being put down. The worst of us are being found out and castigated now, but the spectrum only reaches so far and playing the female gender card is not going to hold up for two more years. The war between the genders or sexes will never end and the pendulum will never swing equally. To paraphrase Rosanne Rosanna Danna, this thing will turn into another thing.
2
Any Democratic candidate, male or female, will win over Trump or any R candidate if that candidate shows REAL policies that limit legal immigration to merit based and eliminate chain migration, REAL policy change to unfair trade with other countries, REAL policy toward border securit including a strong and high fence or walk, and REAL policy to bring a majority of our soldiers in Middle East and Afganistan home
This is absurd. Hillary Clinton remains the most qualified person, period, to be President. Look at what we have in the White House. She has been vilified for decades, not just because she is a woman, but because she is brilliant and a leader. And yes, she won the popular vote, and were it not for the GOP machine, Trump's sleazy campaign, and Russian efforts to sway the election, she would be president today. Women have been calling the shots in their homes, their offices, their communities, their institutions, and countries for some time now. They can run this country and they can get elected.
I frankly don't think that misogyny can be blamed as the main cause of Hillary Clinton's loss. A lot of committed Democrats, women included, would likely have sat out the vote had they not been scared to death of Trump. But misogyny is definitely a factor that needs to be taken into account. Many white working-class men blame minorities of all sorts, including women, for their woes, and just saying, "Well, they shouldn't" is not going to keep them from voting. And some wackos even have organizations that foster hatred of women and encourage members to, say, mow women down as they walk along sidewalks. Remember those murders?
If Mitt Romney runs for president, I suspect Joe Biden is the only Democratic candidate who can win. Romney has been progressive on health care and various other issues that matter to all of us. And Biden is admired for good reason; he brings people together, and he is said to be the only member of the congressional "establishment" that hasn't gotten rich from his "public service." And that appeals greatly to those of us who want to get the money out of politics.
1
It’s 2019. IT IS 2019. I can’t believe this is even a conversation in Democratic circles much less a front page NYT story. I love this newspaper but if traditional media has any hope of holding on to millennials (I’m at the older end, xennial I guess...) then please understand that people our age don’t even understand that this is a conversation. We aren’t thinking like this or about this. Hillary Clinton was a uniquely placed candidate in the history and the politics of our country. Comparing anyone, male or female, to her is a mistake. For the rest of us, the question is not whether a woman can run or should run, it’s who is the best the candidate out of all these great candidates. That’s what the primary is for. Also, just a final reminder....it’s 2019. My god.
4
There is a difference between the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and the current crop of female presidential hopefuls. The Republicans had viciously trashed Hillary (the Clintons) for years, most of it unwarranted.
There is also the factor to take into consideration that many voters were just tired of the Clintons in politics - same as they were tired of the Bushes (see Jeb). But she still won by nearly 3 million.
Fresh faces will be a different ball game.
The biggest danger facing a woman candidate is going to come from NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX. Their infotainment coverage of the last campaign amplified sensational stereotypes and served their ratings and advertisers while throwing democracy onto the rubbish heap. They've all become various degrees of tabloid "journalism". Michelle Wolf was right. Notice how all these organizations feverishly covered her critique of Sander's eye makeup, but hardly mentioned her pointed and accurate attack on the media and all the money they made from covering the rolling dumpster fire that is now president.
2
@mary bardmess....Don't short change CNN, SNL, NYT, W*P*, MSNBC....The MSM is getting fat and bloated feeding liberals the Trump pablum that y'all can't get enough of. Don't shoot the messenger, mary.
The main thing is not who the candidate is, even a cabbage would be better than Trump, but that we all stand together in support of the candidate. As Democrats, let's not fracture over the politics of petty differences when faced with a monumental threat to our democracy. Make no mistake, Trump is a dictator in waiting. Just his threat to call a "state of emergency," in a non-emergency situation, should send shock waves through the political system. This is the standard ploy of tin pot dictators.
1
I wanted so badly to say this article is rooted in sexism. Many Democrats, however, are expressing these sentiments. They're saying Democrats need a centrists white guy to win. The feeling is real. Misogyny is real. It's appropriate to report on this subject.
Where the NYT and other outlets will go off the rails is if the handwringing over women politicians goes off the rails. The early signs don't look good, with the overblown coverage of Warren's "likability" and a freshman congresswoman's use of a swear word. Proportionality is key.
1
The Dems don't need to fire up their base. If they are not fired up because of Trump then they aren't Democrats. They can win with a woman but not someone that scares the middle.
1
Why are people talking about Agent Orange being in office for 20/20? That's not going to happen. New York state is going to box his ears pretty badly. He can't do philanthrophy but he does have his finger on the button but, Mueller's grand jury has extended for 6 more months. Trump's boxed in again by the wall, by Rush, Laura and Fox News. Boxed in by congressional committees and so is the enabling Republican Party and especially Mitch McConnell that the press is letting this evil man off the hook. Agent Orange is cornered pretty bad. He can't run, hide or lie his way out of the corner he boxed himself into.
1
The article looks for a changing cultural climate. But even the most macho countries have female leaders. What characterizes almost all of them is that they are all business. You won't hear people like Thatcher or Merkel about the glass ceiling.
For some voters being a woman is a positive. But for others - and that includes many women - it raises the question whether this woman is really interested in all those boring details of government - many of which are typical man things.
It was here that Clinton lost her way. it was not smart of her to attack Trump on gender related issues ("grab them by the ...") while ignoring social-economic issues.
2
I would not vote for anyone, man or woman, who demanded Al Franken’s resignation. No one who pandered to those who equate his minimal transgressions with those of Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby (and Trump) deserves to lead the country.
1
The question is not whether or not a woman candidate could beat Trump in 2020. The question is should the Democratic party take the risk with the future of our country on the line? No one wants to hear the truth that there are many men, and quite a few women who will not vote for a female candidate. And close calls in Senate and Governors races in the mid-terms doesn't change that. Even taking a majority in the House with many new female/minority legislators does not change that. Those are local races. That does not mean a female candidate can win in a national election in states where voters are openly hostile to Democrats in general and would find a female Dem especially polarizing.
Can a woman win in the states Clinton lost in 2016? Can Harris, Warren, or Gillibrand win in those states? As long as there is an electoral college, these questions must be answered honestly and the answers should guide potential candidates. Let's not turn the primaries into a diner menu with too many choices no one really wants to try. That is a big part of why the GOP got stuck with Trump in 2016.
3
“Much of the debate is grounded in the question of whether Mrs. Clinton’s loss represented a rejection of women as president, or of one specific woman.” I believe “one specific woman” is the answer. Mrs. Clinton comes across as someone who appears to believe she is entitled and above the ordinary common American. The little people get to vote and there were many who were turned off by this attitude. Having her as the other choice was a gift to Trump.
6
Irrelevant whether a woman can win.
No question women are doing better with Trump than they would be if Hillary Clinton had won.
2
Just as we learned in 2016 that racism is not dead in our country, we have to face up to the fact that sexism is still alive and well in our country.
Getting Trump out of office is the #1 priority. We CANNOT take a chance on a female candidate, because Joe Sixpack - of whom there are more than we realize - will never see a woman as equal to a man.
And we cannot assume that Jane Sixpack will automatically vote for a female candidate, either.
You have to put yourself in the shoes of the average voter, and realize that in their view, a woman is still not even level with a male candidate.
We have to present equals as the 2 candidates, and it will take a male candidate to be seen as equal to Trump.
THEN, that male candidate has to be seen as being better than DJT.
Fingers crossed, that he is out of office before 2020, and we won't have this dilemma.
1
When asked in a CNN interview a few months back how she would fund her 4 trillion dollar spending plans, AOC struggled but with the aid of the interviewer managed to find half a trillion, from additional tax revenue.
Frighteningly, the shortfall of three and a half didn’t seem to bother her.
She needs too put her head down, learn the process and develop some policy before she starts spending our tax dollars.
4
@Lazza May...The ironic thing is that Oc-Tez is now one of those fat cats that she wants to tax to pay for her sandbox. Of course, she'll probably donate all of her $220K+ salary to charities.
As a Republican who voted for a third party candidate because of Trumps obnoxious personality, but who is encouraged by the success that Trump has had in addressing the promises that he made during the campaign, I hope that the Democrats, mired in identity and gender politics continue to follow their misconceived belief that Hilary was defeated because she was a woman. My belief is that she was defeated because of her arrogance (deplorables), and policy positions (no attention to job creation, emphasis on minority rights, etc.), and not because of her gender. I have no doubt that a female candidate who has the right message for the majority of voters can prevail in a presidential election because of her empathy and not because of her gender. Current Democratic female candidates are doomed to failure because of thier insistence on issues that do not concern the majority of voters; their willingess to use even unscrupulous means to attain their goals; their disdain for those who are not minorities; their censure of, and disgust with, the capitalist system; and the arrogance of their insistence that anyone who does not agree with them is morally deficient or racist. This has nothing to do with gender and unfortunately could be applied to most, but not all, of the male Democratic candidates this cycle.
2
Dems need to be much more pragmatic. Now is the time to come together and chose a candidate everyone can enthusiastically get behind. If dems continue the way they are, they will remain divisive and never win. I'm already turned off by these egotistical politicians. Do the right thing. Save us from Trump. Save the environment.
3
In many other countries women have won the top job no reason it won't happen in the USA. Seems to me Obama and Trump were far greater longshots then a woman being elected president in 2020. In an economic downturn and little fear of terrorism Warren would be a fine candidate. If other conditions exist a more centrist candidate would seem a better bet be it a male or female.
As I read this article, I keep thinking to myself why is it other countries like Germany and England, for example, have had no problem electing women to their top leadership positions. Now I am hearing that our country may not be ready for a female president. Still? Nonsense! This is exactly the time. Remember we fought for our right to vote and that was only about a hundred years ago. So let the primary season begin and may the best candidate win.
2
I want someone who can win and that is not Warren. Talking about mandayory paid leave will not win the election. It is laughable that she thinks the nation is ready for some of her ideas. Yes, I agree that Warren is knowledgeable but no one wants to listen to her angry harangues about Wall Street. Gillibrand is also unelectable after having attacked Franken.
6
The minute Trump walked behind Clinton's back during the debate, I knew she was going to lose. Something on that primeval level.
1
It’s time for Democrats to start thinking about this as the marketing exercise it is. The goal is to win by segmenting enough winning areas of democratic voters. We know we’re a lock in the coasts so do whatever it takes to convert key upper Midwest states that are just wins. Get over the Hilary nonsense attitude that you don’t want people’s votes solely because you’re not Trump. It doesn’t matter. If people protest vote for Democrats then guess what, it’s a vote we need. Enough with trying to please everybody and focus on winning.
2
I think we really need to be discussing Plan B. Who is best to run against President Pence?
1
@Richard Weber...Already looking ahead to 2028, eh Richard? It's good to see someone on the left hasn't left planet Reality.
1
Under no circumstances will I vote for Kirsten Gillibrand. I will not forget or forgive the way she went after the bait and threw Al Franken under the bus after he was teed up by right wing media.
In a primary election season where there will be a crowded Democratic field, it is crucial that Democrats do not hand The Twitterer In Chief ammunition to use in the general election. Gillibrand is Exhibit A of someone who has already proven herself to be so opportunistic as to be willing to eat her own and for this reason alone is not to be trusted.
8
Hillary Clinton did not lose the election in any way becasue she was a woman. It is foolish to make it the major issue when her own character and in fact the Clinton family name is and remains unelectable.
In today's world, any woman who has the character, honesty and fortitude to do the job, can and will win, as long as Clinton is not part of her name.
1
In this "macho" white male atmosphere, no woman should run. Bernie Sanders shouldn't run. The Democrats have to put up a white male who is a fantastic speaker. All these women running is a waste. Wait until next time. Local elections are totally different to presidential ones. Also the Democrats need all these people in Congress. The Democrats get caught up in petty issues and lose the big picture. They don't know how to stick together and win. I'm a woman. Remember all the hatred spewed at Hillary.
2
Was the problem “woman” or was the problem which woman, Hillary Clinton.
Nevertheless, to succumb to “no, we can’t attempt to have a woman candidate for president” would be like saying we could never have women astronauts.
Let’s forget the gender thing once and for all. Period.
4
I don't care whether it's a man or woman, as an Independent voter, I'd like to know what the Dem answer is to the migrant caravan, other than "open border" which is unacceptable to me. We are not talking about a few thousands in the caravan, we are talking all those economic migrants who can jump on this bandwagon and claim "asylum" which is just bogus. Don't believe me? Just look at the mess in Europe with the migrant crisis. We CANNOT allow that to happen, as the noble but naive execution from Merkel. While Trump's policy is confrontational, his gist is not wrong. Dems cannot and should not disregard the core problem, as knee-jerk reaction to whatever Trump does or says.
6
The American people just want a 'no drama' competent government again. They want a experenced progressive President who will support our allies and appoint experts to rrun the departments of our government. The democrats should consider the following people as candidates for President:
Jay Inslee, Jeff Merkley, Christopher Murphy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, Brian Schatz, John Hickenlooper and Sherrod Brown.
3
Interesting that this story focuses on the plight and problem posed by Hillary Clinton, labeled the 2016 loser when in fact she won the popular vote by a significant margin.
2
@Stephen Beard...Then why isn't President Clinton running for re-election? For that matter, why isn't President Obama running for his fourth term? Or, President Clinton for his umpteenth term? How about President Merkel? Or President Trudeau? What's the big hang-up?
We need a candidate who can deal with a bully without stooping to his level and unconsciously pandering to his strengths (of a sort) without coming off as holier than thou, grandstanding or too emotional.
In my opinion, Elizabeth Warren is not that person. She is Trump’s next dream candidate.
Sen. Harris has confronted worse than Trump at trial. Senator Klobucher showed a steely-eyed resolve in questioning Brett Kavanaugh without taking the bait.
3
With all due respect to women everywhere, if this nation can elect Trump, then it surely can elect a woman.
1
Enough with the hand-wringing and second guessing. A woman ALREADY beat Trump in 2016 by 3 million votes.
1
Don't judge all women by the same standards as Hillary Clinton. If the next person running for the Democratic Party we need to all of us get behind her. Unity wins.
1
In this "macho" white male atmosphere, no woman should run. Bernie Sanders shouldn't run. The Democrats have to put up a white male who is a fantastic speaker. All these women running is a waste. Wait until next time. Local elections are totally different to presidential ones. Also the Democrats need all these people in Congress. The Democrats get caught up in petty issues and lose the big picture. They don't know how to stick together and win.
1
The Democrats must declare war on the Republicans, immediately. They must choose a General and an Adjutant to run this war. Now.
To spend months choosing a Democratic leader is tantamount to facing a ruthless enemy with a committee that only argues with itself. That would guarantee that we lose the war.
I suggest Kamala Harris as President and Beto O’Rourke as Vice President. Let these two great leaders take us into battle against the Republicans and Donald Trump. We can win the war with this sort of adult leadership.
We ARE at war.
Pull the trigger.
Now.
Just writing an article about this topic indicates sexist, patriarchal thinking. Women and men need to run for office without analysis, as equals. Stop over-thinking this please.
1
This article falls prey to the entrenched misogyny in our culture by asking if woman candidates should be/could be supported for presidential runs in this climate but failing to question how anyone could ever vote for a white man candidate after Trump.
1
Oprah is the only woman who could beat Trump. She's got higher TV viewing ratings, that's a thorn in his side.
2
I strongly suspect that our first female president will be elected in 2024, and she will be Republican.
2
"They must stand behind their podiums. No stalking."
this is when Democracy started to die in America, the perfect example of a attempt of intimidation, rudeness, breaking the rules of debate, agreed upon norms, and common decency. This should have taken trump down but the press and the moderator gave him a pass. He rewarded them by trying to crush the Press too. Giving in to a Bully only encourages him because he like a predator smells the weakness and goes after the kill.
Hillary stood her ground waiting for the person in charge to call foul but that did not happen. She remained calm and charged on. I wonder what a man would have done in this situation?
Just remember it took the Russians to figure out a way to show us how bad our voting process really is, they too saw the weakness in the system, and successfully took America down. We all lost including the trump voters, what a win for Russia, back the worst person they could knowing he has broken the law in many ways because they were a part of helping him do that. Putin must go to bed every night, laughing him self to sleep.
Clinton wasn't defeated by misogyny, but by her own deceit, dishonesty, and duplicity. She suffered from a lack of genuineness, and as a result had all of the appeal of milquetoast. Elizabeth Warren is similar in many ways, and has already defeated herself with her 1/1024 part Native American ancestry propaganda! Kamela Harris will be brought down by her anger and her rude and disrespectful demeanor. Amy Klobuchar has great potential, but I'm not sure that she can survive swimming in the swamp.
2
America will have a female president in 2024. Nikki Haley. a woman who actually governed.
2
If the American voter is not completely disconnected from reality, a day old ham sandwich should be able to beat Trump by a wide margin in 2020.
Alas, that’s a pretty big “if.”
2
I have no doubt a strong woman candidate could beat Donald Trump. I really think Donald is afraid of strong women. One who is smart, forceful, and undeterred could beat him by revealing his profound weakness. He’s really a very insecure individual, and like the Wizard of Oz if you pull back the curtain you will see the lack of substance and pretense in this man.
1
This is a question a male friend of mine and I discussed at length yesterday. We both agreed that our country is in need of a woman to lead for a host of reasons. A woman communicates powerfully and prolifically, is a better listener, she takes the initiative establishing stretched goals, offers openness and ability to innovate driven by results, a systematic manager, motivator, collaborator, a builder of teamwork, and she is a champion of change...
"If Democrats nominate a woman in 2020, she will most likely face an onslaught of gender-based attacks from Mr. Trump,"
A woman already knows how to succeed against the odds.
The sad and disturbing question is whether partisan gerrymandering kills any chance of a woman winning the seat of President. Popular votes, the votes of the majority are merely a number holding no weight. Surely, partisan gerrymandering should be ruled unconstitutional.
@mary
Maybe women aren't as smart as you think. The reason I say that (sarcastically) is that your comment ignores the fact that gerrymandering has no effect on statewide elections and presidential elections.
3
In the latest Gallup poll taken August 2018, 28% of Americans identify as Republican, 27% as Democrat, and 43% as independent.
How can the Democrats win? By nominating a candidate who appeals to a majority of Americans, not to a minority of progressives. Hillary was centrist enough, until Bernie pulled her left and frightened many (her email scandal didn’t help).
The progressive left of the party cannot think their personal favorite candidate is presidential, because all Republicans and most Independents will disagree. America is ready for a Madame President. Find someone with solid capitalist and foreign policy credentials, man or woman, and the presidency will be within easy grasp.
3
Most sensible comment I’ve read so far. A far-left candidate like Warren or Sanders won’t win. Don’t know enough about Beto to pass judgement. Hoping Trump is pushed out or “fired”. The country needs someone closer to the center like John Kasich.
The fact that this question exists is proof enough that a man will have better chances to get elected, and Democrats need the best chances they can get.
2
We must nominate a woman, we must. But let's do it without PAC money, and without Goldman Sachs.
Let's listen to the several female candidates through the primaries. Let's pick the best one. Someone with a working class background who can relate to the majority of Americans.
I'm amazed that there is any doubt that Hilary lost because of Hilary - her baggage, and her disconnect from millions of average Americans. Her gender was not the issue that caused her defeat.
But if any woman believes that she can win because she's a woman, she's badly mistaken. What WILL win is a platform that addresses the concerns of most Americans: more and better paying jobs; more affordable, if not universal, health care; an agenda that shows that Washington cares about the 99% instead of only the 1%. Elizabeth Warren has that kind of agenda. Any woman or man who wants to have a chance at winning had better have something similar.
5
There are so many highly qualified candidates in Congress and outside who are sensible, educated, with integrity and soul who would be an excellent president. But they should not run as a "woman/female" candidate but as an American candidate with an agenda/platform for ALL Americans not just the rich, women and minorities. Hillary Clinton would have been a great president. unfortunately, she was dragged down by the Clinton scandals but she did get 3 million more votes than Captain Chaos.
Of course a woman can beat Trump! So long as she connects well with voters and has natural political talent. Like Obama did. Like Bill Clinton did. Like Hillary did NOT.
Democrats: choose a candidate who has a natural and honest voice. Who has a clear vision for our country. Who has a quick wit in debates and knows how to put the likes of Donald Trump in his place. If the candidate has those traits, their gender won't matter. Don't pass up a woman with those traits just because you fear a woman can't win. And don't nominate a woman who lacks those traits just because it would be awesome to have a woman president.
3
We are ready to elect a woman president. The issue in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary season and the 2016 presidential election was not whether we wanted A woman, but whether we wanted THAT woman. The answer was pretty clear; we can debate the why’s ad infinitum but the answer is still the answer. Looking ahead, we need a candidate who can win, and win big. Nothing else matters. In the final analysis, the sex of the candidate should irrelevant as long as the ability to win is there.
That said, the stakes are too high to risk losing the presidency by fielding a candidate to appease some aggrieved constituency within the party, and by that I mean any aggrieved constituency. One has only to look at the disaster called Brexit, which will reduce Great Britain to irrelevance in the world. David Cameron threw a bone to the right wing of his party, lost a referendum he thought he would win, and put the entire nation on the path to being poor and insignificant. And we’ve already got a president and party hellbent on wrecking the nation.
Only winning matters.
1
I do not vote "as a man" although the fact remains....I voted for Hilary Clinton in 2016 despite a lot of reservations about her ability to lead. I was impressed by people's accounts of her private kindnesses, concern, humor, and helpfulness. None of these qualities appeared in her campaigning. I keep looking for a Democratic candidate who meets several criteria.
First, the next Democratic candidate should not be a member of the gerontocracy. I see the ravaging effects of age in myself a well as at least two of the current top candidates. Nevertheless, excessive youth and enthusiasm, which has been wildly present as the new Congress has been installed, is to be avoided.
Second, I look for a candidate with both legislative and executive experience in government. I fear that despite the number of senators who have become president, at least one of these qualities is often lacking
Third, we desperately need someone who listens. Many are good at telling and proclaiming. Fewer are good at listening and finding ways to resolve countervailing pressures.
Finally, I wish for a person who can excite people to come and support their effort.
Right now there are a few people who look good to me, notably Amy Klobuchar. Sherrod Brown, and perhaps a couple of western governors. They look like people who can inspire and lead. Such a candidate would be reassure and inspire Americans as well as clear our palates of the latest disaster.
Clinton didn't lose because she was a woman, she lost because she failed as candidate (and the electoral college). She is a technocrat without any vision or charisma and thus had to make her gender her message. And naturally that is what Trump attacked and what is remembered. America is ready for a female president, provided she actually is chosen because she is a inspiring leader and not because of her gender or connections to the part establishment. Conservative voters did get ecstatic about Palin and Bachman, and even conservative countries like Germany and Poland have elected women as leaders of their nations. bot to mention the conservative icon Thatcher.
2
It's sad that third world countries , tiny countries like Israel have had women as either presidents or prime ministers . The fact that America has not is regressive . Sadly , there are those (some women ) who will not vote for a woman , although quite a few did vote for Hillary . I have to agree that nominating a woman for the Dems will not be a good thing ; until all women are willing to align themselves with a woman candidate . 2016 was very bruising for the Dems and for Hillary . The fact remains that there are those who will continue to disparage any woman candidate , disrespect them , and reject them no matter how qualified she is . We need to wait , as they say ; you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it . Perhaps as more and more millenials grow , and the old entrenched way of thinking becomes obsolete , it will happen .
1
It's not that a woman can't beat Trump, it's that anyone who can't speak to the people and play "reality politics" won't beat him.
While I like her positions, Elizabeth Warren is kind of tone deaf and not very appealing to the majority of the the electorate.
She will not be the nominee.
1
It is sad to read these comments. We are now in 2019, and it is more than 100 years ago that women got the right to vote in most western countries. In Denmark the first time women voted was a referendum during WW1 about Denmark selling the now US Virgin Island to USA. I think it was in 1917. In Scandinavia we tend to vote for the best qualified irrespective of gender. I am a man and has many times perhaps 50% voted for a woman candidate that I found the best qualified. We have had a women prime minister once ( Helle Thorning, 2011 to 2015) and not to forget the head of state the Queen Margaret since 1972. Wish you luck to find a candidate for 2020.
As long as the Electoral College continues, the sex of the president is a very big consideration. Hillary proved that. Women's ascendancy may be a factor, but is it enough by itself? Certainly the results of this last congressional election speaks favorably for the place of women in politics, but there is one other consideration as I see it: the actions of Trump. He is single-handedly destroying a major part of America's relationship with the world and this next president will need to be highly respected and knowledgeable to undo and rebuild.
