Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Mattis, just over this last week, said the Russians were still actively meddling about during the midterms.
Thank's Joe, but you are probably on the bottom of people I will support in the Primary. But I would vote for him in a general against Trump.
She would be a solid, non-controversial choice. Exactly what they need to bring in independents and anti-Trump Republicans. I disagree with liberals that want to head the party in a more progressive direction with a presidential candidate. Get the presidency so you can get work done...let the house and senate set the direction of the country's legislation.
I don't necessarily like it, but I'm onboard with this. Not necessarily Klobuchar but the overall idea.
Assuming your vote mattered (it wouldn't here in MN) and it was a race between Klobuchar and Trump, who would you vote for? Would it matter if it appeared that democrats would also take over senate control and hold the house?
It all depends who runs and how many stupid decisions the DNC makes. Beto, Biden and Sanders all have the financial backing and enough voter support to make bids through the convention. If they don't all run, it opens up a path for Klobuchar, Booker, Harris, Inslee, or others. You'll probably have 8-10 serious candidates through Iowa and New Hampshire, but money starts running dry pretty quickly if the more well-organized candidates have engaged their fund-raising machines and