Look for the abilities and qualities first. Put the very best in office.
1
Unfortunately, for some people, gender does play a role in their voting decisions. It's certainly not right, but I do think gender could affect the election.
Trump is stoking hate and fear, a common tactic of an authoritarian autocrat, because it triggers a basic instinct in people to support a person they *believe* will protect them. Deep-seated in our society is a notion that males are the "protectors". Movies, books, toys and many other things have taught many of us that from an early age.
Democrats need to be realistic and less idealistic in 2020 - The stakes are way, way to high. Whatever candidate has the best chance to win the presidency needs to get the nomination. A woman could very well be that person, there are many very qualified women, but I do think that Democrats need to factor gender into the equation to some degree - Unfortunately.
1
Warren can't win general elections. Even in this past local election, she got less votes than Charlie Baker (the Republican governor that won re-election in MA). Her preaching style is a big turn-off, her DNA question will continue to haunt her. And if MA - her own very liberal backyard - is not ready to elect a female governor, what chance would she get in the rest of the country?
That said, I'm glad women are stepping up the game in general. They all come in their own right. (Even for a smart and intelligent candidate as HRC, she has been viewed as someone's wife, first and foremost, for a very long time.)
I'll bet, whatever happens on the Dem side, the GOP answer to this, is Nikki Haley. She'll be on the 2020 ticket, one way or the other.
4
The question is who will the GOP put up in place of a man impeached, removed, or bowed out- and I must wonder, if he declares an emergency as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, would he be tried in a civilian or military court.
That depends on the language of law I am entirely unfamiliar with, beyond the Constitutional basic division of power.
The GOP might very well put up a ‘Trump in a skirt’ (dress, or, please, not an unflattering yellow suit) - flattering appearance applies to either gender - the majority of those who LISTENED to the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate said the poorly shaved, overpancaked and sweaty Nixon “won” the first televised matchup - while the majority of those who watched, or read - influenced by descriptions or photos declared Kennedy the “winner” (I still have a hard time with the idea of winning a debate- the more intelligent candidate whose policies are closer to mine has always been the winner of these things - and ‘intelligent’ oft means the victor’s positions are closer to my own).
If the GOP puts up a woman, the Democrats will have to follow suit.
And if Trump goes down, it is likely his VP will too, for lesser conspiracy to/obstruction of justice/even RICO organized crime, if a whole lot of the persons of interest not nailed yet take a plea agreement or stand trials they will lose as Trump surrogates, even if evidence is in their favor, for “We are the jury/Fear our fury”.
The Dens will be forced to match a female challenge.
The new, progressive women in the House have been doing exactly what needs to be done to defeat Trump: being absolutely unphased about being called out by an immature, vulgar man. Winning women will be forced to speak up in a way women have been pressured not to in the past: being nice and taking insults from Donald Trump will win nobody anything.
What Hillary Clinton was missing from her campaign was what a winning woman can project: joy at being with a crowd, taking risks supporting popular programs without equivocation, and being willing to call out Trump for actions such as stalking her during a debate.
We have almost two years to see how effectively all the prospective candidates are able to stand up for the values of the majority of Americans, stand up for our future generations, and do so with a positive attitude and with humanity, morality, and competence that is far beyond Trump's capability.
The problem for all the possible female Democratic candidates and several of the males is they don't have a foreign policy/national security profile. That could put them at a serious disadvantage against Trump (or any other Republican). Trump has a tough guy profile. It's mostly phony but at least it's something.
Hillary had that flank covered, but the rest of her baggage dragged her down, so having national security profile is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite. It can be established, then Senator Obama bolstered his credentials by coming out for drone strikes against terrorists in 2008.
That will require the current crop of candidates to get out of their comfort zone and that might be a real problem for several of female candidates and Bernie Sanders. The fact that Sanders couldn't do so in 2016 suggests it may be beyond him. The test still waits Warren, Harris and other potential female candidates.
Clinton won the popular vote. Propaganda and lies were targeted to the electoral college pivotal states. Whether man or woman, Trump, the Fox News machine and Russian bots are going to throw everything they can at them. Clinton lost to the Russians. Whomever runs in 2020 is going to have to campaign smarter than she did. I don't think she really got what was going on or maybe was just not direct enough in encountering it. Comey and the FBI were no help. Obama, in his eternal trying to be fair, did not help. People needed to know what the Russians were doing, they needed to understand what was a lie and what was not. The regular media gave too much attention to Trump, they treated the whole thing like a circus instead of a serious presidential campaign. How about papers, both electronically and in print, publishing full scripts of speeches - the way it used to be done - so people can see and think about what candidates are actually saying?
1
I suppose during the selection process a number of candidates will present their views across a broad range of topics affecting the US - civil rights, social issues, education issues, economic issues, world issues, climate issues. They will also be projecting their characters. The press such as the NYT can really help by covering policy in depth through research and interviews - actually informing the public and catalyzing the candidates to grow their messages and appeal, meanwhile starving the anti-good-governance-news-cycle of oxygen.
Under such a scenario with minds and policy displayed plainly and clearly, the primary voting public will have something far more substantial than gender and race on which to base their vote.
Vision first.
1
The bogeyman is haunting democrats and when Trump beats Warren, (this is in the DNA of the next election, jokes on us type thing) it will be the bogeyman gone wild. Warren is less appealing than Clinton because Warren has no hint of moderation, where Clinton was center-most. Warren is as unlikable as Clinton. Ultimately, it's really more about politics than gender. Americans lag behind other democracies in electing women to the highest office, but the time is nigh!
1
Depends on which woman. Surely neither Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris would put up with Trump hovering in back of her during a debate. And why didn't the moderator stop it? Warren and Harris are not afraid of Trump and don't feel they have to be polite, good girls.
1
Why are people assuming that Trump will be a candidate in 2020? I think that either Trump is stopped or our country may not recover from Trump’s disastrous time in office.
Here’s the predicament a progressive female candidate brings to an election. In the back of every man’s mind, he knows that this woman will prefer women over men and will institute gender bias against men in every aspect of society. Witness how Democrats celebrated colleges and universities expelling men based solely on uncorroborated allegations by women in these school’s kangaroo courts (that were not even those sanctioned by government) where the man could not face his accuser. Hillary Clinton, especially in the MeToo movement, would have given these jet fuel; on the other hand, Betsy Devos, the Education Secretary under Trump, dismantled them. If a female candidate is to get my vote, she must be overt in her experience and expressions that she will not punish men for being men or favor women just because they are women. Sadly, I don’t think the Democrats get that today, which is why I cannot vote for one.
2
The key criterion for a successful Democratic candidate is one who addresses the question "Will the Trump voters that had previously voted for Obama switch their vote back to the Democrats for this candidate?" Everything else is moot.
3
Can a woman beat trump in 2200?
It's possible but the Democrats must be very careful as to their choice.
Of course that's taking into consideration that trump will still be POTUS in 2020.
Women?
I don't vote for genders. Hillary didn't represent ideas or ideals. She talked in canned and coded language and used whatever political leverage available to defeat Bernie for the nomination while ignoring large segments of the population during the presidential campaign. The expectation that she could win women's vote because of her gender was simplistic and her allocation of time and energy to mostly $$$$ locations reveal her important goal.
In spite of my internal dislike for Bill Clinton I supported Hillary until I saw her on the campaign trail, rather, I should say, didn't see her. I never had the feeling that she was talking to me or people I know. Like advertisers, she used code to arouse familiar feelings but the supporting substance wasn't there.
The Super Delegates laid out the callousness of the idea that a committee of people I didn't know was making the grand decision. I can make my own mistakes.
Candidates who are genuine, have good and workable ideas, and can represent themselves as capable will get my vote. The next candidate should consider spending less time talking to wealthy donors and more time talking to voters about how what things (she) will do to improve our country for all of us.
If a (female) candidate brings little more to the table than what generations of men have already shown us, there's not really a choice. Elections have to become more than voting for the lesser of two evils.
Education is key! Public Financing of open debates!
4
"Democrats Puzzle Over Whether a Woman Will Beat Trump"
I'm sure some Democrats do. They, like those queasy about impeaching Trump, should get out of the way.
HRC got 3 million more votes than Trump, even though he had a lot help from Russia, gerrymandering, and Comey.
The USA would clearly be a very sick country if, for example, Elizabeth Warren were to lose the election to Trump -- assuming Trump were not already in prison.
I’m a middle aged white man. Since everyone seems concerned about who middle aged white men will vote for, I’ll weigh in.
In 2016 I voted for Hillary Clinton. I wasn’t completely satisfied with her record of public service (though I voted for her for Senator back when I lived in NYC) and I was disgusted by her race-baiting campaign against Obama in 2008. But I would vote for a subway rat over Trump, and I would vote for Hillary over a subway rat, so the choice was clear.
Of the women contenders for 2020, I would be happy to vote for Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar. I think they are both excellent public servants with inspiring work ethics who have shown that they stick to their principles even when it’s inconvenient. I think Warren’s economic message and Klobuchar’s impressive legislative record and ability to reach across the aisle without being compromised will resonate with heartland voters and that they can succeed in places where Hillary failed.
Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand, on the other hand, have records that indicate that they will sacrifice principles for political expediency; I think they’ll be branded “coastal elites” and won’t do any better than Hillary did in places like Wisconsin and Michigan.
I do think it would be satisfying to see Trump unseated by a woman, given his brazen sexism. But it’s more important that he get unseated, period. And I think the majority of both male and female voters feel the same way.
2
The US should have a female President but I’m not happy with the quality of the Democratic candidates so far. The party is drifting to the left - or rather, what the clueless American voters consider left, which is just Trumpian populism with a different skin color. Warren, Harris or Abrams won’t win nor do they deserve to win based on their political agendas. Beto? I have no idea what his platform is, and neither does he. Please, find somebody like Nikki Hayley, with a compelling life story and a centrist ideology. Yes, women delivered the Democrats’ victory in the midterms but they were educated affluent suburban women. They won’t vote for a socialist.
1
While I would love to see a woman as president, she must be the right candidate, no more or less than any male candidate. In my opinion, that person must also be a Democrat. I won't care about the candidate's gender anywhere near as much as I'll care about their positions, their charisma (it doesn't have to be fiery but it is imperative that it be credible and genuine leadership) and their ability to give it back to Trump and his acolytes better than they can dish it out.
The other major requirement is serious and effective messaging from the Democratic party - not just against Trump and other things, but for positive changes for all Americans of all classes.
It's a tall order but I believe it can be done. I just have not yet seen who the most effective messenger will be. In the meanwhile, I hope that some of our new Representatives will allow themselves to get the lay of the land before making silly mistakes that give the Republicans pinata after pinata with which to beat them up. These refreshing new people have been given a great privilege and a great opportunity; they'd better not blow it - please!
I'd like to see a male run for Prez. and a Female for VP.....a well known, savvy and respected female who could be President if something happened that necessitated it. This Female VP would become a household name and all the while be groomed to be President. This is not anti-woman at all, or not meant to be. It is my take at a strategy to finally get our US women through the glass ceiling. Anybody else have a strategy to share? Open dialogue will benefit all.
1
Really? I can't believe this is an issue. I'm torn between Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, but either would make a terrific candidate and an excellent president. To heck with the naysayers.
The premise of this article is insulting to all women. The mid-terms more than proved that women have the power to lead and win elections. At this point in time, we have a President who is unfit for office and is incapable of leading the country and there is a question whether a woman can beat him in 2020?
The amount of older women who outright refused to vote for Hillary is a significant problem for the Dems. The disproportionate anger this group showed towards her (vs supporting her as candidate it even just supporting a women who would be the first ever to hold the office) was real, and frankly a bit nuts. Deny it, ignore it, etc., but it helped breathe fire into Trump's campaign in the rust belt. Tough to see how this will change with a female candidate significantly younger with even more opportunities and different approach than the older female cohort.
1
If I read one more comment stating that Dems need to stay away from ‘identity politics’, I’m going to scream.
For the record, Hillary rarely, if ever, mentioned her gender. Having for decades experienced first-hand vicious misogyny, why we would she? It was the media (and many voters themselves) who could not let it go. Constant discussion (including digs from male Dem candidates) about her ‘likability,’ As if Trump were likeable! Did she have the physical stamina for the job of President? Was she too ambitious? Rush Limbaugh’s assertion that we no one would want to have to watch her age in the office- Ewww! Her clothes. Her voice, Things that would have never been said about a man.
Hillary wanted to discuss policy. She wanted to discuss her experience and qualifications because those were her strengths. Yet the myth persists that she ran on ‘identity politics’ and that is why she lost.
And it has already started with Warren as so many of the reader comments here demonstrate. Stern warnings that we shouldn’t vote for her ‘just because she’s a woman’. That Dems will lose if they make diversity, rather than policy, the focus of the election. When nobody has suggested any such thing.
73
@Suzanna Exactly! Doesn't tha fact that a candidate as weak as Mrs Clinton won the popular vote show that the average American is not a sexist pig? So isn't the real question what person are we talking about and what are that person's credentials and visions for America's future?
3
@Suzanna
(1) "For the record, Hillary rarely, if ever, mentioned her gender." No, that's just revisionist history (for ex., https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jul/27/hillary-clinton-breaks-through-glass-ceiling-on-stage-at-dnc-video). Gender certainly wasn't the only thing she ran on, but it's false to claim she didn't run on it at all.
(2) You claim that "nobody has suggested" that Democrats make diversity rather than policy the focus of the election. That's also false. Steve Phillips made just that argument in a NYT op-ed in November (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/opinion/democrats-midterms-progressives.amp.html). Kamala Harris has also embraced that argument (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/08/03/kamala-harris-netroots-identity-politics-762254).
1
@Suzanna Are you kidding me? Hillary rarely mention her gender? Her entire campaign was practically based on that theme and her supporters tried to shame anyone who questioned her as misogynistic. Heck, she even planned her election night venue to coincide with this theme. She and her supporters were so delusional that they even attacked those that voted for Jill Stein as misogynistic.
1
The media is at least partly to blame for the fact that Beto O'Rorke is talked about & Stacey Adams is not. The former was spoken of often and as interesting, exciting etc. while Ms. Abrams hardly made the news at all. I bet millions more Americans who do not live in Texas or Georgia know about him than have ever heard of her.
As to whether a women can win in 2020 - I hope so, but I have no idea. What I do know is that the Dems had better figure out who can best beat Trump and do that.
A final note - firing up the base is great, necessary even. However, in order to take the White House moderate Dems, Independents, and fed-up and/or moderate Republicans must also be won over. Moving hard left will feel good to some in "the base," but may very well give us another 4 years of Trump.
9
A Democratic Presidential victory in 2020 will likely not hinge so much on who the candidate is as much as how well the current Democratic run House can make Trump and the GOP look like a leader and a party that do not serve the American people and only serve their own self interests.
2
I feel it's a simple calculus. A woman can win, but not a woman from the coasts, one who can be tagged - accurately or not - as excessively oriented to identity politics, including gender, or too-ardently "progressive," or exclusive and dismissive of heartland considerations that blue collar and rural Democrats and the many disaffected former blue collar and rural Democrats hold most dear: the economy, the economy, the economy, and equality not just of economic opportunity but cultural respect.
The woman who can win, in part by winning the respect and support of the disaffected heartland voters who made the difference the last time, is Amy Klobuchar, who is my pick so far regardless gender. Her combination of smarts, strength, honesty, credibility, empathy, stability and sober-mindedness, as well as bridge-building capability, is unmatched - all of those qualities in one person would be refreshing. One quality important to me and I think important to the undecided middle and the disenfranchised is her lack of appearing personally opportunistic and on the make, which can't be said about many of the other touted candidates, including the other touted female candidates.
Is she as progressive as I'd like? No, but I think she can actually accomplish many things that will satisfy progressive causes, and get started on the many things that have languished (and languished not just under the Trump administration).
The biggest thing is, she can win. Can the others? I doubt it.
7
If you had been paying any attention, you would know that nobody in Congress has fought longer or harder for blue collar workers than Elizabeth Warren. Are you familiar with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? That was her baby.
1
@Rocky A woman from the coasts can win, just like a city slicker New Yorker man can't win?
Don't overthink this. A quality candidate from any part of the country will win if they connect with and energize voters.
1
@Suzanna
Comments like this will not help women's prospects in any upcoming election. "Nobody in Congress has fought longer or harder for blue collar workers than Elizabeth Warren". Are you kidding? History did not start in 2013 when Warren joined Congress. It wouldn't take much research for you to find out the facts and realize that you are woefully mistaken.
Is this silly "Nobody in Congress has thought longer or harder for blue collar workers than Elizabeth Warren" meme supposed to replace 2016's "Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to run ever run for president" meme? I hope not; it is equally, and demonstrably, false and ineffective.
2
If she bases her campaign on appeals to the suburban and the wealthy, spending most of her time raising money and almost none convincing those without anything to donate that she will fight for them, a woman running for president will lose badly. But if she champions small donations, convinces those who are neither wealthy nor connected that she will fight for them first and only, and keeps mega-donors last in line, a woman has a very good chance to win the White House. It all depends on whether she plays it safe or not.
12
Pakistan, India, and Israel had female heads of state decades ago. The United States used to be a world leader. What's taking us so long to realize a woman can be president?
16
@ Linda in Oklahoma
We are due for a female President or Vice President. Overdue. But not a woman who lied about her Native American heritage to get accepted into Harvard. Not THIS woman.
2
Pakistan and India are anomaly. Their past female leaders were all but someone's daughter or wife, extending the family name. Israel and Britain and Germany are arguably far better progressive in this respect.
1
It’s a fair question, given that Trump largely won on misogyny, racism, and a ton of ugly lying.
18
The Third World:
Indira Gandhi - Daughter of PM
Benazir Bhutto - Daughter of PM
Sirimavo Bandanaike - Wife of PM
Chandrika Kumaratunge - Daughter of two former PMs
Hasina Wajed - Daughter of PM
Begum Zia - Wife of Former President
Corazon Aquino - Wife of assassinated Senator
Gloria Arroyo - Daughter of Former President
Megawati Sukarnoputri - Daughter of President
Hillary Clinton - Wife of President
11
Easy to forget, as we're reminded only every 12 minutes or so (OK, maybe every 9 minutes):
"[Hillary Clinton] won the popular vote..."
For those who don't already know this:
1. HRC won the popular vote only because she ran up a huge margin in California. If one ignores California, she lost the popular vote.
2. The popular vote is not how Presidential elections get decided. The Electoral College is how. Maybe that's unfair and should be changed, but that's how it's done, and HRC knew that when she ran.
3. The Democratic Party used to think the Electoral College was the best thing since sliced bread; only recently has that changed. In the summer of 2000, for example, it was generally expected that Bush would win the popular vote but that Gore would win the Electoral College vote (it turned out just the opposite, of course). Many (as in dozens) of editorials appeared that summer, suggesting that Bush just "suck it up" and acknowledge that the US elects its Presidents based on Electoral College vote (in other words, the very same thing that many of those editorial writers now oppose). As I recall very well, those editorial writers concluded in 2000 that the Electoral College was the very symbol of American greatness; my, how things change.
12
@MyThreeCents
We are a democracy. The will of the majority of citizens should be what is respected. And yes, the majority picked Hillary Clinton.
Come on NY Times! Two people complaining about the possibility of a woman candidate doesn’t measure up to tension in the Democratic Party. Seriously, you’d be better off filling space with anything else rather than trying to develop melodrama out of an election that is two years away. What a waste of space this was...I expect better. And the fact you made it an alert is even more damning. Keep this up and even your most devoted subscribers will start questioning your judgement.
24
The authors bias seems to get through, "Some women see bias in the excitement surrounding a potential presidential run by Beto O’Rourke, the Texan who energized the left in a losing Senate bid, while Stacey Abrams is not mentioned as a possibility even though she had a much narrower loss for governor of Georgia."
I would vote for Stacey Abrams if she ran for President, or any other national office. I would not vote for Beto, even though I gave him a small donation, Harris, Gillibrand, Booker or Biden or any other centrist/center right Third Way Democrats.
The same reason why I did not vote for HRC. She assumed it was her turn and the people around her fawned over her as the chosen one. She should have cleaned Trump's clock and yet she lost.
They are out of touch with the needs of the vast majority of the mass of voters in the poor, working class and middle classes. Some of them talk the good talk but retreat to their comfortable circles in NY/Washington after getting into office. Which is why we are in the soup with Trump. In fact I would not vote for Obama again.
We need a decent brawler to go against Trump in 2020 and Stacey Abrams is a worthy candidate. If only she ran.
14
Simply ludicrous that the only ones saying that a woman can't be president is liberal democrats. Practically everyone else who can vote has been onboard with the notion for years.
Bottom line is that the American people want to vote in the right man for the job, whether male or female.
5
Sorry, as a life long Democrat, I can never vote for Warren. She is the Bernie Sanders of the Democratic Party, running solely on nothing I can support.
14
You don’t support regulating big big banks and financial institutions and holding them responsible when they tank the economy and defraud their customers?
What a pity.
1
If you stopped writing articles like this maybe people would stop questioning whether women could be in power
38
Presidential politics from 2008 thru 2016 reveal only one truth. If a candidate really, truly wants to win the Presidency, make certain Hillary Clinton is your opponent. Accept no substitute.
11
Stop being "perplexed & puzzled" and get to work.
Do you job and don't worry about whether _________ will beat Trump.
The way things are going anyone will be able to beat him.
5
As went the Women’s March, so will go the Democratic Party in nominating a candidate in 2020. The imperative to beat Trump will run smack into the party’s compulsion to nominate someone who reflects what it believes is its future: young, female, and nonwhite. Hands up, everyone who wants Alexandra Orcasio-Cortez! Then Trump wins. And to those whose wishful thinking is causing them to argue that Trump won’t run for re-election because he will become bored or find it too difficult or want to make more money, you underestimate the narcissism you otherwise say he possesses. Nothing stokes the ego as much as being elected president — except being elected twice.
12
@PL
Do people consider A 0-C nonwhite? She is of Puerto Rican descent and according to the last census, 76% of the people on the island consider themselves to be white.
In an unrelated matter, I just learned she only lived in the Bronx until she was five and then her family moved to Westchester County. This lady is holding several trick bags.
Stacey Abrams said she stands with Linda Sarsour. That suffices to destroy her candidacy. Kamala Harris has a poor record in California which will subject her to a lot of criticism. Elizabeth Warren suffers from the obvious. Amy Klobuchar is too passive and is known for poor handling of her staff. In terms of sheer talent, Michael Bloomberg has the best credentials. In terms of charisma, no one comes close to Beto O’Rourke. If Beto devotes his time to being educated on issues, no one will touch him.
11
We need to concentrate on getting more Democrats to vote, not on winning over Trump voters. Anyone who voted for a sleaze who boasted about grabbing women's private parts, is not going to vote for any Democratic candidate, male or female. I voted for Hillary Clinton because she was the most qualified candidate, and more importantly because she was the Democratic nominee.
17
puh leeze there are no 'competing narratives' on the status of women running for president. This is a reporter thinking of a straw man and casting about until they find someone to say 'yeah I suppose so'.
7
The next president will be whomever the elites that actually control this country choose. Feel free to vote for whatever because it does not count.
7
Man or woman, it has to be someone whose credentials are squeaky clean, and has broad appeal. It would also be preferable that the candidate not seem
like a retread, a failed past candidate, but one who can bring new ideas and energy.
This person needs to be the perfect counterpoint to Trump (tho I hope, and expect that he will never actually present himself once his crimes are exposed)
For these reasons I do not support Warren’s candidacy who will always face questions about her heritage; nor Sanders, whose ideas are still too progressive for many mainstream Americans, and whose appeal have appeared to be towards a narrow ethnic demographic. I fear that Biden may represent too much of the past, even if it was Obama.
For the sake of the nation, the Democrats must beat anyone from the GOP.
If the economy should ever tank by the 2020 elections, maybe their task might get a bit easier ?
5
Right now, only a woman can beat Trump. That's where the momentum is, that's where the energy is.
6
Don't count on it. Most people don't vote for a candidate just because of the gender.
3
Surely a woman can run in '20 and defeat Trump. The critical question is who and then the same question for whomever runs, can they beat Trump in the electoral college meaning: Ohio, Pa, Mi, Wi, Iowa, Co, NC, Florida? The precision of the question is what's really important. Amy Klobuchar can probably deliver 5 of those states, maybe 6. Plus there is stark difference in age, and she's not from Mass or NY or Ca. Dems have to get smart about this or the court will be lost for 30 years or more.......amongst other areas like the wreckage of our environment, etc.....
119
@Northcountry
Exactly, and I believe Klobuchar would also win significant support from the Independents, which will be crucial to a Democrat win in 2020.
Revisit the Cavanaugh hearing and look at how effectively she dealt with him. She’s a very sincere, competent and smooth operator - with no baggage.
27
@Northcountry
The Supreme Court is already lost for the next 20-30 years. And the federal bench is now heavily stacked against individual rights and liberties. That has been the biggest tragedy of the Teump presidency.
(But I generally agree on Klobuchar.)
12
You get it.
Thankfully Obama was a Senator from Illinois. If he represented New York or Massachusetts, it would have had an entirely different ending.
1
I am a woman and based on what I have observed, many male Dems could not bring themselves to vote for Hillary. I do not believe our society has outgrown its rampant misogyny, even on the left. The Dems need to run a male for president and perhaps a female for VP, or else we'll have four more years of Trump's destruction of our democracy and middle class.
8
I think that Dems should nominate a woman (qualified one) and if she will loose to Trump, the US deserves 4 more years of Trump.
5
@VT1985 " based on what I have observed, many male Dems could not bring themselves to vote for Hillary. I do not believe our society has outgrown its rampant misogyny..."
If most of your observations have been made in the South, I don't doubt it. But fortunately, male Dems living in the rest of the country don't have this problem.
1
Who had the excitement? Who had the crowds?
Sen. sanders!
Main steam media and NYT never reported on the dozen head to head polls of sanders vs Trump.
Sanders was not once behind Trump- winning all by 8-12 PTs
Shame On the DNC.
Shame on the Clinton campaign for not ONCE going to Michigan or Ohio during the general election.
Hubris
Now we are living the results
Remember this in 2020
13
The article ignores a key point. All the potential women candidates are very qualified, but they are all from Blue states that are sure to vote for any Democratic ticket. Hillary had the popular vote, but lost the electoral college vote. A Democratic ticket needs to factor that in and be able to win a big Red or border line state (Texas or Florida).
6
Run it as a ranked-choice election please.
4
We hate women, especially post- menopausal women. It’s not rational, but we don’t call it out like we did racism with Obama. “Imperfect” ( who isn’t?), “not likeable/trustworthy” are all code for ( insert equivalent of racial slur). We won’t elect a woman.
6
In therapy sometimes one is told to avoid "should" statements. Focus on the present tense of the verb to be. Is. Are. It helps focus the mind objectively.
Here is a "to be" statement: nothing, and I repeat nothing, matters as much in 2020 as defeating Donald Trump. The next priority on the list, whatever you think it is, is very distant second.
It follows logically that Democratic strategy should focus rigorously on winning above all and not observe any taboos with regard to their analysis.
No gambling. Look at what wins, and do it. If what wins is a photogenic, charismatic white man with a fraction the experience of Hillary Clinton, then that's what you do. Fair? No. If you can make a case to the contrary, by all means make it. "Is" statements, not "should" statements, though. If you don't think not having four more years of Trump is priority number one, we just aren't in the same reality.
10
@ThomasH "Here is a "to be" statement: nothing, and I repeat nothing, matters as much in 2020 as defeating Donald Trump." Absolutely 100% correct. Pretty much anyone would be better!
2
I will be astonished if the GOP runs Trump for re-election in 2020. Incumbency has its advantages, but plenty of politicians have won elections without it. And Trump is such a bad, bad, bad candidate; he has such a bad record already and will have a worse one by next year -- it would be madness not to primary him. And that's assuming that he's even still in office.
5
@Jim — have you seen Trump’s approval ratings among Republicans? Pick a poll, any poll. They’re not living in your world.
1
As always, I am tired of all the gratuitous Hillary-bashing that goes on here. A lot of people who should know better are still making excuses to themselves for why they didn't give her the full support she needed in 2016 to prevent the Trump disaster.
Clinton was unfairly and absolutely hosed from all quarters in the 2016 campaign and you can't tell me it wasn't pure unadulterated misogyny.
From the 12-hour Benghazi interrogation to the email obsession, from Russian interference to the disgraced sexist Matt Lauer's Pearl Harbor debate attack, from the NYT's infamously incorrect "criminal referral" story to "Pneumonia-gate", from the stolen Wikileaks documents with the risotto recipes to the media's World War III-headline style coverage of the Comey letter, Hillary Clinton was absolutely held to a higher moral and behavioral standard in 2016 than either Trump or Sanders.
No one can honestly look at the 2016 election and not see the rampant sexism that was at play. Sadly much of the anti-Hillary sexism came from women as well as men (hello, Maureen Dowd).
We can only hope that with the recent Congressional elections and Nancy Pelosi's ascension to the speakership, the attitudes towards strong women seeking political power are becoming more enlightened.
17
I agree that Hillary was a better candidate than Trump, but that was such a low bar. She was not a great candidate. She was too close to Wall Street to look like she cares for regular folk.
1
If you keep publishing this specious argument, you will give it
undeserved validity and make the prediction of misogyny a self-fulfilling prophecy. The story is irresponsible and potentially destructive.
18
People must stop writing these nonsense stories about whether a woman candidate is likable. The misogyny is blinding. Just stop. There are many white male candidates to talk about, all of whom seem unlikable to me, yet not a single similar story. Why?
NYT should do better.
16
Amy Klobuchar, please!
8
For the democrats to win, we must not nominate who the voice of few dictate is best, only to be proven wrong by the voice of many. A female president, rallies a minority of very loud, persuasive voices, or just one liberal publication. Yet many demographics, many shades of liberals, and both genders must agree on election day.
1
No Gillibrand! Even if her shameful treatment of Sen. Franken had not occurred, didn't she promise her constituents that if elected in 2018 she would serve her whole term?
7
Great ideas, but I disagree.
First of all Hillary Clinton was not the perfect candidate in 16.
She was aloof and she was a "has been" with Bill Clinton.
Perhaps a woman candidate needs to constantly remind voters that she is an underdog, for the reasons stated in this essay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A woman president would bring feminine judgment to the USA.
She would empower women and men, both. As Trump campaigned for change, so too, Democrats must show change.
As JFK said, in his inaugural address:
"The torch has been passed to a NEW generation of Americans."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
The drive, imagination and volunteers came largely from women in 2018. The blue candidates they supported beat the red candidates in the House by 5 million votes. Statisticians say the biggest shift was among women. What more does anyone who wants Trump out need to know? I (firmly planted in the middle of Trump's strongest age group and in a very red county), want to see a woman (without baggage and without the name of Clinton) on top of the ticket. She will win. I want a winner. Our country needs a winner to take the place of the loser now in charge.
4
Democrats will have many vital and viable and appealing candidates for 2020. A large number of them will be women and people of color. This is an opportunity like no other. Even the post-Clinton Democratic Party needs to reckon with their list (and history) of biases, which include gender and age. 2020 could be a way to reset the nomination and candidacy paradigm altogether, and Warren is but one of many credible candidates who can be part of that realignment. Let’s approach this nomination process differently as we move forward, and not show that Democrats (and perhaps all Americans) have learned nothing from recent experiences.
Hillary won the popular vote against Trump by 3 million votes and she was wildly unpopular, so I’m not really sure why anyone is concerned about another woman running unless they have a conscious or subconscious belief that women are inherently inferior candidates.
3
The fact that the NYT is giving front page real estate to these doubts about the strength of women to participate in our most important election is a great step towards rationalizing these archaic doubts and giving them the space to regrow.
It's 2019! Gender, race - how 1950s do we still need to be?
The Democrats should put forward the person who is most inspiring and grounded in their service and cause.
Personally, I hope that person is a woman. Because, unlike most modern democracies, we've never given a woman a chance to lead our country. We don't even know what that feels like yet. And the Democrats have some powerful women! Barbara Lee. Elizabeth Warren. I could fill the page here...
How about replacing this article with one about why it's definitely the time to put forward a woman?
4
White men and their wives who vote in states around the Great Lakes will choose our next President. It doesn't matter what I think or who I vote for, If white men in the heartland don't change their vote from Trump to the Democrat, Trump will win again. So nominate the Virgin Mary, but even she won't be able to beat Trump just because she's a woman. Any woman tough enough to stand up to DT would be terrifying to many 'low information' voters who will make the difference in the vote count. #metoo won't help win those states either. If Dems nominate Gilebrande, Republicans will remind Midwest men of what she did to their buddy Al Franken. I want to see Trump in jail, not the White House.
6
Count me pessimistic. The fact that less than 10% of the GOP House are women indicates their voter turnout would be above average and that is all it would take for a women to loose. And even if she could win, conservatives would come out of the woodwork in opposition just like they did by the mere presence of an African-American President. I hope I'm wrong, but if you understand how the conservative brain functions....
4
Can Trump win whether a man or a woman runs against him?
Right now President Trump has an abysmally low approval rate. Will more people like him in 2020?
1
@janye Depends who ends running against him. Plenty of people said they'd rather vote for ANYONE than Hillary Clinton (rationally or irrationally). People can easily vote AGAINST someone rather than for someone.
I'm certainly no subscriber to Dianne Feinstein's belief that if Hillary can't win no woman can win. The problem with women's bid in 2016 came don't to one person - Hillary. Hillary simply couldn't stop being...Hillary. As much as I wished she'd beat her Republican competition to consolidate Obama's 2 terms, even me, a Lily Tomlin liberal, often found myself shaking my head at Hillary's...Hillaryness. Women can and will win in the very near future so long as the candidate doesn't look, sound like or generalize remind people of Hillary.
3
I seriously doubt this, and history doesn't bear it out (see, for example, the UK and Germany):
"One thing we know for sure: the Republicans will never run a woman or a person of color for president..."
Much can change by 2024, and the country may well be ready to switch parties as it traditionally does every 8 years. But setting all that aside, Nicki Haley (i.e. a woman of color) looks like a winner for the RP nomination, and probably the general election.
4
As a woman, as a Democrat, as a professional in a mainly man's field - the Dems need to run a man in 2020, with a women VP.
It's not fair that women are at a disadvantage - but all women will be at much more of a disadvantage if we lose again.
9
On what planet will Trump be president in 2020?
2
Hillary didn't loose because she is a woman. She lost because Hillary is unpopular on the right and the left. The more a Democrat tries to be like Republicans, the more Republicans hate them, and the more the left districts them.
4
To judge candidates on likability, at least in part, is not gender biased. Warren is preachy, and so is Booker. Neither would be my selection to share a glass of wine or dinner. If likability is not an important quality for a president, then why judge Trump on his unlikeability?
2
The longer Trump is in office, the greater the desire for voters to throw him out of office. Yes, a woman can beat him. All she has to do is be reasonable, ignore Trump's efforts to make her play his game, and present a sane and beneficial platform. Trump, clearly, is destructive. And by now, everyone knows just how destructive. Only his remaining ignorant fans and the wealthy will be voting for him, and there aren't enough of those to win. Trump is over.
1
Of all the reasons this article lists for why Hillary lost, not once is The Times’s own culpability mentioned.
The Style section truly represents the paper. Long after something has become popular, The Times reports that it has become a trend. Hillary running for president was treated as a novelty as if Shirley Chisholm has just declared her candidacy.
Hilary received harsh treatment because The Times didn’t know how to report on her without referencing every negative article they had ever printed. And now they preemptively trash any woman’s chance because they still can’t imagine a woman in the Oval Office. Any reference to the country’s reluctance to elect a woman is The Times’s misogyny being projected upon the electorate.
8
What am I missing here? A woman already beat Trump by a few million votes. (If this were a real democracy — if the popular vote were simply the vote — that would have been enough.) And it’s not as though he or the overwhelmingly male Republican Party lineup have gotten more popular over the past couple of years. What do American voters have to do to be listened to by the media and political classes?
5
Warren will never win, but she is welcome to lose money. She campaigned with Hillary, and no one likes Hillary well deserved or not. Beto is going to win. Warren has just wasted more donor money. She accepts PAC money, so yet another hypocrite.
3
Can any American really believe that the USA can take 6 more years of the nonstop crazy ineptitude of Trump?
Let’s get real. Trump has everything he touches under serious investigations. Think other candidates that the Democrats may be up against because even Trump’s own party (and the GOP) is exhausted from the turmoil and can’t afford to risk backing him again.
Romney, Kasich, Haley among others should be the focus on who may be the competition for Democrats. The Democrats better bring their best to win over Independents and Centrists because it won’t be easy to get that sector if Trump is a non contender.
4
Nominating a woman would be a mistake.
The Democrats need to grab back the white working class ,and members of that class, both men and women, prefer to be led by white men.
The Democrats need to find one who can cuss and spit and go toe-to-toe with Trump. Their candidate can be moderate or even somewhat liberal, just as long as he is culturally acceptable to the swing voters. Women's time will come, but right now the Democrats need to beat Trump, and liberal women are not the way.
6
The day a woman becomes President of the United States is the day that our society begins to fall apart. Women are the weaker sex. They depend on men to protect them. Since the beginning of human civilization, women have always been dependent on men to keep them safe. That is a simple fact. The very idea that men are going to allow the weaker sex to rule over them is just fantasy.
@Mark I hope your mother reads this comment. Strength has nothing to do with physicality.
1
Not so:
"A woman has zero chance of beating Trump or any Republican for that matter..."
A woman (or a man) could beat Trump in 2020, though that's unlikely unless a great deal changes between now and then (Trump dies, for example). As for "any Republican," I disagree entirely. If Trump dies or decides not to run for re-election (or something bad happens -- for example, Mueller makes some evidence-backed charges), I can't imagine Pence or any other Republican winning.
If I were a potential Democratic candidate, I'd try hard for the nomination and hope for the best: Trump dies, for example, or Mueller comes up with something solid, or Trump changes his mind and does not seek re-election. If nothing changes, the Democratic candidate is probably toast, but things do change.
Hillary won by 3 million votes—just not among the under the radar Trumpists: rightwing, undereducated, underemployed, racist, and anti-women, in 3 states. So, she may well have lost because she ran a poor campaign, but not necessarily because she is a woman!!
Suggests to me that we ought not view women running for President through the wrong lens. They may, with a good message, outreach to a wide swath of the electorate, mastery of complex policy issues, acceptance of the wide array of voters across the country, and a clear moral and ethical core, be well equipped to run and win back a catastrophic presidency.
2
Misogyny did not defeat Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton bluntly choked in the face of Donald Trump's relentless attacks (yes she did get more votes and that is a nice consolation prize and nothing more). If the Republican attack machine cast her as aloof elitist and disconnected she played into their hands by allowing Donald Trump to bash her night after night on national TV and instead of demanding equal time cowered in the safe space of the donor class. Elizabeth Warren is not off to a good start in capitulating to Donald Trump's relentless Pocahontas attacks. “I hear women candidates are most likable in the quiet car!”? Seriously? Women are going to have to learn if they are going to succeed in this hostile environment that controlling the conversation is essential. Men will use insults to that end as long as it continues to be effective in putting women on the defensive. If you control the conversation people will learn to like you. Fairly or otherwise "traumatized" is not what most people (of either sex) will see as a desirable presidential trait and is better left unsaid. Democrats of both sexes should take a lesson from Rashida Tlaib and I hope she keeps it up and does not apologize.
6
Although electing a woman to the highest office is a valid topic, the media seems to spend all its time on horse races (elections). Topics like the best way to solve our healthcare dilemma, homelessness or substance abuse/suicide problems require investigative journalism, actual work and expense. The media keeps giving us garbage about who's up, who's down. You would think that the whole country is another kind of stock market.
7
It many not be that our big money politics explicitly has blocked women from being nominated. But in other countries with more women leaders and lawmakers their politics is not so strongly financed by corporate donors/lobbyists, like in the US. There must be some common factor underlying this difference.
When a country has a large pool of women in lawmaking, this leads to more potential presidential candidates.
1
Wait. And these women have forgotten their own - trail blazers.
Shirley Chisolm, Geraldine Ferraro - on the Democrat side and our Sarah Palin.
They all were in a very visible position - and yet their ticket failed.
I worked in the oil patch for 43 plus years - the most manly industry next to military.
But in the last 20 years - we have promoted women to high level positions and many have thrived. I am pushing 70 - and I have had a couple female supervisors - as good as any male ones that I reported to.
Hillary lost - not because of this much used word misogyny - but her baggage.
The article blames Americans at large for her defeat.
But how come the Democrats forget that she lost a nomination to a black man who no one knew - and that is by Democrats.
Mrs Thatcher became the first female PM - by sheer hard work, doggedness and sure, some luck. But no one had groomed her or even predicted that she is the one.
Ditto here.
Just to clamor that it's time for a female POTUS - ain't gonna happen. It's about being at the right time at the right place.
And as a Republican - I think Ms Nikki - just could be the first female POTUS. I know I would vote for her any time.
4
@Neil. The biggest mistake was the Dems not selecting a more experienced Hillary Clinton over the novice Barack Obama. She likely would have won the general election, and after 8 years in office, a more seasoned Obama would have been a shoe-in. Agree completely re Nikki Haley - she might very well be the first female POTUS.
Our society is so sexist. This shouldn't even be a question.
5
Hillary Clinton herself has nixed such plans, but it appears that "hope springs eternal" among her fans:
"How about giving Hillary another shot?"
1
A commenter asks, apparently rhetorically:
"Does anyone really think Trump will make it for 2 more years, much less another term?"
Yes, I think he'll certainly make it for 2 more years. A lot can happen between now and Election Day 2020 (Trump could die, for example), but if the 2020 election were held today, Trump would win going away.
Again, maybe that will change. But it won't change simply because NYT commenters try to outdo one another with witty anti-Trump remarks. It will require coming up with a viable Democratic candidate and then doing the blocking and tackling it will take for that candidate to win. Maybe that will happen, but I'm sure not seeing it yet.
1
What is lacking in the article is that the misandry which is deemed acceptable or Is tacitly condoned by the Democratic party has caused many men to stop supporting that party. if the Democrats could field a competent and charismatic woman who respected, valued and supported the millions of caring, hard working, honourable men of America, they would be elected tomorrow. Sorry to say that the lack of self awareness by the Democratic party will prevent from happening, and they will likely field another candidate which will alienate a significant number of men and women.
4
Declaring your candidacy doesn't automatically make you Margaret thatcher; Golda Meir or Indira Gandhi. Rallying your party, running ono a strong record and speaking to voter's issues with your platform just might. Get out there Liz, work some crowds and we'll see.
2
What a headline. Talk about giving so much power to a man and cutting down our sisters at the knees.
Hillary Clinton did not lose because of misogyny and sexism. She did not lose because of the Electoral College - we’ve been using it forever, accept it.
She lost because she’s a Clinton. She carried LOT of baggage from her husband’s days in the Oval Office - Lewinski, health care - and she lost because many voters did not want another family dynasty (Bush). I guess voters 40 and over forget how reviled she was 1992-2000.
She also lost because she was EXACTLY who Trump ran against - an experienced, entrenched politician who tried to carve a gilded path to the White House: First Lady, move to NY to become senator (for only two terms), and then - voila! it’s my turn. Not exactly Sanders’ history.
It’s not about “women”. It’s about the right woman with the right ideas and right campaign and right presentation.
We elected an African-American man named Barack Hussein Obama only 7 years after 9/11. Did we collectively kill our racism? No. At best, many voters set it aside because of the man and his message.
We can do likewise with a female candidate. Just has to be the right one. I hope it’s Warren. She’ll have to run an unprecedented campaign because we’ve an unprecedented President.
105
@SM No. Misogyny is so prevalent, it's practically invisible.
Barack Hussein Obama was and is not the typical black American man - he's a mixed-race man, born in Hawaii, raised partially in Kansas by white grandparents and partially outside the US by a non-American stepfather. He is an exotic creature who doesn't neatly fit into our nation's stereotype of a black man as indigenous, large, strong, dangerous, violent, and highly sexualized.
Hillary has a more typical background and therefore the stereotypes of uppity, man-hating, unstable, untrustworthy and radicalized white women worked well in the smear campaign against her.
Yes, there were other issues but misogyny played a large part.
35
@SM
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
The 'she's a Clinton' doesn't work - it never stopped Bill Clinton.
Sanders - he was a massively flawed candidate - Republicans were begging us to vote for him, refusing to attack his proposals in hopes we might.
11
@SM. I agree with every word, except I hope it is NOT Warren.
7
One thing would help: no moderators at the debates. Let the candidates say whatever they want in the three minutes allotted to them.
They must stand behind their podiums. No stalking.
After three minutes, their mics go dead, and the other person gets to speak. S/he can answer questions the other asked or ask questions of her/his own. Or ignore the opponent's questions and talk about anything.
Three-minute turns for one hour.
No grandstanding moderators who don't really moderate. Let the public decide which candidate they/we want.
I hope someone will step up with the promise to put an end to the electoral college. Someone with courage and knowledge of history who can explain why that antiquated body has to be buried.
103
@Pecan
Good idea. I wish The League of Women Voters still ran the debates. Not sure why they don't any more.
It's been downhill from there.
12
@Pecan
We already know the dangerss an benefitst of the Electoral College. It can be, but rarely is, risky. And it is protection gainst mob (racist/populist) rule. It would be even more desirable to allocate EC votes by the percentage of popular vote for each candidate in each state.
5
@Charlton - The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has already been accepted by state legislatures in 12 states. Those states that accept the compact pledge to assign their electoral votes to whichever candidate won the popular vote in all 50 states and D.C. I think the 12 states represent 172 EC votes - when the Compact reaches states to the point of 270 EC votes - then that's it! The popular vote wins without the mess of trying to eliminate the EC.
6
I've been binging streaming Mad Men on Netflix. As a woman who has worked in a predominantly male occupation, it doesn't seem to me that a lot has changed since the ’60s, and I was born in the ’70s. A perfect example is Mike Pence refusing to eat a meal with a woman other than ”Mother”. Try finding a job where you can't eat a meal with a male co-worker. I feel fresh hope with Madame Speaker Pelosi holding the gavel, she's definitely capable of taking charge and doing things her way. I believe Elizabeth Warren jumped the gun with her current campaign. Can't we just breathe for a moment? Our country is in a nose dive; I'll take any pilot who can right this disaster. May the best woman/ man win. SOS
66
@Lambnoe. What Pence actually said is that he won't dine alone with any woman except his wife. As a female business executive who has had business dinners all around the world, I find that problematic. That said, given some of the not-very-serious complaints made by hangers-on to the MeToo movement, maybe Pence has a point. He'll certainly never be accused of sexual misconduct, real, imagined or exaggerated. As for the work environment and opportunities for women, as someone who started working in the '70s, when virtually every occupation except nursing and teaching were predominantly male, I can assure you that a tremendous amount has changed. Are we where we should be? No. But I started my career as the only woman in a large department in a company with no women in management. I ended my career in a major multi-national that was at least 50% female, including many of the most senior positions.
4
@Lambnoe: Why criticize Warren for stepping into the wing quickly? Why? Others have also and they are both male.
4
Sadly we have become more concerned with the gender or identity of a candidate than their actual ability to function as a leader and demonstrate true empathy with the people of America. Strong leadership, honesty, and integrity are qualifications we should be looking for and not payouts to special interest groups of any sort. That is why we are in the mess we are in. It would be helpful for a candidate to be realistic and fair to all Americans.
53
@Pepperman Isn’t this paper openly “more concerned” with the gender / identity / race of the candidate?
6
@Pepperman
Perhaps you're right. At first I thought we better run Joe Biden, because of his identity: he's white, and male, and of a certain age. That we need to pander to, to get that group back.
But then I thought, EF it. Warren's actual policies have actually helped people like my daughter who was getting stiffed by Washington Mutual bounce fees till Warren's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau made banks give back millions of dollars.
I'm voting pocketbook not identity.
10
@Pepperman, not just gender. Also, NYT and others, less about the "horse race" and more about positions, please.
7
The No. 1 requirement for a Democratic nominee is the ability to beat Trump in 2020. I suggest Joe Biden is the most able. He has the confidence of the blue-collar worker in America, especially in those "rust belt" states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. To my mind, the obvious choice.
7
I'm a 69 yr old white male, life-long Dem, socially progressive. I'm submitting this comment hoping it will find its way to some high-level Democratic strategist.
The LAST thing I want is another Hillary -- another candidate foisted upon me by committee. Nor, for that matter, do I want another Obama.
Believing, as I do, that we need a lot more than charisma, and even a lot more than charism + ideas, I will now say what I want.
I want ...
1) ... the primaries to be serious and revelatory--not a carnival, and definitely not a circus.
2) ... to hear from 2a) candidates with first-hand knowledge of the realities faced by people in multiple segments of this silo-ed, fearful, and increasingly brittle society of ours; and 2b) candidates who will be forthright about their own personal weaknesses as well as their own personal strengths.
3) ... to hear from candidates with vastly different backgrounds, styles, 'energies,' and qualifications, all of whom are deeply committed to: 3a) serving their consciences as well as a constituency;3b) offering a specific and comprehensive critique of "America First!'; and 3c) to making significant election reform a real--indeed, top--priority.
19
@David I'm an 89 year old white male(also wrote in this last hour) so i win !
M.W. Endres
"Foisted upon me by committee": sounds like . . . democracy. The horror!
2
You think that all Obama had on offer was charisma, and you’re a “lifelong Democrat.” And you don’t seem to know that Hillary just olain won that primary.
Oh, please. How odd that your views match those of Trumpists.
5
If Trump wins a second term and completes it, he'll govern until 2024. At that point, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez will be 35 and I think we all know who will be the country's first female president.
4
AOC will be back to tending bar in 5 years. That seems about right, given her embarrassingly shallow lack of knowledge of our government and international affairs. Water eventually finds its level.
9
@sthomas1957
Not so sure. People may well be mighty sick and tired of her by that point.
6
@sthomas1957
JLO?
This topic is ridiculous and the NYTimes should stop perpetuating this rubbish. A women ( Pelosi) is one of the most powerful and intelligent people on the political scene; women came roaring into the Congress in the mid-term elections and you are repeating this “likeable” nonsense.
Start talking about the policies put forward by each candidate, female or male and quit this sexist nonsense!
44
@LB
Here you go, Warren's defense positions and policies. Nope, it's not from the NYT.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/424006-where-warren-stands-on-top-defense-issues
@LB — So why doesn’t Nancy Pelosi run? This article was rightly about sexism as a factor in presidential elections. It’s unfortunate but it’s reality. If the Democratic party has any hopes of offing Trump (in the ballot box, that is), it will take that reality into account and defer its identity politics dreams for another time.
@LB. Pelosi delights in being a divisive figure relishin her return but yet cannot tell us what she wants to lead other than opposition to certain Trump polices, and she seems to love the attention. Many qualifies Female a Democrat’s: Pelosi isn’t.
She’s had two moths to develop what she WILL do, not just oppose.
That’s not leadership.
1
The other day my husband was basically mimicking this article. That the only way democrats have a chance to beat Trump was to nominate a white man. But when was the last time a white male democrat won the presidency? 6 elections ago? Progress is about moving forward. I think after two years of Trump, many are ready to move forward with the best candidate democrats have to offer, woman or man.
8
Yes, Hillary Clinton is a woman. A few other things that influenced the election:
1) The Dems had held the presidency for 8 years, meaning the GOP had the advantage.
2) The Clintons have a long history and plenty of skeletons, and had long been demonized by the right.
3) Clinton was experienced and smart, but not portrayed by the media as personable.
4) The nation hit peak right-wing disinformation.
5) Mainstream media did not do nearly enough to confront Trump's incompetence and lies.
5) The Russians hacked our election.
In any case, who are these independents that agree with Democratic policies and positions and yet would vote for Trump over a woman? Seems like there'd be no more than a handful of them.
12
@Josh Wilson -
6) Her email indiscretion to which her only response were feeble apologies.
7) As the wife of a former president presiding over a billion dollar foundation that was portrayed as a slush fund
8) Vanishing into the safe space of the donor class while Donald Trump bashed her night after night on national TV
9) When she did emerge it was to make idiotic pronouncements (and then apologize for them) that made you wish she would just stay out of sight ("put coal miners out of work" "I short circuited" "basket of deplorables")
10) She went with the politics as usual approach of going all in on the debates which she won handily but unfortunately quickly forgotten amidst Comey reopening the investigation, Russian hacking, and the bad news of increased Obamacare premiums
4
Actually there is a real fear that Trump will beat ANYONE that's put up against him. Lets face it, 2016 was an anomaly. Trump lost by 3 million votes. Should lose by more in 2020 but people are always afraid something might happen
5
I don't underestimate Trump, but given his record, what is his chance of actually winning the nomination. Shouldn't that be something to ask before we ask who will run against him?
2
One thing we know for sure: the Republicans will never run a woman or a person of color for president unless the GOP undergoes a major transformation. Misogynists and racists are two key constituencies of their party.
11
@Carson Drew — well, they came close enough in nominating Sarah Palin for vp. I am betting they beat the Democrats on both counts next time there’s no incumbent, with Nikki Haley.
4
@Carson Drew Nikki Haley and Condoleezza Rice would both be better candidates than most, if not all, of the women and men on the Democratic side. Could they win the GOP nomination? I think so. They certainly would each be able to win the general election, which is pretty much decided based on where the Independents go.
The Times must analyze this--- what’s the reason that, per an Atlantic article: “Compared to other nations, the U.S. lags in promoting women leaders.”
And see the long list in CNN article: “All the countries that had a woman leader before the U.S.”
They quote from the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap report. There are many articles on this.
Many other countries have had women leaders. And other have had a greater % of women than the US in their legislatures.
Its a blatant difference. Our only woman nominee was the wife of a former president. Her platform she didn't want to contradict the laws he passed.
There must be some significant, unique factor in our political culture. Does it have to do with the power equation?
It’s significant that we alone also don’t have affordable health care for all even after ACA, vs dozens of nations with their generations-long right to this basic component of democracy---supported by all their parties. Here, we have to wonder---will the ‘left wing’ new Democrats push Medicare for All? How far will they go? But they'd be centrist abroad.
Contrary to our notions of American democracy, maybe it’s that big money rules our politics more than in other capitalist democracies. This may translates into a power imbalance in many areas. This results in gender inequality, and economic inequality. It may be part of a syndrome.
Now we have a Trump as it's blatant poster boy.
8
This conversation ignores a huge factor. Hillary Clinton wasn't just a woman and a Democrat. She was the woman and Democrat who Republicans had spent the most energy slandering and vilifying since 1992 when her husband was elected President. Her loss might be a good argument for not nominating Nancy Pelosi, but no one is talking about doing that. The Republican hate machine is fairly effective, but it never generated any significant national animosity toward Michelle Obama. Sadly she isn't running, but she'd win if she did. Plenty of other women might win too, including Elizabeth Warren. But no all female candidates are first and foremost female, so they all now get to carry HRC's baggage forever. If you don't realize that's sexist, then you're not thinking real hard.
9
Indira Gandhi
Benazir Bhutto
Sirimavo Bandanaike
Chandrika Kumaratunge
Hasina Wajed
Begum Zia
Corazon Aquino
Gloria Arroyo
Megawati Sukarnoputri
Golda Meir
And I haven’t even left Asia yet.
Margaret Thatcher
Theresa May
Angela Merkel
Eva Peron
Julia Gillard
Tansu Ciller
Gro Harlem Brundtland
Yulia Timoshenko
Ellen Johnson
Europe, Africa, South America...everywhere
Dozens more I am omitting. The list is too long.
No. The most advanced democracy in the world, the USofA isn’t yet ready for a woman leader.
177
Anyone who has worked in a big law firm in this country can attest that sexism is alive and well.
18
@Shreekant Point well made. But the U.S. is not, IMO, the most advanced democracy in the world. If that was the case Hillary would be president because she won the last election by every other nation's standards, and the issue of a woman president would be over and done. But no we have this archaic system called the electoral buffoon's college so that slave owners would have an extra edge in the early days of elections here. You'd think somewhere along the way the system would have changed. As far as a woman going against Trump that assumes he survives the investigation and wins the nomination. Both are medium to very long shots IMO.
29
@Shreekant...thank you for these details! Exactly the contrast we need to explain. UK has already had Thatcher and May. Will the Times analyze this?
I commented---see The Atlantic: “Compared to other nations, the U.S. lags in promoting women leaders.”
And CNN's long list: “All the countries that had a woman leader before the U.S.”
Other countries have a greater % of women in their legislatures than the US has had.
What is the unique factor in our political culture vs abroad? Does it have to do with the money/power equation?
It may not be that our big money politics explicitly has blocked women from being nominated. But in other countries with more women leaders and lawmakers their politics are not so strongly financed by corporate donors/lobbyists, like in the US. There must be some common factor underlying this difference.
When a country has a large pool of women in lawmaking, this leads to more potential presidential candidates.
Look at Trump with women, money, power, dominance, egotism---the whole syndrome. We have a large pool of future candidates looking for their big money donors.
8
I confess to being utterly exasperated with the constant analysis of whether a woman can successfully run for President. It comes first from old pols and the guys behind the scenes who think that they have some secret, that they are being shrewd in identifying the bias against women as a major stumbling block. But they helped create and now sustain that bias!
To some extent, this is a self fulfilling promise. Analysts provide their stuff, the media publicizes the same stuff, and people who keep reading and hearing the "stuff" absorb it as facts. Women in politics are also advised to conform to images to please the public by the same folks who then claim those images "turn off" voters and make the woman "inauthentic."
If reporters and "analysts" could stick more to the positions, actions and ideas of candidates, and maybe even their values -- perhaps America could grow up.
What I really still want to know is how the US could elect a whiny, phoney, self absorbed con artist as President? And whether it could possible happen a 2nd time?
18
The NYT never stops the constant drumbeat of articles about perceived divisions and turmoil in the Democratic party. It's not helpful.
19
Why are we asking this question in this day and age? Sometimes I wonder if the NYT is trying to manipulate emotions? Please cover the news instead of trying to stir gossip. Sometimes NYT is worse than Facebook at stirring up controversy.
22
I believe a woman should be vp on ticket so we can beat trump and get a fare government later. I live in the middle of this horraw.
4
no.no.no.even if she was the black jesus in person radiant and glorious, NO WOMAN WILL DEFEAT TRUMP. has to be white male. BIDEN BETO ticket. im a white female btw, millenial.
10
There is something wrong with the voters in our country if they can't see that Amy Klobuchar (for example) would make a better president than Donald Trump.
There is something wrong with a country that has a difficult time with electing a woman as our president. I say this as a man who will be 90 later this month
We take too long in coming to the right decisions.
That is why Winston Churchill described our country as one making the right decisions---only after we have tried everything else.
23
The main weapon Trump used against Hillary was his balled-up fists and angry red face as he threatened to lock her up. To me the 2016 campaign looked like domestic violence and misogyny mixed with politics. The soft verbal violence and gaslighting by Berners completed the effect. This kind of verbal and attitudinal aggression towards women should not be allowed to control the Democratic Party. Women made the Blue Wave happen. We're not going back in the box now.
21
Trump made the blue wave happen
It seems to me people who didn't vote for Hillary just can't stop making excuses for sending this country to hell.
They've got a million of them.
12
@klm Somdoes Hillary.
2
@klm - just like Hillary has a million excuses for why she ran her own email server and destroyed 30,000 emails after they’d been subpoenaed.
4
If I were God and I could install a president, it would be Elizabeth Warren. However, she more than disqualified herself by letting Trump play her like that.
Massachusetts candidates are 0 for 3 since 1988:
Dukakis driving around in a tank.
Kerry shooting a bird to appear 'tough' or whatever.
Romney and his 47 percent speech.
Want to make it 0 for 4?
6
And Hillary Clinton labeling Trump’s fans as deplorables.
2
@Ann
True, but Hillary is not from Massachusetts.
@Ann
True, but I was making a separate point about Massachussetts politicians being particularly out of touch. Hillary isn't running.
Dems, the country and the planet need a winner, and Sherrod Brown is the kind of guy who would bring in lots of votes. He is progressive, experienced and very likeable...the way GWB was...the kind of guy you can imagine having a beer with. And he wins big in his deep red Ohio district. The stakes are very high, and we need a sure winner, which he would be.
10
I plan to vote for anyone who can be an effective center-left or progressive president; someone I can admire and respect. Warren, Delaney, Landrieu, Harris, and others.
3
Hillary slogan-- 'stronger together'. Sure, she's stronger if we support her, but would we be stronger if she was elected?
Sure better off than with Trump, but is she the best we can come up with? An untrustworthy insider with big money and weak ethics, married to an ex president whose policies she wouldn't want to contradict? Such as restoring and updating the sensible bank and investment separation rules that he and the GOP repealed?
Before the next crash?
8
Surefire tickets that will win Dems the presidency in 2020.
#1. Joe Biden (P), Kamela Harris (VP)
#2. Kamela Harris (P), Beto O'Rourke (VP)
#3. Amy Klobucher (P), Cory Booker (VP)
3
Wrong on all counts.
5
I absolutely think the country is ready. One thing not mentioned here is that HRC couldn’t really hit at Trump’s misogyny given Bill Clinton. I’ll leave aside whether or not the comparison is fair, but the second presidential debate happened not long after the Access Hollywood tape came out, and Clinton spent very little time talking about it,
I like Klobucher. I think we got a good taste of what the optics will be when a very Trumpish Kavanaugh tried to belittle her during his confirmation. She’s very classy and restrained. I think Trump will look terrible if he goes after her. She can stay above him without saying much at all. Contrast this with Biden or Warren who have tried to tangle with him, and ended up having to back down.
As for “stamina,” I think Trump will look ridiculous trying to make that stick on someone who is decades younger.
6
And his stamina is questionable, what with his “executive time” every morning and constant golfing.
1
It is absolutely time for a woman at the top of the ticket - but Hilary Clinton was never that woman. She was disliked by even the most ardent Democrat. I'm looking to Amy Klobuchar for president (or Tammy Duckworth, if she'll run) and Julian Castro as VP.
5
Aw come on, folks. Please remember that Hillary won the popular vote. Even after the worst "dish" that fox news and friends could muster. This means that with just a minor tweak of statistics, the electoral college is influenced. Trump really didn't win the hearts and minds of America.
8
@David g k
No, but, Trump won just enough of the three important "swing states", (states that Hillary didn't bother visiting)to win the election.
6
@deus, point taken. Isn't it interesting that votes are influenced if a candidate comes within a couple of hundred miles of one's house, rather than on political/social beliefs?
1
The article omits an important point, that Hillary Clinton received nearly 3 million more votes than Donald Trump which means that more voters thought that a woman should be president than thought the opposite.
9
The points being debated and opinions being espoused here are exactly why we have a primary season that includes rigorous electioneering and debates. Everyone needs to stop pontificating about gender, like ability and the 2016 election and start looking ahead, listening and opening their minds over the next year . You may just be surprised who impressed you most.
5
If the Russians were able to pinpoint and engineer the minds of Americans to eek out an election win for an old profane bully, surely Dems can figure out how to get a woman candidate elected after one just won the popular vote after 40 years of attacks. I view the Dems presenting as if electing a woman POTUS is an intractable problem after a single try as resistance to the notion. Roll sleeves up and get it done.
2
I didn't reject women as a candidate in 2016, I rejected the individual. And for the recored, I rejected both major party candidates!
6
@Karl
Thanks a ton for helping elect Donald Trump.
8
I am not choosing the next President based on gender. Here is my list:
1. Beat Trump
2. Choose the best candidate to lead our nation and the world.
5
Does anyone really think Trump will make it for 2 more years, much less another term? The Democrats should be thinking about who can win over a strong Republican candidate that may be popular with Centrists and Independents. Forget Trump. The USA can't tolerate his unstable behavior much longer.
6
As Brit who's a huge fan of the US in general, and American politics in particular, I certainly feel that Elizabeth Warren would stand a great chance. The majority of Americans don't think that the only "real" Americans are white Anglo-Saxons, and it's time for the pendulum to swing back.
OK, so you want a man? How about Beto O'Rourke?
3
@Eric Jeffries
Beto is too rough-hewn. After Trump we need a gentleman.
Look at the pictures of Eric Swalwell holding his baby in the House. That's what we need.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1195&bih=611&ei=ymUxXKww0fyPBNC3hlA&q=swalwell+at+opening+of+congress&oq=swalwell+at+opening+of+congress&gs_l=img.3...2234.8986..9437...0.0..0.77.1641.31......0....1..gws-wiz-img.....0..0j0i24.WLRo9oVZYR8#imgrc=MYsNPPTZyeMAjM:
3
Media needs to stop this nonsensical speculations such as "Warren is not likable" "A woman cannot beat Trump." There is no such thing. Let's fair competition begins and not constantly undercut female candidates since they are already under much more scrutiny than male candidates. US is still a very sexist society and we on't need media to keep re-enforcing this silly steriotype.
9
You lost me when you quoted Neera Tanden.
6
Hahahah. Me too.
2
It is hard to imagine Trump will get the chance at a second term. The Democrats are going to blow out the 2020 election.
2
@JP
You think Mike Pence will be that easy a candidate to beat in 2020, huh?
2
Don't be so sure. The Dems were very sure of their chances with Hillary in 2016, and look where that got them. To paraphrase Abba Ebban, the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
3
Just stop it. Let the candidates make their cases without preemptive judgment based on identity. So shallow and offensive.
10
A woman could beat Trump, just probably not any of the ones the Democrats might put up. If there were a Margaret Thatcher type available, who had been on the national scene for years building her standing among the voters, it would be different. Hillary was that type, but carried more baggage than an overloaded 787. Harris is a newbie. Klobuchar is not really much known nationally. Warren may be the best of the lot, but she has to develop a really focused message. God help the Dems if Hillary tries to make another run.
3
I came up with same profile. Margaret Thatcher. But to win a female candidate would have to be an authentic Thatcher type. I'd study film on her like I was going to the super bowl
Fools just can't help it. "A woman can't win." "He's too old." "Too yuoung." "This country will never elect an East-Coaster." "His voice is too grating." "She sounds shrill." "I don't know...there's just something about her I don't trust." Wake up, people. Are you TRYING to lose?
4
Hillary Clinton, once the most respected woman in America and winner of the 2016 popular vote, is now an ostracized accused criminal. I asked once, I'm asking again. Lisa. Susan. Why? She was the candidate for more than half the nation.
Please report, as you'd think a google search would give me 10 NYT articles that outline all of the evidence. Oh, but nada, zip, zero. Else, it appears that her fate turned just as Trump and his party commanded.
It amazes me how this misogynist President and party orders hits on Democratic matriarchs and the Dem base obliges them. Pelosi? Glad that she survived the Dems. Amazing.
Are we actually asking 'Are we ready for a woman in 2020?'
If you have to ask, then you're not.
7
If their trend to the left continues with the Democratic Party, the first female president is bound to be a Republican!
Identity politics eventually fail at a national level. The American people will vote for what’s in their best interests and what they perceive to be for the good of the country at time of election. Gender will never be the paramount issue, and like race and religion, it idealistically should never be an issue. Rather, the candidate whose ideas are thought best with a vision for the future are what wins elections.
Mr. Trump (no pun intended) trumped the Dems in 2016 with his novel platform, and certainly not with identity politics nor political correctness.
7
@Bill Weber
You forget, the "cat is now out of the bag" and Trump has now been exposed as to who and what he is and stands for. He is interested in appealing to only those minority of fanatical supporters at the expense of the rest of the overwhelming majority of the country. He is the incumbent and a fraud. Isn't that enough?
1
Honestly, are we really going to lump all Women together still? So if one Woman loses to Trump in his only election ever I guess we should just give up. I just can’t handle this nonsense. In my memory there were several pathetic men who also lost to the guy (painfully and embarrassingly) during the primaries. It was cringeworthy. I guess maybe we shouldn’t run that gender either.
9
Of course a woman could win in 2020. Hillary Clinton’s loss was for good reason; not because she was female but because she has a long history of seeming like she has something important to hide.
But I don’t see who on the left is the clear choice yet, man or woman.
4
The Democratic nominee has to be a person who can hold the Obama coalition. Post-election analyses showed that a crucial part of Trump's win were the white working class counties in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (counties and states that Obama won). Why did these once-Democratic voters reject Hillary? Did they dislike her, dislike the idea of a woman as president or something else? I know that Bill urged her to campaign more in these states during the summer and fall but she chose to stay in the Hamptons and other tony areas instead so there is that.
6
Clinton was a lazy campaigner, she isn’t a great speaker, and her record is spotty, at best. In the primary, she had the weight of the DNC, the mainstream press, the big donors, and the Democratic establishment behind her and she STILL had trouble putting away Sanders.
That she lost in the general election isn’t the surprise, the surprise is that she lost to Trump. How could anyone lose to Trump?
Clinton didn’t lose because she is a woman, she lost because she was a lousy candidate. It’s unfortunate that her supporters have convinced themselves that she was the best qualified candidate ever to run for the office.
It’s blinded them to the real lessons that could be learned from her failure and forced them to insist that the cause of her loss was misogyny, not incompetence.
There are plenty of women who could win in 2020. But to get my vote, it’s issues, not gender, that will decide.
8
BETO 2020. or even romney
2
@Rob C
From Beto to Romney. Well, that makes a lot of sense.
1
@Rob C
Romney/Beto.
Well, no one thought Trump would win. Of course Romney would have to deal with the 47% comment first.
it does...anyone but trump. warren cant compete.
Democrats, jumping the gun a bit? You just gained control of the House. First agenda: End this shutdown without the wall funding. Go!
5
A woman has zero chance of beating Trump or any Republican for that matter.....
1
A woman already *has* beaten Trump, at least in the popular vote.
Trump's presidency is crumbling. By 2020, voters will be ready for a change. Many are already there.
Here's an idea: Let's try a smart, capable, stable candidate this time. Someone with honesty and integrity. One who respects and reflects the better angels of our nature.
1
I agree. No more Hillary
1
No woman is going to beat Trump!
2
There’s a good chance a woman will beat Trump in the primaries. Nikki Haley would win in a landslide.
3
The British had queens leading the country in the 16th Century a queen in the 19th that ruled over a third of the worlds population in an Empire on which the sun never set. Catherine the Great ruled Russia, there have been Prime Ministers in India, Israel, and Britain. Germany was headed by a woman for over the last decade. What’s the big deal about electing a woman in the US. Grow up!
2
You know, I’m really starting to think there’s more misogyny and racism now than there would have been had liberal media, egged on by its pot-stirring conservative counterparts, not spent four years shoving intersectional feminism and critical race theory down our throats. I’m not talking latent bigotry finally coming to the surface, either, but genuinely new hatred in people who otherwise wouldn’t even have hesitated to vote for a woman.
To be clear, Me Too had to happen. And I understand where Black Lives Matter and Oscars So White came from. But the way the Times (and, following its lead, almost every single liberal news outlet) often framed the debate about these topics—according to terms figuratively and literally invented by leftist academics burning for another 1968—has set the discourse back years
8
Why on earth does everyone assume Trump will be running in 2020? He's in such trouble, how can that corrupt, pathological liar and thief ever keep himself out of jail? The only running he'll hopefully be doing in the future is running on a treadmill in prison.
1
Is there really a "Real Tension (on January 5, 2019)?" Or is this just an hypothesis looking for a problem to fill up print space?
It appears journalists [NYT we're looking at how you handle it this time] are determined to make the same mistakes of 2016.
6
That would be so hilarious if the Democrats decided not to have any more white male candidates because white men are politically divided and don't all vote the same.
2
NYT stop with the speculating and start reporting. This is not a question worth pondering and did great disservice to the nation in 20016. How about breaking down Elizabeth Warren’s congressional record and clearly setting forth her current policies for her campaign? Educate, not speculate!!
10
Hear, hear.
@Diva There was an OpEd here yesterday that discussed and advocated for her policies. Did you miss it?
3
Nothing new here. “There is real doubt a woman can succeed.” Different issue, same ignorant question. Anything men can do women can do. Duh!
1
“It’s the economy, stupid!” Or, it’s the stupid economy! What it isn’t is a gender referendum. Democrats, who were historically corrupt and tone deaf in nominating Shillary Clinton in 2016 are about to blow it again! It does not matter WHO is wearing the ‘pants’ in the family, it matters whether that person knows what the family needs! Other than the 1%, We the People have gotten nothing from the Federal government over the past 10 years; no wage increases, no health benefits, no savings, no cessation of endless war, and no truth! Debating the gender of the next Democratic nominee is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic! Issues will defeat Trump and the Right Wing agenda. To distract us all with this nonsense is to concede the election! Find a candidate who is committed to the will of the People and congratulate yourselves later if that person happens to be a woman! If a woman is nominated and goes around expecting to win because of her gender, then you know this is all fixed!
3
This is 2019 for goodness sake. Quit it with this women vs men angle on presidential coverage.
Does the NYT even remember that Clinton won the most votes in 2016? She beat Trump by 3 million votes. If it wasn't for the antiquated electoral college she would've been president. So why pretend that being a woman is a thing now?
Put your journalism big girl, big boy or big transgender pants on.
The US people face major challenges like deteriorating infrastructure, lack of universal healthcare, slipping education results, attacks on their right to vote and antiquated or corrupted electoral systems, a federal budget that spends more on defense and wars overseas than taking care of citizens within US borders, major economic inequality and climate change.
The NYT and its fellow news media should assess potential and eventual candidates on the policies they put forward to address those challenges.
It doesn't matter whether the person is a woman, man, transgender, black, white, yellow, gay, disabled, Muslim, whatever.
While you're at it, how about giving more than cursory, dismissive coverage to presidential candidates for the third and fourth biggest parties too? Include coverage of their policies just like you do for the two biggest.
4
I’ll vote for any candidate...man or woman... of any party who’s still capable of discerning the difference between an American Citizen and an illegal foreign migrant. That critieria will most likely disqualify any nominee representing the Democratic Party. So, unfortunately, that leaves me with you-know-who....
6
"There is widespread recognition that women in politics are held to a different standard than men on qualities like likability, and ..."
By whom? It's not just by men. Women hold women candidates to that higher standard more than men do.
3
In some ways, this is a thoughtful article.
But do we really need to "move past Hillary Clinton"? Hillary Clinton has been raising money and offering support to women candidates since 2016. She helped make possible the blue wave of 2018.
So I'd like to see the Democratic Party continue her legacy. And it would be nice of the New York Times could acknowledge it as well!
Stop the Hillary bashing!
15
@lrw777 Ironically, Clinton won both her primary and the general election by millions of votes, but everyone now thinks Bernie and Trump had the secret sauce. They both lost to her. Maybe we should model on the real success.
4
While everyone jockeys for position as to who they "think" may be electable and defeat Trump, remember some very important elements here and now. This is not 2016 anymore where despite his baggage, Trump just had to tell those that ultimately voted for him what they wanted to hear, not, what he was "allegedly" going to accomplish and he is the incumbent and vulnerable. His obsession with appealing only to those minority of fanatical voters that support him further confirms it and he has no interest whatsoever in attracting others outside of that group.
Unlike 2016, We now know who and what he stands for and what he is really all about and that is essentially nothing more than wallowing in his own self-obsessing swamp AND the destruction of democracy in America.
As noted elsewhere in these comments, read Robert Reich's THIRTY(and counting) promises Trump falsely made to the electorate during the primaries, NONE of which ever came to fruition and to any candidate that opposes him in the Presidential election, regular reference to Trump's sham promises would be a good start in the campaign.
3
We should be aiming to elect the best possible candidate regardless of whether it is a woman or a man. The sex of the candidate should be secondary and the candidate chosen should be based on qualifications and whether they can get elected. We will no doubt have a woman one day as president but we want the person elected to be the best possible candidate and serve all the people.
3
I haven't read any articles that show Trump converting sizable numbers of former Clinton voters or independents to his side. Even with running a very weak campaign and being "unlikeable," Clinton won the popular vote. Surely the Democrats can find a woman candidate with more popular appeal than Clinton. But really, the issue should not be about finding a woman candidate who can win, the issue is finding the best candidate who can win . . . male, female, white, black, latino, asian, etc. Breaking a glass ceiling should not take priority over putting forward the best candidate.
3
Susan Chira and Lisa Lerer -- your article while perhaps well-intentioned continues to feed the ongoing negativity of the Democratic party.
Yes, the time does reflect a changing of the guard and the likelihood that a woman will be the candidate facing off against the Republican nominee.
In my mind, there is always this persistent and consistent message to the general voter population that Democrats are unsure of their candidates with the party in constant dissension.
While analysis of the candidates is perfectly reasonable, there seems to be this overly harsh critique of any woman candidate that a male candidate may not be submitted to.
If things are to change for the better in the US, then the Democrats need to learn to rally around a specific candidate and support them. Yes these candidates will have flaws--all of us do.
Unfortunately you want to compare the newer candidates to Hillary Clinton--who has been the subject of analysis and criticism for decades (perhaps more based on her husband's tenure as President).
Yes, Hillary is a flawed individual but given the current leader of the US government her leadership would be so superior to the current leader.
Bottom line--let's focus on getting any Democratic candidate elected and stop tearing the Democratic party apart in advance of the actual campaign.
4
One compromise would be to elect a man who when elected would appoint a woman AG to prosecute Trump. Hillary comes to mind.
5
Come on, open political vendettas we don’t need in our country.
1
Yes, of course. We should appoint to the highest law enforcement job in the land a woman of sketchy ethics and honesty who has never served as a prosecutor, who has virtually no courtroom experience. What could possibly go wrong?
1
Misogyny did not beat Hillary Clinton! She beat herself with her insufferable belief that she deserved to be in the White House no questions asked, with her tone-deaf relation to the working poor in the Rust Belt, with her borderline corrupt involvement with Wall Street and the ultra-rich.
Does that mean women now -- more radical than her and more in touch with what's really going on across America -- stand a better chance? No. Because at the subconscious level, no matter what people say, there's an ancient belief women are not made to hold the reins of power.
If Joe Biden ran he could have won but he's too old now. He's also damaged goods in his relation to women.
This whole issue is a big problem and can't be answered by saying "Beto." What's needed is some selfless soul-searching by those scrambling to be nominated or we may find ourselves in the death throes of another four years with Trump in the White House.
4
Still upsetting that HC lost the white women's vote because too many of us still believe that the presidency is a man's job.
Most articles like this are focused on changing male opinions of female presidential candidates. If we can change female opinions
then she has a good chance to be evaluated on strengths, not gender.
3
A woman politician just needs to show the leadership. Recent events indicate that Nancy Pelosi could beat Trump. She speaks up and makes the case with dignity and force. Right now, she is the strongest leader the Democrats have, woman or man, and they are lucky to have her. Not saying she should run, she's more valuable right where she is.
3
@Jean W. Spencer
Agreed. Nancy Pelosi did a great job in the televised meeting with Trump and Schumer. She called it a Trump shutdown, she did not allow Trump to demean her with comments about her not having enough votes to be Speaker, and she had the last word afterwards saying "As if manhood could ever be associated with him." Any woman (or man) thinking of running should have been taking notes.
1
There is no way to predict the race, gender or religion of the best candidate until they finally emerge on top. Once they do emerge as the biggest primary vote getter, any discussion of these factors becomes moot. We would have already determined they are the best candidate via the process. On paper, Obama initially looked impossible to most pundits. On paper, even republican pundits thought Hillary was a slam dunk. Trump’s unprecedented chicanery combined with twenty-five years of right wing Hillary demonizing to barely cause her to lose. She lost not even by inches, but by mere widths of a human hair. Fundamentally, her womanhood had virtually nothing to do with it.
3
People who break racial, gender or religious barriers must be exceptional. They are held to a higher standard and be as unthreatening as possible. That is unfair, but it is reality. Obama had exceptional political skills and didn’t accentuate his race. It may be more difficult for a woman than it was for an African-American man to be elected President.
4
Hillary Clinton was a lousy option. It had nothing to do with her sex. She represented the status quo. Nothing new. Same old stuff. I suppose in hindsight that would be preferable to what we have in the WH now. But the fact is she was completely uninspirational. Whether or not it is true, Ms. Clinton seemed to care mostly that she would go down in history as the first female president of the United States. Well, that just wasn't a good enough reason to support her.
With the possible, maybe, I-don't know diddly about him, exception of Beto O'Rourke, at the moment there isn't a single democratic wannabe president, male or female, who is capable of inspiring this nation to better, more noble (and I'm not referencing noblesse oblige) things. Whatever else Trump is, he is inspirational to those who support him. He plays to their fear, their loathing, their prejudices, their sense of persecution, but believe me, that stuff gets their blood hot and flowing strong.
Does it really matter if the candidate is male or female? Does it? It is critical we elect leadership that inspires us to rise above, to reunite as a community that honors, respects, and values its members as equals among equals. Please.
5
When the Democrats ignore their promises on healthcare and helping the poor and middle class Trump will be a shoe in.
1
I find this article really depressing, steeped in old stereotypes
I voted for Maggie Thatcher in 1978 for U.K. PM and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 for US President
Never was my vote based on their sex, race or religion
I voted for them because they were the best for the country and the time
3
When Democrats run candidates who happen to be woman that are good candidates instead of woman candidates who want people to vote for them because they are woman they will win.
2
Trump voters will vote for him no matter who runs for the democrats,male or female.
3
Trump wants a wall on the southern border and the hysterical feminist attacks on anything male has made a women candidate toxic. I like Ms. Warren but she or any women not will survive the over the top attacks they and the feminist militants have levied against men, especially white men. If they thought Hillary had a male voter problem they haven't seen anything yet.
2
What Sen. Warren doesn't want Democrats to know is that she was a strong advocate for school vouchers before getting into politics.
See here: http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/14/elizabeth-warrens-achilles-heel-her-support-for-school-choice/
And here: https://dailycaller.com/2016/07/07/what-potential-vp-pick-warren-doesnt-want-democrats-to-know/
The teacher unions, which are big contributors to the Democrat Party, will never take the gamble of letting her become POTUS. There's always the risk that she'll get elected and do something she really believes in.
2
@Lew Andrews She’s a former Republican, not a leftist as many claim. In addition, she didn’t focus on education policy prior to entering politics, so it’s probably an area in which she’s flexible. If she has changed her stance, then what’s the concern?
1
@BK Hi, BK. You need to read her book, The Two-Income Trap. At Harvard, she conducted what is considered to be one of the best studies ever on why people declare bankruptcy. She concluded that it has nothing to do with the usual stereotypes -- i.e., compulsive gambling, people unable to stop shopping, etc. Instead, it has to do with families going into too much debt to try and afford homes in the relatively small number of communities with good public schools.
This was a pretty far-sighted conclusion six years before the sub-prime real estate crisis. Anyway, she believes deeply -- if now secretly -- that the only way to improve education in America is to free parents from having to buy expensive homes in order to properly school their kids. No way the teacher unions are ever going to support someone like that.
1
@Lew Andrews
You’re telling us what she “secretly” believes? Come on, can’t you just take a position based on current facts that are actually known to you?
In addition, my mother was a teacher in a wealthy school district with high pay, and she and her former colleague don’t believe that school funding should be based on local real estate taxes. I’m not sure how you concluded that teachers’ unions take a different position from that. It doesn’t lead to the conclusion that charter schools are preferable.
Finally, consider again what I stated in my first message. She’s likely to be flexible on areas which she focused on less prior to entering politics. I highly doubt she’s going to be inflexible in regards to statements she make about education several years ago. That was not her area of expertise or the purpose of her book.
1
I think a woman can win and that woman is Kamala Harris.
2
Viewing the US 2016 primaries and elections closely from the outside the US , I agree with comments below that gender is not the issue, only choosing the right candidate is. I observed the obvious trolling activities on comments sites, youtube, reddit, disqus ,facebook and elsewhere with outrageous claims against Clinton and they WERE incredibly effective. In that context the comments by Comey just before the election and the party decision to not campaign heavily in some causal states and lack of pro-active addressing for mounting concerns there during their term helped that scurrilous interference and tipped the balance. Elizebeth Warren came across badly with her genetic testing for Native American blood and though absolutely a figure of intellect and integrity for her cause lacks the kind of charisma and inclusive appeal 2020 will require. I look forward to seeing the primaries and the accompanying polls to sort out the best choice pending that nothing can be really predicted.
it's not about "women." It's about campus feminists (like HRC). Elizabeth Warren, if she is one, at least she doesn't wear it on her sleeve.
As if only a man can stand up to a bully.
2
Remember: Hillary Clinton worried about choosing a female or minority running mate because it might be too much for voters. So she chose a conservative southern white male. Racist men would it's for the ticket because he knew how to weld! And he'd excited minority voters by singing spirituals!
Highly paid consultants advocated this approach, even after the smashing failures of Llyod Bentsen and John Edwards. Here we go again....
1
Oh good lord, stop second-guessing the future. This is not a news article, but an opinion piece. The best Democratic candidate will be elected in the primary, and then will run in the general election. End of story.
5
No mention in this piece about the overwhelming misogyny driving the Republican party at this point.
Nominating Kavanaugh, rejecting the violence against women act, the lack of female representation in the party itself...the list goes on and on.
Plenty of mentions of “likability” issues with HRC though.
Do better NYT. We don’t need this kind of one sided take on this anymore.
3
The first woman to win the presidency is Hillary Clinton.
4
As a non-scientific exercise in demographics I went through all these comments and found that they come almost predominantly from the east and west coast states with some exceptions like Illinois, Michigan, and Colorado. I wish a survey could be conducted among folks in the purple states like mine far from the more populated urban centers on the coasts. We too have our opinions about women candidates; we too have relatives and friends who would never vote for a woman; we are conservative; we are old fashioned; we want our voices to be heard and ask the Democrats to find us a candidate who can represent all of us to defeat Trump who has betrayed us over the past 2 years. Please accept our opinion that it is not a woman to do the job right now. It might take until the next generation who will vote for the first time with more open and progressive minds to the gender factor than my folks have today in the Rust Belt and flyover states. Thank you allowing me to express my humble opinion.
4
It WOULD be a big deal if a woman Democrat won in 2020, and she would have Hillary to thank. Hillary paved the way for women, got people used to a woman on the ticket and showed that a woman can win the popular vote. But whether a woman wins the nomination or not, the Electoral College remains a real hurdle for any Democrat nominee and it must go. We are not a true democracy as long as it exists.
6
Of course a women can win in 2020. She just needs a cohesive campaign platform that centers around solving real peoples problems in a practical way. But maybe I live in a west coast bubble.
3
Will beat Trump? That assumes Trump will be a candidate in 2020. I wouldn’t bet a dime on that.
3
I’m a woman who voted for Hillary, was and is still devastated that she didn’t win, that my fellow Americans couldn’t recognize the difference between a petulant, spoiled, incompetent man child and a polished intelligent educated etc etc etc Hillary Clinton. But I say NO NO NO to a woman candidate. It will never happen. The people in this country are not ready for a female president. Even though I’d bet anyone that Trump will win again, there’s no chance whatsoever that the Democrats will win with a female candidate.
11
This is all the Democrats have for us for 2020? Maybe later on for some.
I would consider Admiral William McRaven. He is American excellence.
3
Trump beat 17 male candidates in the primaries... whomever the Dems put forward will have to be able to get the rural vote - be they male or female.
5
Please: Don’t nominate a woman merely for that sake. I want a candidate that can win the popular AND electoral college votes to get into the White House. Gillebrand is toxic for what she did to her [male] senatorial colleague Al Franken during the Kavanaugh hearings. Incredible. And Warren is extremely divisive and projects anger. Harris on the ticket as a VP: very good! Biden for top of the ticket. Harris in a position to govern that way, should he pass away in office.
7
So far, I like Camilla Harris. She’s smart, she’s progressive, and she doesn’t play nice. Also, she has charisma, which people forget has been necessary since the invention of the television.
Does being a woman of color hurt her chances against Trump? I don’t know. I do know the FOX propaganda machine is going to smear whoever the democrats nominate. We might as well focus more on the candidate herself and less on the Donald.
2
If a woman President is elected, she will be elected purely on merit and not because she has checked a bunch of boxes on race and sex. Hillary Clinton was not elected because Americans felt she was not qualified, not ready and did not have the temperament to be President on the two occasions she ran, it had nothing to do with her being a woman. Elizabeth Warren has already disqualified herself with her Native American ancestry claims which are on record in the jobs she has held. Most Americans regard this as a form of cheating. Kamala Harris is running far left of the rest of the Democratic field which may appeal to the democratic party base but is looked upon with suspicion by the rest of the voters. The other woman candidates do not have the name recognition so far to run a nation wide campaign. If the Democrats cannot get beyond demographics, it may be up to Republicans to give us the first woman President.
2
@Rahul
"Hillary Clinton was not elected because Americans felt she was not qualified, not ready and did not have the temperament to be President"
That is a literally absurd statement. Especially given who Americans DID elect.
5
Hillary Clinton was more qualified than any candidate in history. She was defeated by 20 years of constantly demonizing her and treating her as no man was treated. She also lost because of strategic blunders during the campaign and let’s not forget Comey.
5
Hillary Clinton was not elected because of the electoral college. She won the popular vote, if you remember.
5
A woman can beat Trump, but it would be someone without baggage...NOT WARREN.
She made the mistake of getting out too soon with her message and therefore baggage (i.e. Native American blood) to drag her down.
Obama was a blank slate when he emerged...Trump was a political blank slate when he emerged.
Warren is damaged goods politically. If she is the candidate for the Dems, she and they will be defending against "Pocahontas" every day during the election cycle.
Thanks for your devotion, Liz, but stay in the Senate.
9
@East Coaster in the Heartland I think Elizabeth Warren is going to have to be the sacrificial lamb that tests out a woman against Trump at this point in time.
If Ann Richards were still alive, she would have given Trump a run for his money. She could have been the one woman who could have beaten him. She once said, "The here and now is all we have, and if we play it right it's all we'll need." She's the kind of strong, smart, classy and sharp politician this country needs, she also happened to be a woman.
I think there are other "Ann Richards" out there. We just haven't discovered them yet. . . but we will.
3
Elizabeth Warren is not the way forward for Democrats. Unless we want to lose the election.
11
HClinton ran against Trump, The Russians, Resentful Bernie Bros, Comey, The hacked Dem Party, The hacked Podesta account, her own campaign staff and last but not least... misogyny. The next woman to run will be better off except for the misogyny - hopefully. Only problem there is no woman running with her stature.
2
The defining moment for #MeToo and the women’s movement would be for a woman to beat Donald Trump, but I’d agree that isn’t likely to happen in 2020. As a country, we are too tied to the notion of that decision makers of any importance (chief executives) should possess strength, which is inextricably tied to our notions of masculinity. If the Dems want to beat Mr. Trump, then they’d nominate a man —a midwestern, Christian, heterosexual white man. If they want to make a statement about diversity or gender equality, then nominate Liz Warren, Kamala Harris, et al. A woman may have to wait until after much of the Baby Boomers are dead, of incapacitated.
2
Voting for a woman just because she is a woman is a stark example of sexism.
Clinton mostly got beaten by Trump because her ethics stink. A very good example is in how she vigorously championed the TPP for 5 years, saying it was the “gold-standard of trade treaties,” while this vile document was written in secret by corporate lawyers. She only disavowed her support for the TPP after it was fortuitously exposed by Wikileaks and there was a public outcry against it. In the meantime, the leaked DNC e-mails showed she still supported the TPP and routinely lied to the American public saying she had different public and private positions on issues. I read parts of the TPP, and anyone else who does so will also be very angry that HRC supported this corporate power grab, and even more furious with that Judas Goat, Obama, who relished lying to us about it.
If the Democrats do not choose an honest non-corporate candidate for 2020, they will again be responsible for Trump being in the White House, this time for four more ruinous years. And if they choose Clinton again, or a fake like Beto O’Rourke, they will show they care more about pleasing their rich donors and the war profiteers, than stopping, perhaps, the worst administration in history.
9
Jeez, maybe I’m very naive, but, I had thought (hoped) that this Nation had largely moved past this when it came to national office. I suppose the question must be raised since HRC lost in the Electoral College, but, she carried a lot of baggage with her. Granted, some of that baggage was not of her own doing, but, realistically, some of it was.
Since their days in Arkansas, the Clintons have had some taint to them. Maybe all of that taint was unfair and unjustified, but, over time, it piled up. By the time HRC ran for President, she had a target on her back.
In sum, I think the Results from the Clinton campaign aren’t a good yardstick to use when it comes to a woman running for President.
6
Hillary Clinton was not mistrusted because she was a woman. Rather, she was a person who had many flaws as a candidate, who happened to also be a woman.
20
The double standards were glaring.
Had she been a man, she would have won.
8
@Suzanna
Yes, there were double standards. Because some were so anxious to see a woman candidate, they were willing to overlook flaws that would have never been tolerated in a male candidate.
11
Hillary Clinton had many real flaws as well as the baggage of a decades-long smear campaign, but her being a woman was a factor in how she was treated. This has been documented and I have anecdotal evidence that, frankly, surprised me when I encountered it. Any one of these factors would have been an obstacle, but together they were absolutely toxic. (I know she won the popular vote, but there is still a lot to be learned from her campaign and what mistakes we don't want to repeat if Democrats want to win the White House in 2020.) There is more sexism in this country than we like to admit. That does not mean women should not run, but that we must face facts and make political decisions that take sexism into account as one factor. I am furious that we even have to have this conversation and that the "likeability factor" with women candidates exists. But I also don't want to live another four years under Donald Trump. In the end, I want the candidate who is in the best position to win, whoever that person may be. That is more important to me AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY than making any point no matter how important. Trump plays only to his base, witness our current government shutdown, no matter what the consequences. Democrats have to hope that Democratic voters have enough pragmatism and common sense to want a candidate that can beat Donald Trump above all else.
5
This is NOT a comment but a quick way to write to Susan Chira and Lisa Lerer with an another election question. If the electoral college allocated votes to states on the basis of the number of representatives alone rather than the number of representatives and senators, would Trump have still won? I have been thinking a lot about this sort of thing since reading Jill Lepore's new US history, which gives more background about why we are stuck with the electoral college than I had previously known. Actually as a Californian I have been thinking about it longer.
2
"Joyce Cusack would love to see a woman as president in her lifetime. But she is not sure it should happen in 2020."
"“Are we ready in 2020? I really don’t think we are,” said Ms. Cusack, 75, a former Democratic National Committee member from Florida. "
It's exactly this kind of "safe" "jurassic" thinking that gets Dems in trouble. It is long past time we elected a woman. Hillary won the popular vote didn't she.
7
@Steve
You're calling her "Jurassic" because she's 75? Pretty rude.
3
The United States is witnessing the most serious attack on our democracy since the founding of our nation. Trump is a symptom of a broken system.
The super-rich corporatist oligarchy that still rules this country, even after the 2018 midterms, are happy to have TV clown Trump in the White House to distract attention from their well-planned elimination of every step of social progress ever made in the history of the United States. They bought the Republican Party and took over the now corrupt electoral system for just this purpose. Trump and his Republican sycophants must all be thrown from office, for the salvation of our nation.
The Democratic leadership needs to be listening to the American people at the grass roots level and making sure that a charismatic person with great national appeal is the candidate for president in 2020. Neither corporate donors nor gender issues should be determining who becomes the leader in the most critical election in US history!
7
I firmly believe the only way to fight fire is with fire. If any of the candidates are Gillebrand, Klobdchar, Warren or Booker The Democratic Party cedes 4 more years to trump They are all fodder for trumps divisive style. I am a female life long Democratic voter but now is the time to find a male candidate from the heartland
10
@Teela Banker. Agreed. I didn't like what I saw of any of the people you mentioned (with the possible exception of the Minnesota senator) during the Kavanaugh hearing.
That whole episode underscored something I hadn't realized before. Republicans will stand by Republicans no matter what. Democrats will throw other Democrats under the bus at the first sign of trouble.
What Gillebrand did to Al Franken was disgraceful. Not saying necessarily that Franken shouldn't have resigned. It's just that the Dems tend to be ham-handed playing politics and they are divisive.
We can fully anticipate that they will use Trump's political playbook during the next campaign and then justify their bad behavior by claiming that it worked for Trump.
3
Sherrod Brown.
1
I am so tired of liberals screaming, "Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million!" .. Perhaps that might mean something if those votes were spread nation wide- However 1.6 million votes came straight out of California and the rest out of New York.
The GOP doesn't use the term coastal liberal elites loosely. It is a fact. Hilary ate oysters in the Hamptons with globalist bankers discussing open borders- Flew over the Midwest to eat $300,000 dinners in Los Angeles with George Clooney to talk about better movie roles for transgender actors.
If she only would have slung beef hash at community centers in Michigan and Wisconsin- perhaps she'd be President right now.
26
@Aaron You are so right about this constant consolation cry that "she won the popular vote by 3 million." With the exception of a few states like Colorado and Illinois, those votes came primarily from all states on the west coast and most on the East Coast. They traditionally vote Democratic; they are the heavily populated urban centers. As a voter in a purple state, I would say to find a candidate who represents us all particularly in PA, Wisconsin, Ohio, the Carolinas, Michigan and other viable swing states. You will win the popular vote and electoral college in the coastal states no matter what. As an aside, unfortunately my relatives in the Rust Belt will never elect a woman. Sometimes you just have to wait a generation for minds to change.
7
@Aaron
We must all be aware that Trump took the electoral College via a mere 70,000 votes spread over three states! In these states potential Democratic were deliberately targeted by Russian and GOP fake social media propaganda. Any one who actually believes Trump fairly won the 2016 election lives in an alternate Trumpian universe.
8
@Jefflz
Bernie Sanders won the primaries in two of those states (and PA doesn't allow Independents to vote in primaries). Think that would have given a compentent candidate a clue that they maybe had some work to do in MI and WI?
4
i really don't think gender matters at this point as much as cohesive messages and action to the resusitation of our country, government and selves. ms warren's too flaky, and shouldn't run for president.
1
It’s true HRC won the popular vote by over 3 million votes but it doesn’t matter because the race is decided in the Electoral College ... if the Democratic candidate can’t win in that arena, and some appear to not be able, then it doesn’t matter how many popular votes can be counted. And please don’t whine about the short comings of the Electoral College it is the system that will be in place in 2020.
12
@Leonard Foonimin
Last guy with a D pasted after his name won the EC fair and square. Twice, even. The blame for the failure of 2016 candidate, who apparently had no idea how it worked, or how to plan a campaign within the structure of it, falls squarely on her own incompetence.
3
Time for Democrats to speak like Trump.
Talking points with particular untruthfulness to highlight Trumps idiocracy:
# 1) He is afraid if the government is not shut down the justice Department will have the funds and time to indict him - so he wants it closed as long as possible
# 2) We know he doesn’t want to fund the wall because all along he told us Mexico would, it’s just an excuse to defund the IRS and hold up his tax audit
# 3) He does what Tucker and Sean tell him, let’s negotiate with them directly on TV
# 4) No one wants to be his Chief of Staff, Interior Secretary, Secretary of Defense, or Attorney General - very embarrassing so he’s deflecting attention away from his complete lack of executive leadership by keeping things shut down as long as possible.
# 5) Melania threatened to leave him again and he’s out of his mind
# 6) All his time is with Jared covering up the Saudi murder/cut ‘em up club - no time to make a budget
#7) When this occurred in his regular business life he just declared bankruptcy and started all over - he’s planning to do that again
3
Nominate the best candidate and don’t depend on identity politics.
14
Sexism / gender bias exist, logically that effects the way voters view candidates. Conflating that fact, and the chances of women candidates with the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, obfuscates the larger question here.
In the recent elections, the outcome for women candidates speaks for itself. The failure of H Clinton to win in 2016 was a story of a deeply unpopular public figure, polling as untrustworthy, and pushed forward by the Dem Party as another right-of -democratic-center politician when it appeared clear that independent and democratic voters largely wanted a more progressive choice. How can we keep the Dem party from repeating that disaster?
Hillary Clinton has done enough to keep her brand in the spotlight, ignore valid critique and coyly signal that she was a victim : The NYT doesn't not need to act as her publicity arm.
7
I haven't accepted the premise that a woman cannot win a US presidential election because of her gender. Even exit poll results --"exit polls indicated that a majority of white women voted for Mr. Trump"-- is not evidence of this. Maybe those white women who voted for Trump just didn't like Hillary because of myriad non-gender aspects of her platform, background, history, etc., etc.
3
The country is not ready for a woman President. Ask all the women in a position of power in a male dominated field (when they didn’t earn it because of their family, connections, money, or sleeping with someone). For the women who won their positions because of their amazing talent, they will all tell you sexism is rampant, as well as racism.
They’ll also all tell you the USA aren’t ready for a woman.
Finally, reading the comments, I don’t grasp how men still think anyone will be interested in their blabla when they talk about sexism not existing? As if I started talking about racism not existing while I’m white. Not your place, not your experience.
6
I’ve spent 30 years working in a male dominated field. There is a massive amount of unrecognized misogyny in our culture. That’s why we have terms like “lady doctors” and men “babysitting” their own children. Any woman who dares to violate gender norms is vilified.
10
Biden or Bloomberg can beat Trump. No other good options, regardless of gender.
2
@Scott Stueckle
Both are too old. Ageist to pretend age doesn't matter.
2
I know the Democrats would love to run someone who reflects their perceived values; however, the first rule of politics is to get elected This time around the other candidate--let's assume it will be the President but it may be Mike Pence can verbally destroy any candidate other than a white male. The nickname, a racial dog whistle, a foolish comment by the Dems candidate all would feed Fox News and the Tweet machine. That's all the Republicans need Remember, they control the Electoral college and the Judiciary if it came to that. You have to get elected. You have to get elected. My word do we have to keep repeating that until the Democrats finally get that. No one cares about Dreamers if they have a job. No one cares about Voters Rights if they have a job. No one cares about the National debt if they have a job. Get elected. Politics is local. Work every district and don't even think about coattails but do think about dogwhistles and Fox News. Get elected.
5
I just can’t forget the Mexican man who told me he was voting for Trump, despite the horrible things Trump had said about Mexicans. “I’m voting for the man”, he said, explaining he just could not vote for a woman. How many like him are out there? I even know some women who said they would never vote for a female president.
5
The likeability factor is disturbing in its double standard. I hope we are moving past that where a presidential candidate who is female has the same latitude in her media behavior as men. Double binds as well as double standards are toxic to our democracy, especially as I believe the Democratic candidate in 2020 will likely be a female. And I agree with you about Ocasio-Cortez. One significant disagreement. Congresswoman's Tlaib's comment was harmful, not because of her gender, but because it diverted and dirtied the very dialogue that needs to begin in order to persuade principled moderates to initiate removal proceedings against DT. Those Republicans in the senate and house who are beginning to contemplate impeachment? We need their support, and their votes. Nationally, we need the same dialogue to begin to end the dangerous polarization in America. MF comment in the context Tliab uttered it is harmful to the very call for such a national dialogue. Most every congressperson who is initiating impeachment proceedings condemned her choice of words. Lisa wrote earlier the need for dialogue as a reason for initiating NYT replies. It is with an eye toward that need that I criticize Tliab's outburst. Please try putting the shoe on the other foot. If I, an ardent Obama supporter, had heard the same phrase directed at then President Obama, any dialogue with that person -- male or female -- would have been stillborn.
1
I can't hep but think that Gillibrand would be a terrible choice for the Democrats after the way she literally shamed Al Franken out of the Senate. There must be many Democratic men (myself among them) who would vote against her just to make the point.
22
Klobuchar beats Trump. Warren does not. Klobuchar did very well in the Kavanaugh hearings. Harris did not.
12
Some readers already pointed out to the right direction: the 2020 USA presidential election will be decided by US citizens and the key issue is to appoint a person with the required leadership skills. Americans may still need and want to endorse a leader, regardless of gender and social origins, capable to address issues not only of national but global urgency like climate change, social inequalities, poverty, access to health care & education. Not only the USA but the world, the Earth, need a new class of Leaders capable to move beyond old fashioned border lines.
2
Of all the Democratic women who might run for president, Amy Klobuchar seems to me the most sound and smart. If she is nominated, all the mid-Western states will join her Minnesota in the Electoral College where we will see that both coasts of the United States and Florida are already in there for her. She needs to start showing who she is to more and more people every day she can now. If she is nominated, voters will have made the finest choice for the first woman to become President, and she will win.
10
@Birthright
If any woman can win, it's Klobuchar. I agree she is smart, down to earth, and she does not have the "likability" problem some of the other women have, unfortunately.
4
Winning the popular vote but not the electoral college vote (for a member of any gender or race) plus about $2 will get you a cup of coffee.
5
The arguments here totally miss the reality.
1. Without interferrence by Russia and unfortunate intervention by FBI, Ms. Clinton, regardless of her gender, might have won.
2. Trump would not be able to run because of impeachment or indictment. If not, he would have to run with huge burden.
3. Someone else other than Trump may run on behalf of Trump with Trump baggage.
Can a woman political candidate even have charisma? Seems the definition is male and that women who act on stage or in movies (assume the role of another) might be close to it, but who really knows them apart from their roles?
@CB
My instinct is that a woman candidate who could win might not necessarily be "charismatic." I think she needs to give people a real feeling of solidity, genuineness and friendliness, confidence and competence, but not excessive ego.
I'm not saying whether any of this is good or bad, or sexist - I guess it is - but just musing on what kind of woman I think Americans would feel comfortable voting for.
You want to defeat Trump? Easy.
I suggest to everyone(including the potential candidates) visit Robert Reich's website and YouTube channel, "Inequality for All"and read the THIRTY(and counting)list of promises that Trump made during his Presidential campaign that never came to fruition.
2
The right woman could beat him. It doesn't mean any qualified woman could beat him, however. The right male could beat him. It doesn't mean any qualified male could beat him, however. Gender isn't the issue. Appeal is! The right political posture properly communicated will rule the ballot box.
5
Many people will never forgive Gillenbrand for what she did to push out a good Senator, Al Franken. As lifelong liberal very active, I can see that will be her undoing and it has nothing to do with her being female. I’d much rather see Biden, Harris, Sanders, or even Warren run instead of her.
22
@GN I absolutely agree; it was self-serving and despicable.
1
There is no way the democratic candidate in 2020 will not be a woman. Women won the popular vote election for the Dems in 2016, led the march in Washington, the blue Wave in 2018, took power for the Dems in the House a few days ago, and will power the bid for victory in 2020.
It is time and Democratic men are right behind them all the way.
1
A woman can do as good a job as a man as President. And there will be a female president eventually. She stands a better chance though if she doesn't demonize men and avoids the narrative that women are victims. The whole grrrrrl power thing is tiresome.
We need a sensible woman who sees the whole big picture. She is out there.
Hopefully the Dems won't eat her alive before she gets out of the gate.
7
It’s early day, folks. Why not just step back for a while and see how the field unfolds. I would hope that 2016 taught the Democratic leadership that they don’t tell us who the best candidate is; we tell them!
4
The problem wasn't with a woman it was that particular woman. It wasn't just Republicans calling her aloof and elitist; a lot of us Democrats watched in disbelief as she and her 'team' steamrolled into the nomination.
Rather than gender being a problem in 2020, my Democratic party, if it wants to be successful, better nominate someone who isn't eligible for Medicare. Harris, Booker and Gillibrand all qualify.
5
The damage that the Clintons - she for her non-negotiable desire to be President while clearly unqualified to win the election, and he for complicity - is unlimited. The toll already is two Supreme Court justices, the other evils of the Trump administration so far, and most serious the belief that Clinton lost because she was female rather than that she was a terrible campaigner and her public persona is hugely unlikable.
Now Ms. Chozick and sadly many others conjecture that no other woman can be elected President. Clearly this is a conjecture, which we would not have to entertain if anyone else had run against Trump, and almost certainly would have won.
7
There are many things in play for the democrats to consider. It's time to return to the smoke filled backrooms to pick an electable candidate that truly represents a Democrat platform. No more televised beauty pageants. Thirty some odd potential candidates would tear each other apart and give the Republicans plenty of fodder.
As far as the woman issue goes, it depends on the qualifications, ethics and personality of the candidate not their gender. Hillary was not the right candidate. Bernie won big in all the primaries where independents were allowed to vote. He inspired the youth and the left. Warren has no chance, she carries too much baggage. Beto is a joke and is not electable.
The Democrats have to hide away at some retreat now and pick a candidate and stick with her or him. I recommend Amy Klobuchar.
5
Are they seriously, does anyone seriously fear that Trump can beat anyone 2020? Does anyone even believe he can run 2020? If so, then your country is in much bigger trouble than even I could imagine.
3
I think the Democratic Party should forget about trying to attract Trump supporters. They won't vote for ANY democratic candidate, no matter how qualified. The midterms showed us that we no longer need to fear Donald Trump. He has destroyed the reputation of the Republican Party, and a democratic victory in 2020 is almost certain. Aside fro that, the real reason for Hilary's loss is that Paul Ryan and the Republican controlled house investigated her so long that they were able to create an aura of guilt around an innocent person. We should focus on supporting our best and brightest candidates. Elizabeth Warren is brilliant, ethical, experienced and charismatic. She will make a GREAT president!
1
At this point, I don't give a hoot about gender. I care only about policies, and who can go head to head in a national campaign with Trump's verbal gymnastics, uncountable lies, and personal attacks. The ability to beat Trump at his own games is far more important than who is aligned perfectly with my policy preferences, and certainly more important than gender. Also, I want someone "youngish" because I think that's important to attracting younger progressive voters. Stay out of it Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders! I am a 62 year old female. The only Republican I ever voted for was the female Governor of New Mexico, Susanna Martinez, for her second term. I eventually came to regret it, as I hope the Democrats who did not vote for Hillary now regret their decision. New Mexico has suffered for the last 4 years (we just elected a Democrat). America will be suffering for decades because of the miscalculations that led to Trump's election.
5
@Desertbluecat. Yup! Another 62 year old female here. Canadian so I can't vote and also can't comment on New Mexico. But I'm with you 100% up to and including the comment about Biden and Sanders. My two other criteria: experience (no more political novices please!) and an ability to appeal to independents, because no one will win the election without them.
2
Women are always held to a different standard than men, and there are plenty of white women (particularly republican) who simple vote as their husbands tell them to, I suppose partly on the theory that the husband is smarter (which is drummed into Conservative Christian women night and day) and partly on the desire not to think for themselves for fear of losing their husbands. Many, many women have been so beaten into the ground that they have learned to be happy there as long as they don't think about it.
4
@Brookhawk
I'm curious how you know this. Are you one of those wives? If not, do you personally know a woman who is?
2
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. She was defeated by a combination of factors, including Putin, head of the former USSR, and Jill Stein, a leftist who won a tiny number of votes, but enough to give a plurality of the votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to Trump.
The far left joined rightist Trump to defeat democracy.
5
Of course a woman can win. Just pick the right woman with the right platform, who does not turn off Democratic voters and who appeals to more than 1/2 of the independents. That's the formula. Hold and turn out the base and win the independents. Hillary Clinton couldn't do it because she was a terrible candidate with damaging baggage and a sense of entitlement. She didn't turn out the base and she lost the independents. Even on the Republican side, if Trump were somehow to be out of the picture, there are women who could deliver to that formula, such as Nikki Haley or Condoleezza Rice. Surely there is a woman on the Democratic side who can deliver. That said, all anyone should want is the best candidate, whether male or female... someone who will be a knowledgeable, competent and inspiring leader and President for all the people of the country.
4
Bizarrely, The Times continues to do women a disservice. Not mentioned once in this article is the Democratic candidate whose policies would be most beneficial for women: Bernie Sanders. Gender matters, but health insurance for all women would be monumental. So would affordable college. So would policies aimed at leveling the economic playing field. Women are disadvantaged. Focus on issues, not symbolism, or we will lose to Trump again.
7
I absolutely think women should run. They powered the 2018 midterms.
But be nominated? I'm not so sure. I feel that way about a minority male, too (although I LOVE my Senator). However, there's a long way to go at this point, so I don't think we should be second-guessing or crystal-ball gazing in JANUARY 2019 for an election in NOVEMBER 2020. I know it's very, very tempting for reporters who cover politics, though.
1
Tulsi Gabbard and Nikki Haley come to mind right off the bat. From different parties but I could cast my vote for either one of them and be comfortable with it.
While it is newsworthy what the Democratic VIPs think about particular candidate profiles, I hope the NYTimes realizes that concentrating on the power brokers gives them more power than they should and do have.
In 2016, by concentrating on the power brokers the news media lost sight of the voters. This oversight allowed Trump to rise without adequate scrutiny. And for him to get away with empty slogans.
11
as a new Yorker, watched kristen for years. watched a lot of Kamala during Senate hearings. if either of those 2 get on a ticket it's time to run for the hills.
if I vote for a man because he's a man and I don't want a woman president I'm clearly sexist. so if I vote for a woman just because she's a woman, doesn't that also make me sexist? I can just see all the shaking heads thinking, oh no it's not because "it's time we had a woman president". time to think again and vote for the best candidate, regardless of sex.
44
@bored critic
The left truly does get into contortions in trying to reconcile the notions that the best candidate should win and that it's critically important to elect a woman.
5
@bored critic … if you watched Kamala Harris during the Senate hearings and didn't see a strong, intelligent woman you must have not been watching too closely.
1
@bored critic I agree (John Levin’s wife, a woman, replying here - the NYT account’s in his name). What those 2 women did to Al Franken shows their true character. And Kamala is our senator. She won’t get my vote again. Having been in business for 35 years I’ve seen women and men abuse their power by equal measures. We need a candidate that can stand up to Trump and who has the respect across the isle which Franken does.
3
After 2018 midterms and Clinton winning popular vote in 2016 I'm not buying this sexist premise. Totally defeatist. Same as racist arguments against nominating Obama.
28
Clinton won the popular vote because she won California - a state in which Trump did not campaign and which is an outlier compared to the rest of the country - by a wider margin than her overall popular vote margin. Take out the California vote and Trump won the popular vote in the rest of the country. And since the national popular vote is meaningless but the majority vote in each individual state is not, don't hang your hat on Clinton's "victory" even if if it makes you feel better. It means nothing.
6
@G A woman could win. But first she must Be Best
It's too bad that people take Hillary Clinton's run for President as a litmus test of women and how they do in politics. I am a woman and a Liberal. I disliked Hillary for her smugness and sense of entitlement that she deserved to be President just because she'd like to be President. To me, she was not a beacon of integrity and character. I also think it is rather frivolous to be measuring and talking about women and whether they can win based solely on their sex. There is a large contingent of Freshwomen in the new Congress. Whether they will actually do something rather than competing with each to be the day's news story remains to be seen.
32
@Mulberryshoots. I see. What sense of "entitlement?" Having spent her entire career working for children's and women's rights makes you think she was "entitled"? What is you idea of a "beacon" of integrity? One detects a note of jealousy in your criticism of Sec Clinton. And why the need to proclaim one's gender and party affiliation in order to validate one's POV?
4
@Mulberryshoots Every woman will be described as feeling entitled, until one of 'em finally wins, dancing backwards, in heels.
EVERY woman.
1
Fifty-two percent of white women voted for Donald Trump. The message is simple: women, in particular white women, are not a reliable constituency.
9
That’s not an argument for not nominating a woman.
@Anthony Michaels
Please allow to serve up some truth here:
White women do not actually form a single constituency. White woman do not bond together into a community, like the community black women enjoy. The demographic of white women who vote Trump belong more or less to same demographic of Mean Girls that used to put me down and bully me when I was a white girl in middle school and high school.
I object to being held responsible for the politics expressed now by the women who abused me when we were all young. I could have told you those girls would grow up to vote for a Donald Trump type back in middle school.
2
@Anthony Michaels
I'm white and female and didn't voter for Trump (nor Hillary). But you're correct in that i'm not a reliable voter.
That's why i paste an I after my name, along with 40+% of the electorate. Gee willikers, maybe you actually have to work in my interests to get my vote, not assume i'll get in line just because.
3
I volunteered for, and voted for Hillary. No woman candidate is going to beat psychobaby in 2020. There are just too many male voters who will not vote for a woman, as well as too many of their pathetic wives who blindly follow their husband's orders.
25
Attitudes like this are why your side lost and will lose again. So women who don't support your views can't think for themselves? Really?
3
Whoever is going to run against Trump should have skin thicker than rhino hide and the ability to give as good as, or better than, they get. This will be no normal campaign - it will be just like the previous one - rough, dirty, nasty, and unassociated with policies, the past, or truth itself.
14
@John McGlynn Hopefully it will me a little different than the last campaign. Hopefully the Democratic candidate won’t take a month off from campaigjng or go for half of the summer without giving a press conference. I hope that the candidate will have many days of campaigning where he or she holds two rallies a day as Trump did in 2016, and won’t tell the voters to check their website if they want to learn about their platform. They will be out there talking to the voters and convincing that their view for he country can work a dot us back on track. And that they will certainly drain the swamp that crawls around now in DC.
3
Anyone, man or woman, running for office should watch videos on youtube of Margaret Thatcher in the House of Commons, evicerating her opponents with facts, humor and aplomb. There are many sacred cows on the right and left that need slaughtering.
38
There are racists and mysogenists. I would guess the supporters of the serial groper and abuser were in these groups. The issue is with everyone else. Trump trounced an army of Republican men. Of course a woman can beat Trump. Nice won’t work. We ho high won’t work. I’ve heard the truth about Trump from Warren and Pelosi. He needs to be treated and shown up for what he is.
4
I think Trump will walk all over Warren, but I think Ms Harris can stand up to him
7
Trump will smear anybody and everybody. You Republicans don’t like Warren because you’re scared of her.
1
Spare me the Clinton lost b/c of misogyny nonsense. She lost b/c the Dems nominated the one person Trump could beat in a Presidential election. Period
39
Very few Presidential candidates had HRC’s combination of professional and governmental experience. The hatred that Trump and the right wing generated against her was certainly based in significant part on her gender. Thats a simple fact anyone who listened to Trump could witness. The R party also despises women who are: feminists; believe in equality; wont defer to men; or who put family and community ahead of empire. Anyone who is over 50 can tell you about the history of misogyny and mistreatment of women. So, to dismiss history and Trumps words and actions is to over simplify the analysis. There’s a big reason the R party revels in labeling the D party the “ mommy party “ and if you don’t perceive the misogyny in that you don’t understand politics or psychology.
4
As a long term Democrat that has voted in every election in the past four decades, I will not vote for a male candidate again; not after how male Democrats refused to back HRC. Two can play this stupid game boys, and women are about 60-65% of Democratic primary and midterm voters. And the boys who refused to back Pelosi won't get a dime from me or my vote, no matter how long they are in politics.
3
@sleeve. Isn't policy more important than the gender of the candidate? I care about what someone will do as President, how she/he will govern, the positions she/he will take and the decisions she/he will make, whether she/he will bring the country together and represent the country well globally. Whether she/he will keep,the country safe. I would love to see a female President but gender would not be anywhere on my list of deciding criteria.
5
@sleeve That is an excellent way to insure that a Republican will win the presidency in 2020.
3
Look at all the women that got into this Democratic landslide . Case closed. I will vote for more women Democrats even to be President than a man. Hilary won fair and square but had to many liers running against her the biggest one Trump. He is still illegitimate and a fake President and I don't honor him as my President. He needs to be removed from office for doing a poor job and destroying our country with coal pollution.
5
"The rawness of the topic was evident in the furor that broke out this week over Ms. Warren’s relatively low likability ratings."
What furor?
This is why Trump gets away with wild accusations of "fake news."
He is not always wrong. Just most of the time.
10
This is exactly right. No furor I heard of.
6
@Sage She’s very unlikeable. Just like Romney was declared unlikeable. Just like countless other MALE candidates that were declared unlikeable by the media. Trump, Edwards, Cruz, etc.
Democrats should take off their blinders and stop projecting their progressive views onto the white male majority in the 'fly-over' states that voted Trump and doubled down on the GOP in 2018. These states held the electoral votes that put a minority popular vote candidate, Trump, into office.
If we have any expectation of winning the presidency in 2020, Democrats must remind women seeking this office in the same words LBJ, as a House Representative from Texas, explained to his black voters, 'You've got to trust me so I can get further ahead in congress and then I'll meet my promise to you' And LBJ did so in 1964!
12
It is critical the Democrats chose a candidate who can win. The best way to do this is with free and open primaries, it's called Democracy. No super delegates, uncounted votes or electoral college. Hillary was a terrible candidate with astronomical unfavorables despite being an outstanding and capable stateswoman. Keep in mind she only beat nobody Lazio 55-43 in NY in 2000 and would likely have lost to Giuliani (Giuliani!) if he had not withdrawn.
6
@Tibby Elgato
In addition:
Open primaries up for Independents in states that do not have that provision.
3
@w: Yes! Why aren’t more people talking about this? Regarding the 6-12 most important states in the electoral college, isn’t there something the Democrats in those states can do to allow Independent voters to vote in the next Democratic primaries? (I don’t see the Republican leaders wanting to “dilute” their primaries at all.)
According to the UofV Center for Politics, as of July 2018, there are huge percentages of registered Independents in those states, and they’re the votes the Democrats need. Let the Independents vote in those Primaries, and we’ll have a Democratic candidate with a much better chance of winning the presidency. If I have the states right:
PA registered voters: 48% D, 38% R, 13% I
FL registered voters: 37% D, 35% R, 27% I
NC registered voters: 38% D, 30% R, 31% I
CO registered voters: 31% D, 30% R, 37% I
NV registered voters: 38% D, 34% R, 21% I
AZ registered voters: 30% D, 35% R, 34% I
IA registered voters: 31% D, 33% R, 35% I
NH registered voters: 28% D, 31% R, 42% I
1
A winning ticket... Jay Inslee, governor of Washington and Amy Klobachar of Minnesota... both smart and appealing to different geographic constituencies.
3
If I understand it, the electoral college is supposed to protect the country from mob rule, (popular vote). Seems in most states the electors are obliged to vote per the popular vote, and some are not. The whole system is a bit sketchy. And the one time I can remember when the electorate should have prevented a madman from being nominated and elected President, it failed.
I wish I had paid more attention to how the electoral college operated during the last election. And to be on topic, I’ll wait for the Mueller presentation before I opine on who the Dems should send into the next dogfight.
5
Sorry folks, but, you are missing the point here. If this first two years of a Trump presidency has proved anything is that he spends his time appealing to a fanatical minority base of voters, whom whether it is male or female, will NEVER vote for a democrat, bottom line.
The chosen democrat candidate, whether male or female(it doesn't matter which)who will initiate and discuss real policies, excite and bring out younger and minority voters AGAIN and more importantly be unencumbered by the influence of corporate and super pac money, I believe, contrary to some, could very well defeat Trump quite easily.
Other than appealing to his wealthy buddies, for him, the "cat is now out of the bag", Trump has no policies and is a pathological liar, hence, a woman just might have an advantage in that since "The Tweetster" can't help himself and what comes out of his mouth, he will probably alienate female voters even more than he already has done!
11
For the life of me, I cannot understand the fixation on and urgency of choosing a woman candidate right now on the heels of a previous divisive and unsuccessful one. With all due respect to the election and reelection of President Obama, I could never have imagined another African American candidate running right on his heels in the 2016 election despite his wide popularity at the end of his terms in office.
The #metoo movement is here to stay and it will propel the success of a future woman president. It's realistically too premature to do so right now. There will always be a 2024 election. What is the rush? The Misogynist-in-Chief has won before over a woman and may win again. The Democrats must find the right candidate to defeat him and it should not be based in any way on the gender factor. That should be the urgency.
10
“Are we ready in 2020? I really don’t think we are,”
There is another word for this kind of defeatist mindset, and that word is ‘nihilism’. Accepting defeat as inevitability will almost always result in defeat.
6
As long as the democrats hold a Fair and Open nominating process I could not care less if the eventual winner is male, female, trans, bi, straight, gay, white, black, brown, green, old or young.
Hold a legitimate nominating process (unlike 2016) let the people decide who the nominee should be. That is the person I will vote for in 2020.
14
Sigh...we should not be focusing on gender. To plan to vote for--or against--someone because of gender ( or race or age ) is not only sexist, it is foolish.
Why limit ourselves by saying "no old white men," or " no young women of color"? The first prohibition currently sounds fashionable, but makes no more sense, and is no more moral, than the second.
Find the best person, in this case meaning the person who has the best chance to win.
Who is that, in my opinion?
Right now, I'd love to see Sherrod Brown and/or Amy Klobuchar on the ticket, in either order.
Seasoned yet not "old news." Unlike the Limousine LIberal gang that ignored the rust belt and insulted the working class in 2016, these two would win back the Midwest. Without vein-popping yelling and finger-pointing, these two act and sound like adults with adult ideas.
They could win, and then as a bonus, they would govern honorably.
7
Since it's critical that Trump lose in 2020, especially for the fate of the Supreme Court if nothing else, then Democrats must not take any chances.
Sorry, ladies.
4
@David Henry What a defeatist attitude! Did you feel the same way about Barak Obama?
1
Democrats should do everything within their power to prevent Trump from ever getting to run in 2020 and not worry about who can beat him. One option, out of many others, is to look more seriously into his mental state.
His presidency is a disaster that needs to be confronted long before the next election.
2
Watching from afar in Australia I think at this moment in time the next candidate has to have a pugilistic personality- a fast wit- and a deep deep connection to unwinding the 1950's policies that have recently become enshrined through executive orders. A person who has an expertise and experience in climate change. they should have a strong public policy record in health, education, welfare and the environment. They should hold the belief that the office of the president is for "we the people" not for we are here to profit off the position or mislead the population with falsehoods.
This is not a gender question. It is a question of finding the right candidate - republican or democrat - who has the experience for the position and the belief that the current president will be historically only a stain or a stink on America's democratic process...and as soon as that candidate can expunge the stain or stink through their leadership- then you will have a true presidential candidate.
Running 20 democratic candidates will only hurt the cause for finding the right person. The Democratic party should be bold and look for 4 out of the 20 to run....as this will show a commitment to finding the right candidate. ...at this time..
Perhaps an independent candidate- male or female- is an option that needs to be discussed in the news rather than a gender question. .
Melbourne des
12
@Melbourne Des
Agree.
(We need an Australian.)
1
Hillary's faults elected Trump & Obama had his contribution also.
In a Change Election Hillary just had to pocket as much as possible from speeches to Wall Street firms before declaring for the candidacy. This followed on Obama bailing out the Financial Sector and then giving the miscreants who caused the mess bonuses while millions lost their homes to foreclosure and hundreds of thousands lost their jobs.
With the guidance of Geithner and Bernanke Obama's only concern was for the same bankers who then paid huge speaker's fees to Hillary for speeches she refused to make public
For those concerned about national security there was clear evidence that Hillary was arrogant in ignoring warnings expressly given to her on use of unsecure personal cell phones and email that she later tried to treat as a joke
The icing on the cake was her abysmal political skills exemplified by her failure to campaign in many blue collar areas instead choosing to hobnob with the Hoi Poloi to sip Chardonnay and be celebrated
Voters view of Hillary as arrogant and disconnected was confirmed by the disclosure of how her campaign sought to rig the primaries with assistance from Debbie Wasserman Shultz and cheated in the debates with questions given in advance by Donna Brazile
The best Democrat to be president is by far Elizabeth Warren based on what is now known however her attempts to counter Trump's attacks against her show she may not be the best candidate to run against him
2
The electoral loss by Hillary Clinton should not be enlarged to encompass all women candidates -- although talented and qualified, Clinton had much baggage and did some self-harm. With the exception of hard-core Trump voters, I think that the US would readily embrace a competent and experienced woman chief executive. However, it won't be Elizabeth Warren....
3
Just because Hillary Clinton could not win the presidency does not mean that another woman, one who had risen thanks to her own talents and ambition would not be a strong candidate.
Yes, there are pitfalls that are more likely to trap a woman than a man yet men struggle too with the difficultly of striking the balance between “like ability” and gravitas. The need to appear natural and unscripted while the camera lights are on. The imperative to express complex ideas in a few simple words. The need to project strength and confidence—remember Dukakis in the tank? Kerry’s bumblebee cycling attire? Mitt Romney’s binders full of women?
Let’s not get hung up on gender or race or even age. I hear a lot of commenters channeling imaginary swing voters here. Maybe we should let the candidates speak and then decide.
5
A lot of progressives have gone to the mat and run for office and I am grateful for everyone of them. Anyone who wants to go through this process to run for President must be either crazy, corrupt or longing to change things. My personal favorite is Stacey Abrams but I'd vote for any of them. The black women of this country (I am white) overwhelmingly voted for a white woman to be President while a majority of white women did not. I believe it is the black woman's turn. Just sayin'.
3
Hillary Clinton should ride off into the sunset, but this is not the reason:
"Many men have lost their campaigns for the presidency, yet when one woman loses women shouldn't try again?"
Many Hillary Clinton supporters seem to be unaware of this, but the 2016 election was not Hillary Clinton's first rodeo. She also ran in 2008, not conceding to Obama until June of that year (though it was obvious to nearly everyone else, in March of that year, that she was doomed). And she's married to Bill Clinton, who was President from 1993 to 2001.
Those who lose indeed should feel free to run again (just ask Adlai Stevenson about that -- or, indeed, Hillary Clinton). But that doesn't mean that the time will not come for a candidate -- male or female -- to ride off into the sunset. That time is here for Hillary Clinton (and for other "oldsters," for that matter, including Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders).
4
It's not a matter A woman; it's a matter of WHICH ONE can win in 2020.
3
This article rests heavily on one assertion— Hillary lost because Americans are misogynistic. While that is certainly true of some Americans, Hillary didn’t lose because she was a woman. People hated her personality, she couldn’t excite people, and was surrounded by big money and scandals.
So could a woman win for the Democrats in 2020? Certainly! As long as they’re nothing like Hillary.
11
@Sam Catania
Agree that the decades of lies about Hillary had an impact on many who wanted to believe. Which of Hillary's misdeeds was most important? The porn ring in the pizza parlor basement? Ben Gazzi? Eeeeee-mail? The murder of Vince Foster? Accepting fees for speeches (unlike Reagan and every other speaker)? Not divorcing Bill for committing adultery? Other.
3
If Trump’s still around it will be a miracle.
It is a genuine concern that with the racists, male supremacists, and the big money that barely holds them on a leash if they won’t rouse mayhem if a woman wins the Democratic nod. Obama was amazing. Even with an Arabic/Muslim name, African heritage he won. Could be the White terror money had it’s tail between it’s legs post crash. But, 2012 says it was his dignity, integrity, brilliance and charisma that won. But winning was not complete. The veils were torn aside and racism, blatant in your face racism emerged with a vengeance. Republicans made the Southern Strategy openly racist and Trump rode that to a win with lots of help from big greed, coal, and everyone who benefited from the tax cult who makes over $300K, and a 7 year propaganda campaign against Clinton (that continues) and then for Trump that also persists.
Some candidate who reveals the extent of Russian and international oligarchs may defeat Trump. could it be a woman? Yes! But she would have to be fearless, brilliant, charismatic, and dignified. There are a few, but Elizabeth is the most fearless prepared, brilliant and far more intimidating than Hillary. Ask Hillary.
1
Present a viable, intelligent candidate regardless of gender!
6
We need a policy-oriented, left of center Democrat who is willing to take on growing inequality, climate change and major multinational corporations. For me, Elizabeth Warren is that candidate. She can go toe to toe against Trump and his corrupt bunch of plutocrats; she can respond with policy when he dribbles inanities.
7
Male or female Tony it’s the ideas and the presentation. Even when I agree with Trump on rare occasions I cringe at the delivery. I like a lot of what Sen Warren preaches but the delivery is a turn off to me. I have a feeling I am not alone.
1
Gotta think the word 'exposed' didn't help the male dominance infallibility notion since Harvey Weinstein, Louis CK and a cast of 100's arrived on the scene since 2016.
I think the real issue is that the media is even entertaining a narrative that warns Americans that women are so terribly hated in this country that they can’t even beat someone like Trump.
3
It’s so weird reading articles like this. Are we supposed to be concerned that there’s “a lingering doubt”? Hello, does anyone remember that last election? The experts and the pundits did an excellent job calling that one. Please leave us voters out of your musings and let us vote with our own minds.
5
You know what's great about candidates that aren't Liz Warren?
Some of them are under 75. Some are even under 70. I think one might even be under 60!
For all the whining democrats do about low millennial turnout, they sure seem to put a lot more emphasis on what sex organs a person has than whether they would lead this country with more than a decade of skin in the game.
Haven't the Olds done enough to destroy this world?
3
@Alex
Don't sell the millennials short. They seems to like the rumpled old guy with the flyaway hair just fine in '16.
2
I am not voting on a gender profile. Nor a race, age, class profile much as news focus' on it. It's the issues stupid. Who is going to address policies which institutionalize our ever widening wealth gap? Who is going to address institutionalized education gaps? Who is going to protect the safety net and treat workers as people? How would any of the candidates address Putin, Kim Jong un? Hungary, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the rest? What are your thoughts on immigration policy, gerrymandering, Citizens United? What are your thoughts on health care? The judicial department interprets law, legislators create it. What is your roadmap for our future? Democrats, Republicans, and news media please focus on the issues.
6
Trump has to get through the republican primary first.
1
We have to acknowledge who we’re up against and how, possibly existentially, vital to our nation it is to vote him out of office. He’s a quintessentially dirty player and I think only another man who is very quick, very smart and can literally “get up in his face” can take him down—with a woman as running mate—this time. At 76, I would love to see a woman as POTUS, but we can’t take a chance of Trump being re-elected.
1
Democrats need to decide whether it's more important to be ideologically correct or to beat Trump. In my (female) opinion, they should focus on beating Trump.
8
I receive the NYT for free through my university. Even so, it took me some months to bring myself to actually read it, disgusted as I was with the paper's contributions to the decision to invade Iraq a second time.
Now, in a very short period, we've had attempts to discredit Senator Sanders and this current piece which refers to 'doubt in some quarters' concerning the wisdom of a Warren candidacy.
Of the sources your paper uses and protects, I wonder how many are actually interested in the common good. I have my doubts about the motives of those who dwell in 'some quarters.'
10
@Brian Nienhaus
Bragging about not reading the NYT is . . . Trump-like.
1
Our first female President will follow in the same footsteps as our first Black American President, Barack Obama. She will be an unflappable, judicious, and charismatic leader who lives in rarified air; well above reproach.
She will not be shame tattooed by Trump’s name calling, lies and accusations. She will be person of exceptional experience, authority, morals and reason.
In essence, she will have to be far superior in every way to the white male the GOP will invariably put up to run against her.
In our present toxic, barbaric climate, a female President isn’t possible. The best we can hope for is a V.P. position with, most likely, Joe Biden. He’s the best candidate we have to begin to unify the country.
1
@Sarah
Joe is too old and has too much unpleasant history. Time for someone new. Young. Smart. Handsome. Knowledgeable. Respectful. Polite. An American, not a Russian dictator's stooge.
Eric Swalwell.
2
Hilary didn't define how women are seen - widespread sexism did. ... Of course there is a risk for a woman to do anything: sexism and harassment, topped with victim blaming - and the very real consequences of being marginalised or even fired when you report something, or even if you just refuse to go along with harassment - are the everyday norm for women everywhere. And that's the reason to support women to run for office! I'm saddened to read that a woman running for office can be considered this way - as risk. Isnt that the definition of sexism? Judging someone on their sex? What a shame this sexism is uncrictically considered by the NYT as some kind of tactical aspect of politics.
Silly topic for 2019.
HRC won the popular vote by 3 million. In spite of Russian interference for Trump and endless right wing propaganda attacks for 30 years, with a Republican Congress abusing its power to damage her politically.
And she wasn’t even a very charismatic candidate.
Let’s find a candidate who is the proper mixture of charisma, visionary and pragmatism.
And one who is an agent for America and instead of Putin.
1
People,
Let’s focus on beating the GOP in toto in 2020.
The gender of the Presidential candidate is irrelevant. It is not because you or I want it that way, it is because it is rational to see it that way and we need to be rational first and passionate second in trying to win.
In my opinion Warren anc Sanders (or Sanders and Warren) are the top candidates to get our nation out of the quagmire that started with Ronald Reagan, continued with Bush Père et Fils and led to Trump. Clinton and Obama in between threw bones to the 99 percent but were really 1 percenters at heart and deed.
We need universal healthcare, gender equality, free public schooling from K through college, 21st Century infrastructure, free access to the internet, abolition of Citizens United and other misnomers from a fictional dystopia. We need regulation of Big Pharma, Wall Street, Big Tech and Big Healthcare.
Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders no matter their gender are the ones. Kamala Harris could be a VP with either in case the two won’t try to do it together.
6
Many commenters have made the entirely valid point that people vote for specific candidates with specific policies. I can assure you that our political team will be dissecting issues as well as individuals -- but at this very early stage of the 2020 race, my colleague Lisa Lerer and I felt it was newsworthy to analyze a discussion that is clearly ongoing not only within the Democratic party but among our commenters, as well. Unfortunately, it's long been clear that gender is subtly, or in some cases not so subtly, a factor in how candidates are perceived. When these issues are aired, it may be possible to examine them and perhaps expose misconceptions or biases. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.
140
@Susan Chira
To vote based on gender (or age or race), is not only sexist (or ageist or racist), it is foolish in that it limits the pool of possibilities from which to choose the Person with the best chance to win.
Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar--in either order--are my picks as of right now.
9
Thank you Susan for replying and having read so many of the comments. While I agree that the topic is out there - I don’t agree that the NYTimes need to give it more fuel. As a white male, I just don’t care at all if the candidate is a woman, man, white, black, Indian or Asian. Identity politics is so 2016.
32
@Susan Chira
Thank you. I will urge you to focus your attention on how the candidates (regardless of gender) are doing in the specific states that always determine the outcome of Presidential elections. We know how MA and CA are going to vote.
Kind Regards.
14
Hillary winning by 3 million votes basically means that Hillary won big in California ... and it did not matter. Republicans are pushing through any and every Conservative judge at higher rates than Obama ever got, and then there are the environmental, healthcare, tax and immigration policies, to name a few other disaster areas. If you don't want 4 more years of that beyond 2020, then goals for gender and diversity better not be the top two criteria for picking a Democrat candidate.
If the candidate who has the best chance of winning the Electoral College is a woman, then great. A focus on the goal and big picture seems better in these times than another narrow loss because it is somebody's turn or supposedly, time.
8
Many men have lost their campaigns for the presidency, yet when one woman loses women shouldn't try again? And there are Democratic Party super-delegates thinking about it enough to voice it in the press? I am appalled and disgusted.
My thoughts for democratic candidates, which I will state openly for the press: Men need not apply. There are so many qualified women. Let's get this done.
11
@Susan
sigh...
"Men need not apply."
...is exactly as sexist --and foolish--as saying "Women need not apply."
Ditto any prohibitions based on race or age. This kind of thinking is just what we should be working Against. Why should we rule out anyone based on gender (or age or race)? That just handcuffs our ability to pick a winner.
Klobuchar and Brown--in either order-- are my faves at this point.
3
A Democrat must win the next presidential election, but how? I think the answer is to get people who don’t typically vote (40% of eligible Americans) to vote. Dems like myself will vote every election for the dem on top of the ticket. By and large the republicans will do the same. White females will probably vote relatively similarly to how they voted in 2016 despite the energy of 2018 midterms. So we need to nominate a candidate who will excite young people and people of color. Warren is not going to do that and nominating her would be the same as voting for the current occupant. Harris maybe, Booker maybe, Beto maybe. But the choice will be obvious when we know the playing field, it will be the young, smart, progressive option.
4
There is no predictive value added by taking a candidate's gender into account. Hillary had popularity problems but that was already reflected in the polling. The gender issue was already "baked into" the polls to the extent that this was an issue.
The democrats should thus go for a candidate who is capable, has a good policy platform, and polls well with the broader public. This is true regardless of gender.
9
Hillary did not loose because she was a woman...if she had picked Bernie Sanders as a running mate, we would not be having this discussion. Trump took his 44% popularity and ran over a divided Democratic ticket.
Presidential candidates can not be too greedy with their own agenda. There needs to be power sharing and compromise in order to get out of our current political rut.
Blaming an election loss on gender is just whitewashing the facts. We got Trump because the voters were not interested enough in the alternative. Democrats & Hillary need to own this and not scapegoat bad decisions if we want to win in 2020.
10
First, the Democratic nominee will be running against Pence. Second, no matter what, the candidate should not be Clinton.
Trump will be long gone. Further, this is not the time to select a candudate because of gender. Select the best candidate and I for one am not sure who it should be, except it should not be Clinton.
A major consideration must be who will be best at repairing the damage to our image done by Trump. Other important issues will be how we handle Russia's interference in our elections and how best to reframe our relations with China who is steadily gaining world influence.
4
@sbanicki
"Further, this is not the time to select a candidate because of gender."
Nor is any other time the time to choose based on gender, or race, or age.
It's foolish to thus limit the pool of choices, not to mention being sexist, or racist, or ageist.
Do we Still not know that?
2
I believe the Democrats need not worry about the gender of their candidate, Trump won in part because of the strength, resilience and fair balance of American democracy. If the Democrats had retained the White House for 12-16 years, the level of radicalism and disenfranchisement could be more catastrophic with some citizens feeling left out.
Now that there's been a break in ruling party, other concerns and issues came to light, hence, preparing Americans should such an anomaly in candidate present itself again in the future. Obama once said politics is a battle of ideas; Trumps ideas has been voiced, there's been chaos but more importantly other parties and citizens felt emboldened and heard.
It is now up to politicians to listen, hear and engage those whom felt left out and led to the election of Trump. All in all, the country should be better off from the outcry and ineptitude of Trump. One political party ruling for an extended period of time is not good for any democracy, democracy as an experiment needs to be able to reassess.
Even if Trump survives to 2020, he will not run. He was as surprised, as we all were, that he was elected President. He never really wanted the Presidency, it was the "game" and the "power" that drove him to be a candidate. Putting all that aside, a woman President is not only possible, it's likely. Let's not forget Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, and she had a lot riding against her. Although Elizabeth Warren is brilliant, articulate, and really tough... she will not win the Presidency. She's simply not "soft" enough to garner the votes of many straight men and women. My vote is for Kamala Harris. She's smart, tough, and articulate, and she's got "charisma." Although I'm loathe to say it... she's "pretty enough" to win the Presidency.
2
In my opinion, the press fixates too much on whether a 'female candidate' can win and not enough on what issues matter most to the American voting public. As we've seen, from the recent midterms women can win if they have the right message and campaign with enthusiasm and discipline. Sure, there are some who would never vote for woman (most white evangelicals), but much was said about the unlikelihood of a black president in 2008. Run the 'right' candidate and they will win. Run the wrong candidate and watch Trump get re-elected in 2020...
4
We all need to stop talking about this in terms of identity. Black, female, gay, transgender, atheist - whatever. It’s about the best and most qualified candidate that can inspire Americans about the future of our country. Obama inspired us then. The GOP defined themselves by going back in time and voted in this relic of the past. Now we have to go back to the future. What we learned about Hillary was that female candidates don’t seem to inspire anything particular in women. Certainly not like Obama inspired black voters. We must look past the outlet layer of whomever its and vote for the character within. This election is going to be about ethics, the rule of law, the environment and taxing the rich and corporations. Whomever can articulate those policies best and can inspire us while doing it wins. I can’t wait to hear the candidates and choose one based on who is best, not what they look like.
3
The BLFF research is definitely worth reading. As a 66 year old woman, it is depressing but true that women candidates have huge conflicts to bridge in gaining strong support from a broad political base: which is what it takes to win within the electoral college system.
Most women have to fit an "ideal" image, while men are not really penalized for being imperfect in commonplace ways (clothing, smiles, grooming, voice quality, how and where they sit, ad nauseum).
My desire for a winning Democratic ticket is my biggest concern. The best candidates might emerge from the campaign that pulls us together and underlines our common causes. I hope that candidate debates can focus our effort more realistically. Control the in-fighting and rancor between the left and center. Find unifying issues. Campaign against the shut-out strategy of the current GOP.
I don't favor Beto, but his open manner and extraversion win trust. I agree with Warren's views, but I doubt she's be a great candidate. Sherrod Brown? Don't have a clue. Kamala Harris? Can't say.
Pick three big issues and make a great party platform. Beat the drum. Keep working to win the election, and not feel crushed if your candidate isn't the top dog.
2
It is not just can a woman beat President Trump but also whether any man can beat Mr. Trump. Right now the country is on solid footing and the economy is in a good place. The job market is robust with many new jobs having been created. This is what is on the minds of most Americans. Can they support their families and put food on their tables. Apparently now they can and if this continues throughout the next election cycle President Trump will be reelected.
2
@WPLMMT
Really? Just like Trump, I guess you have already forgotten about the 800 THOUSAND federal workers with no income who are wondering where their next, rent, mortgage, health insurance and/or car payment is coming from?
2
I fear that trump, who has already overthrown the legitimate government of Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, will actually begin putting female candidates in prison soon. I can't imagine him not arresting the entire Democratic Senatorial and Congressional delegations. This is an international emergency. We need either Mr. Mueller or the United Nations to step in with a caretaker government until Senators Kamela Harris and Elizabeth Warren can take power.
Until Trump and his brand of hardline evangelical conservatism are expelled from the executive branch, we can’t afford to experiment with gender in the 2020 presidential candidate; a running mate, perhaps, but not at the top of the ticket. We need a white male who gets the base Trump won, which includes evangelical white women who sold their souls to Christian white male patriarchy, because they’re still a relevant and potent political force.
I think Joe Biden paired with a woman or person of color is the winning ticket for this particular election. We need the experience he brings to repair the incredible damage to our country. We need someone who knows how to actually get something done in Congress. We need someone with true blue collar roots and a long record of something as simple as taking the train everyday to work like the regular Joes.
Biden for 2020!
2
Biden, Icasio-Cortez?
@happyXpat
She’s still too young. As the “replacement” president, which could be a real possibility given Biden’s age, she won’t be 35 years of age yet as required by the Constitution. But a younger woman tied with Biden would surely be an exciting combination for all demographic groups.
The very mention of Senator Gillibrand touches a nerve, not only in Minnesota and not only because of her action on Senator Franken. Gillibrand is also close to both Clintons and her style is more Hillary than Bill. At the highest level of the Democratic Party, there has to be enough wisdom to summarily rule her out. The Republicans will rage with unholy fury at any female candidate. Non starters like Senator G will have to go quietly early. Perhaps tomorrow.
3
How deeply rooted is misogyny? Here is an anecdote from central Oregon, Bend to be exact. Whenever the local TV station website runs a story about the governor, Kate Brown, I read the comments, which are powered by Disqus. Behind the veil of anonymity, extreme hatred is on display. It gets really ugly sometimes.
If a zebra can beat Trump, they have my vote. The Democrats must win in 2020. Period.
2
Fixating on whether a candidate, or class of candidates, “can win” this early is a depressing sign of weakness. Let’s not.
Pick the very best candidate, and not on the basis of gender.
1
Hillary lost because she was a bad candidate, not because she was a woman. She lost the popular vote in combined 49 states excluding California because she had 25-years of inside the Beltway baggage, as unfair as it was. She lost because there was a gut feeling of inauthenticity to too many independent and blue collar Democrats.
Elizabeth Warren’s and Kamilla Harris will have a fine chance if they make clear straight out of the gate that they are NOT for open borders and open border-like policy (eg. refugee status to basically anyone from poverty and crime stricken nations). It’s become a defining, loaded issue whether people like it or not . Let’s not have Monday morning quarterbacking the day after the election in why traditional Democrat leaning states and districts stayed home.
3
THE SINGLE LEAST RELEVANT POINT IS THAT HRC WON THE POPULAR VOTE.
We have to win 3 of PA, Ohio, MI and WI,
We should nominate a person who can do that.
5
@Lefthalfbach The fact that you used ALL CAPS to say this proves its relevance.
2
Hillary lost because her campaign was poorly run and she and her husband’s machinations of the past left a bad taste in many mouths including those like me who still voted for her.
A reminder to the DNC: it’s not your job to manipulate the primary process to push *your* candidate through. Stop wringing your hands over whether Warren can win. Let her and every other candidate run their campaigns and let go of the results. The country and election process belong to all of us and we’ll decide who the democrat candidate is based on their platform among other qualities.
4
This is the kind of tripe that makes us lose!
“On one hand, women are leading the resistance and deserve representation. But on the other side, there’s a fear that if misogyny beat Clinton, it can beat other women.”
It was not misogyny that beat Clinton but her baggage (whether deserved or not) and her record. This kind of continuation of making excuses for her loss claiming she was fine it was the "misogyny, FBI etc" that did her in, just sets us up for more bad choices of candidates and more defeats.
7
It was also her campaign. Robby Mook ran the sorest campaign in history. He didn’t even have her go to Wisconsin in the general.
3
"If Democrats nominate a woman in 2020, she will most likely face an onslaught of gender-based attacks from Mr. Trump, who did not hesitate in 2016 to mock the physical appearance and stamina of his female opponents."
Excuse me? he attacked ALL his opponents based on their physical appearance and stamina, female AND male. If Dems can't figure out that Clinton alone was an anomaly who was unelectable, rather than their imaginary claims of sexism, they're going to lose in 2020 as well.
5
"Hillary Clinton was met with mistrust and even hostility in swing states" because she is Hillary Clinton who ran an utterly atrocious campaign. Hillary Clinton did not lose because she was a woman, and any suggestion that she did is absurd. Women might lose votes solely because of their gender, but by that token, so might men.
The prize upon which Democrats must focus is to choose the best candidate with the most persuasive platform, the highest integrity and the strongest prospect of winning, irrespective of gender, race, faith or other superficial attribute.
6
Men, women, Dems, Repubs, left, right, center: it seems we all share (or purport to share) the delusion that the presidential election is for all Americans.
It is not. Swing voters in 12 states -- Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- elect the U.S. president. Those of us in the other 38 states are like Jimmy Swaggart: we might as well just watch.
Pick the person most likely to win most of those states and be done with it.
2
People thought a black candidate couldn't win... until Barack Obama proved them wrong.
A woman with the right message (preferably from the midwest -- I'm convinced Trump's midwestern base will feel better- represented by a fellow midwesterner), who sticks to issues and policy, and refuses to fall victim to his name-calling and other idiocies, should be able to win.
Being the first to do something always seems impossible... until someone comes along and does it. And then suddenly they're not alone, but merely the first of many. Roger Bannister, anyone?
2
I don't normally comment on this kind of thing, particularly this early. But I am really curious why people aren't thinking about the pretty high probability that Trump will not be the candidate.
Republicans have little to lose at this point by finding a way to get someone else on the ticket. How about Mitt Romney with Nikki Haley as VP? (I know, Romney is tainted, but someone like him.) Maybe gets back lots of those suburban women who voted against HRC but were sending a message in 2018.
The point being that it will help the R's in congress, and if they at least hold on to the Senate they can still control lots of stuff even if they lose the Presidency.
Just a thought. Trump is clearly not physically healthy or mentally stable, so it might not even displease his base that much if some such excuse were given for him not running.
3
Because Trump has the GOP backed in a corner and they're afraid of him and his base. Unless something truly damaging comes out from Mueller or House Dems or Trump resigns/is impeached, he's going to be the nominee.
1
Romney is a nightmare idea. His wealth built upon corporate manipulation- acquisitions of companies - bundling assets and putting people out of work is beyond “smart business” in any sane view. He’s awful and as bad Mulvany and the misfits Trump assembled to unravel the environment, alienate and more.
1
@Aleksandr Boylan
Furthermore, everyone is forgetting the fact that the RNC has just merged its operations with the Trump re-election campaign. The two are joined at the hip and will stay so until Trump is gone.
1
Democrats need not worry about the gender of their candidate. I believe one of the reasons Trump won is because of the strength, resilience and balance of the American democracy, one that isn't a one party system, it will have been more problematic and perhaps disenfranchised some citizens if Democrats held the White House for 12-16 years. Such a scenario doesn't create a balance but could further divide America. The rotation of power between parties is a hallmark that we should celebrate and guarantees no party or group is left out of the political process.
Now that power has changed hands between both major parties it can revert back to the other party diminishing any room for complaints. At least many issues were brought to light within the past 3 years, which leaves room for a discussion to be had and to continue as well. In the future we will be better prepared for one party to continuously hold the White House beyond its two terms if such an anomaly in opposing candidate ever arises again.
Many have flocked to the comment section of this article to, with self-affirming statements and recommendations that amount to wishcasting, attempt to undermine its very premise. I think that you have all done a fine job of expressing that which would be easiest and most comfortable that you believe true, but understand this in no way reflects realities on the ground within swing states, related polling, or the checkered electoral history of women running for executive office. That a given candidate "expresses the right message" (ie the one you want to hear) changes nothing in this regard - people will not cease to pass judgments largely on the basis of appearance, with female candidates being judged more harshly in this regard. Further, judgments of candidates on at least partially superficial grounds exists across the political spectrum; even women commenting in disgust should understand their ability to "relate" to a given female candidate (and perhaps attractiveness of a given male candidate) has, more than likely, affected their voting behavior and/or candidate enthusiasm.
It is of little relative importance WHO defeats Trump, only that he is defeated. Nominating and electing a woman as VP and POTUS' heir-apparent would be a real step forward and serve to acclimate America to the idea of a female chief executive prior to being again presented the option at the ballot box.
Biden-Harris 2020
6
The question of whether a woman can win reminded me of the late Rep. Shirley Chisholm, who defeated civil rights leader James Farmer to represent Bedford-Styvesant.
She said he was going around the barbershops in a dashiki, appealing to the men, but she knew that the majority of voters were women.
Likewise nationally, women have been outvoting men for years. Those who refuse to learn from history ...
16
I will vote for a woman who has a well-rounded education; who is curious and open to others; one who is confident, gracious and thoughtful in opinion, speech and habit.
I do not appreciate women (or men) who are strident and screaming at me about their ideas or what their policies.
I'm watching and waiting.
4
A Biden / Harris ticket.
Biden wins because he's not only a great person for the job, he can appeal to a lot of the working class voters that might have voted for Trump.
Biden spends four years fixing all the stuff that has been broken by Trump. He then doesn't seek a second term though (he will be getting up there in years after all) and she runs and wins two more terms (She's a rockstar in the making). By the end of Biden's first term, she'll be ready and more importantly, the country will be ready to vote for her.
There, it's easy. I'm not sure why the Dems don't just do as I say... It'll all work out if they'd just do it my way.
14
When people say run on the issues it makes sense to a point but I would submit that Clinton actually tried to run on issues and her policy positions were continually ignored by the media that was making money hand over fist by focusing on the Trump circus. The media didn’t wait outside Hillary rallies for an hour and cover them like they were the number one ranked reality show. Trump got 100’s of millions of dollars in free advertising and a lot of voters vote more on gut and familiarity than policy. Whoever runs will need to be able to command the stage and that is why I’m a little afraid that a “wonky” candidate (no matter how much I agree with him or her) can pull this off.
13
@Deb Maltby
The New York Times was incredibly guilty of ignoring Clinton’s assets and trashing her repeatedly. It couldn’t even be bothered to investigate anything in Trump’s three decade past spent right down the street from the NYT offices until two years into his presidency.
Readers and subscribers, we must continually cry foul if the Times treats the next Republican candidate as well as they did Trump. Equal hit and fawning pieces on both candidates or we pull our subscriptions.
I agree that the most important thing, now and always, is to elect the person who will be the best for the country. In my opinion, this is someone who will bring unity while at the same time helping to dismantle the oppressive policies that have sprouted during the Trump presidency as well as the oppressive policies that have always existed, who looks towards distributing wealth through health care, equal pay, high minimum wages, quality public education for all in a safe environment that protects and acknowledges the dangers and biases against various marginalized groups, taxes the ultra wealthy and fights corruption. The president needs to be diplomatic, repair relations with foreign countries and help to promote peace and safety in our world, especially when we are the ones who have caused or contributed to harm or unrest. Which means the president also has to inspire unity so that people vote for Senate candidates with similar agendas.
Two: they have to have charisma and be smart (I miss you, Obama!) to inspire people to go to the polls and to listen to them.
Three: Ideally and strategically, if the candidate meets the above criteria, I think this should be a woman. Women are leading the charge. Women want to be represented. Women have gone through a lot of pain in the past four years (as well as all of time). This is poetic justice. And remember: half of the population of women didn’t vote for Trump. Half of the population of WHITE women did.
1
All these comments decrying our nation’s sexism problem (which I don’t dispute) are missing something that any true liberal should acknowledge.
If you want to know why many people are saying Elizabeth Warren couldn’t be elected, consider this thought experiment:
Take two people from a struggling, rural community - one man and one woman - both equally uneducated, unskilled and working class. What innate characteristics do they have left?
Allow me to be a bit reductive here: the woman’s best asset is (probably) her sociability; the man’s best asset is (probably) his physical strength.
She can get a job in the service industry, which is the last bastion of available low-skill work. He will have a hard time finding physical work.
She will have a sense of dignity, employing her natural abilities. If he is employed at all, it will be tenuous, or doing something he doesn’t feel good at.
How will he feel about glass ceiling rhetoric from a successful, educated woman? My guess: bitter, resentful and marginalized.
There aren’t many female politicians on the up who I can see this man voting for — but they exist. Claire McCaskill is definitely one. I hope she runs.
3
Very thoughtful and unique analysis. Thanks.
1
@Ludwig Van
Are you kidding me? Claire McCaskill is a Republican in disguise, she crossed the line when she went on Fox News.
1
It's a shame we are still hostage to the Electoral College, and therefore, voters in a few key swing states. If we had a purely democratic presidential election, one person, one vote, a woman could win easily. But we must pander to the white working class in MI, WI, OH, FL, PA, as if they were the sole arbiters of how we should run the nation. Oh, please, when are these people going to join the 21st century and put aside their misogyny?
11
@JS - “It's a shame we are still hostage to the Electoral College, and therefore, voters in a few key swing states.”
The popular vote would hold us hostage to NY, CA and whoever still votes for Shelia Jackson Lee. Not ideal for those of us who pay taxes in “flyover” country.
3
@Midwest Josh Oh, please. The popular vote would "hold us hostage to" ... the people who vote, no matter where they live. What a concept.
It would be naive to believe that there aren’t men (and some women) who wouldn’t vote for a woman candidate simply based on gender. That said, my guess is that the vast majority of these people are disproportionately represented in Trump’s base, so they are already a lost cause.
If my assumption is correct, the larger issue is not gender, but the policies espoused by the candidate. The Democrats will lose if they drift too far left. Moderates will simply stay home because they won’t be energized to support either party.
As an old moderate Republican in Ohio (who voted for Hillary), I am begging the Democratic Party to get this right. Please don’t drift too far left in your policies. We share a larger common goal of stopping the destruction wrought by Donald J. Trump. There will be millions of moderate Republican voters who will stand with you, but many will simply stay home if they are pushed beyond their comfort level.
In 2020, the costs of losing again are simply too high to gamble away.
15
Why did Trump want to be a President?
He wanted Free Security after getting retired. He wanted a Floating Casino named after him.
1
This is a pretty silly concern. The idea that a woman can't beat Trump after a not super popular woman with more baggage than most earned more than three million more votes than he did and lost three states by a total of one Division I football stadium is absurd. The question is which woman? Klobuchar, Warren, Harris, and Gillibrand are three very different women with appeal to different segments of the public. Let's stop treating "womanhood" as a variable that diminishes their individuality. An open, fair primary season with no DNC favorites will assure that whomever emerges, male or female, will have wide backing by the primary. As long as we never forget who the real threat to this country is.
6
Doesn't it depend on who the woman candidate is and what kind of campaign she runs? Just as it would with a male candidate?
4
There are so many double standards, a veritable mine field, that women have to navigate to become president. Even the liberal media are writing a narrative about Elizabeth Warren that doesn’t exist, namely that she may not be “likable enough.”
But I can think of two women who would easily beat Donald Trump, Michele Obama and Oprah Winfrey, but neither of them would run for president.
so you think Warren is likable? With political instincts like that you could be a member of the DNC leadership.
2
@GMooG
I don't find her especially likeable, and her political instincts are, quite frankly, kind of awful. Won't stop me from voting for her if i think she's the best candidate on offer, and she may well be for my vote. She's got the policy chops and a genuine vision, and not totally bought and paid for. That's more than most. If i vote for a Dem, i want one who won't just take on the Repubs, but isn't afraid to buck and call out the rot in their own party.
I see a woman candidate as an opportunity to get female voters fired up, and to call out sexism for what it is in public, and loudly. Dare people to underestimate a woman who has brains and policies that will help the country. Say it loud, and the issue is a very potent vote getter.
2
You live in Boston. Even here on the west being a woman does not necessarily mean women will vote for her. No guarantee of that in the midwest either. There is a lot of opposition to Warren. How about a candidate from the south or midwest. Frankly I am sick of the east and west coasts dominating
1
@Connie
I understand your point, and I don't think you are wrong. However, have you heard Senator Warren speak? She is electrifying. I envision her putting Donald (or whoever) in his place with an "Is that all you got?" and continuing to talk policy in her singular way that is accessible and really pushes many people's buttons in a favorable way.
3
@Connie
Sherrod Brown and Kamala Harris
1
Pardon me for fantasizing about a surefire winning ticket that would roundly and soundly send Trump scrambling homeward to NYC: Oprah and Michelle. A win for sure.
Not about gender and race; all about experience, brilliance and strength.
3
Identity-demographic politics can be so fleeting – or so forever…
Most folks appear not to recall that Obama was biracial…
Though he and I bonded most deeply over our very poor bowling skills…
I did emerge from his tenure, having learned a hard lesson, though…
There is one identity-demographic for which I will never vote again…
1. A first-term US Senator….
1a. A last-term US Senator…
1b. Any US Senator anywhere in-between…
Sorry, Mitt – you were a pretty good governor…
But a rule’s a rule…
PS
There is one geography-demographic for which I will never vote again…
1, 1a, 1b. Anyone from Texas…
2
This is a puzzle manufacturer by the NYT.
5
Nope, not Elizabeth Warren.
2
I voted for Clinton. This time around I believe a male candidate from the midwest like Sherrod Brown would have the best chance of beating Trump. We women will have our chance after we rid the nation of this poison.
10
@Chris
I agree with you 1000%.
And, I would personally LOVE to see his wonderful wife (a Pulitzer winning journalist in her own right) at his side.
Go Sherrod Brown 2020!!
Anyone NOT TRUMP!!!! I will vote for a white male pro-life NRA member who is not Trump.
2
This is a joke , right?
The GOP whips up misogyny and Hilary still wins the popular vote?
So now it’s a mystery?
7
The risk democrats face in the 2020 presidential primary will be identity politics on steroids with white females, a Black male, a black female, an old white male socialist, and a Hispanic all running. The one thing they have in common is their socialist tendencies, therefore they will need some other way to distinguish themselves.
3
@jaco
We "democrats"* don't need your advice, jaco.
It's Democrats.
looks like Matt unwittingly proved Jaco's point
1
Who ever the Democrats nominate they must be excellent at ignoring the idiots taunts, thick skin is a must! They also must not appear weak and must unify quickly, seek the rural vote relentlessly, if they can do that it won’t matter what gender or race, they will win.
2
the first female president will be nancy pelosi, after trump and pence are indicted and resign
23
The problem is with you NYT. STOP. With this. Nonsense. Keeping women in their peculiar place. What. MALARKY. My 4 grand daughters. Are ready it took me my mama. My daughters to get them ready. The are. Throw what you want at them. But learn how to duck
3
As a democrat and a feminist sure I’d like to see a woman, but far far more important is winning against Trump or any Repub. It’s the issues, stupid. We must win back the center working class. My heart may be with the left, but Warren, Beto etc. simply cannot win. Go centrist, honest and its the local economy, stupid.
6
As a white college-educated woman, I hate to say it, but our best chance to beat the con in '20 is to field a white male, preferably under 65 y.o. (Lookin' at you, Sherrod....)
Again unfortunately, given that so many white women voted for the con, that is enough evidence, imnsho, that a woman can not beat the con.
This, from someone who has #beenwithhersince1992 .
3
Trump’s misogyny is not disputed, but (unless I’m missing something) the allegations leveled at Brown by his ex-wife have something to do with violence and a restraining order. The GOP would have a field day with Brown, although he, too, was someone I thought had a real chance. Not anymore.
1
As long as the question is framed abstractly, "Could a woman be elected president," it invites speculation based only on stereotypes or misleading analogies.
Women constitute a majority of voters. In 2016, the "unlikeable" woman candidate won the popular vote. That election result is more aptly seen as a fluke of the Electoral College system, not of popular opinion about strong women. And the results of the 2018 election conclusively confirm it, by a margin (7.5 million votes) more than twice that of 2016.
1
Whoever runs for President from the Democratic Party should have at a minimum tuition free education of equal quality and affordable healthcare for all as their goals.
After that should come long term goals for reducing inequality so that the ratio of compensation for the highest paid to the lowest paid is no more than 20. This can be achieved by restructuring models of compensation and/or by progressive taxation.
Progressive taxation will make funds available for tuition-free education and for universal healthcare. This is not socialism but calibrated capitalism and will do the most good to the most.
Conservative models, so far practiced, hugely favor the rich and neglect the rest.
1
Be prepared to lose. This lifelong Democrat will not support a candidate that runs on "free" anything. Have no intention of my tax dollars paying for rich kids to go to college. Have no intention of supporting a health care plan that is not attainable. Sherrod Brown. Decent, centrist and midwestern could unite the Party and the country.
4
any good economist will tell you that "free" is never the right price for anything
3
@Connie
There are countries that do exactly what I sugggest and are more prosperous and happy than we are. We are third class, not even second class. We have more homeless and more hungry people than say in Sweden, Belgium, Singapore, or Germany.
There comes a time when "realpolitik" becomes the main issue. We know from experience that the popular vote does not choose the President, it is the electoral college. And the electoral college arguably throws undue weight to rural areas in-between the two coasts. So the germane question is whether a woman can capture the required number of electoral votes. Sadly I think this is at best an open question, and I don't think the 2020 election, after 4 years of Trumpism, is the appropriate place to experiment. For this election at least, we have to approach it the same way professionals handicap horserace, and pick the most likely winner, rather than the candidate we may individually prefer.
3
The odds are not insurmountable that a female candidate for President could win but I doubt it would apply if they have baggage like Hillary Clinton or present faux common folk images like Elizabeth “Im gonna grab a beer” Warren.
5
Warren grew up poor in Oklahoma for Pete’s sake. How much more common folk can you get?
1
Did or did not trump win ALL women in 2016?
This is your answer
2
This article starts out with Joyce Cusack's bias and actually displays the fact that sexism still dominates across the political spectrum. A good, strong, wise candidate will win against Trump no matter what the sex.
2
If a rock can't beat Trump, the US has failed.
7
we already tried running a rock against him. Hillary lost
1
Hillary's loss had NOTHING to do with her sex/gender. Nothing at all. Quite to the contrary, it was one of her biggest assets. IF she had been a man she would have been Martin O'Malley....
Man or woman, anyone should be able to beat Trump if they run an even minimally effective campaign.
5
Hillary Clinton has been the target of a fiendish amount of misogyny throughout her political career. But she also was a highly flawed candidate, in that she, her husband, and her wing of the Democratic party are far closer to the 1% than to the millions of Americans decimated by the current economy—leaving the door open for a racist con artist.
Woman or man, whatever Democrat runs will do best if they remember that they need to be the party of working people, to update FDR with a Green New Deal.
Clinton was also hurt by bad journalism. During the 2016 presidential debates, not one reporter asked her or Trump one question what they planned to do about global warming. They asked about her emails.
2
What happened to the Better Deal? Already abandoned by Chuck and Nancy? Serious question. I’ve heard nothing about it.
3
This is really a misogynist question: Are women candidates likable enough? How likable were previous US presidents? And how about Mr. Trump himself? Very likable indeed.
Is "likability" what the US needs now or is it competence, intelligence and high moral standards?
5
I’d vote for a pet rock before I would vote for Trump.
13
There are more conservative, anti-feminist, WOMEN voters out there than the liberals will acknowledge. In fact, I'd say it's 60% conservative - and 40% liberal. Just look at the senior citizen [women] voters +60 YO .. They are also the largest and most consistent voting block.
In other words.. STOP hounding on the men all the time!
1
sounds like Trump's misogyny has spread to the democratic party. What an accomplishment!
4
It shouldn't be a woman, it shouldn't be a Jew, It shouldn't be someone transgender. It definitely should not be any person of color. It shouldn't be anyone without any money. It shouldn't be a socialist, certainly not an anarchist, It shouldn't be anyone who cares too deeply about much of anything. It absolutely can't be an Italian. It certainly can't be someone too old or too young. Or someone with too much hair or too little.
5
Oh I get it.. Because we're headed toward a 2020 Presidential election sex matters.
Ironic the NYT starts this debate while they continue to pump out daily articles extolling the virtues of being transgender male or female.. or a female who identifies as male or male who identifies as female. One day all of us will never know who is who because gender will be a thing of the past.
Oh I get it.. Because we're headed toward a 2020 Presidential election sex matters.
1
What a great line up:
Beto
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
for King & Queen
The future is bright.
I can see the rainbows.
Are those unicorns over the horizon.
Yes.
It's a new day and it's bright and shiny.
There are no walls.
We are all holding hands and singing.
Life is good again.
We are blessed.
4
"Are we ready for a woman" is a ridiculous thing to say. The question should be, how do we stop the Trump show and replace a con artist with real leadership. A focus on sexism is old school. Wake up America!
2
The democrats need to nominate a white guy as president. A woman as Vice President. As much as I’d like to see a woman president I want to see a Democrat as president. The country cannot take 4 more years of crazy tweets and lies everyday.
3
Can the Times go a week without a picture of Clinton in a major story?
6
OK. OK.
Go with bisexual Senator Kyrsten Sinema.
She can pickup men and women.
12
@True Observer
Sexual orientation is different from gender identity.
1
@Cousy ...and is equally unimportant when choosing which candidate to support.
1
Why is it that the world of politics is so cautious about women in power, even as president.? There are many excellent women surgeons who people trust, the Commandant of the Air Force Academy is a woman Brigadier General, Women at NASA have directed space programs.These are all technical, highly skilled jobs where women have excelled. Women have had the vote for 100 years- time for them to grab the top spot in politics as women have in Israel, India, Germany and Great Britain, to name a few.
4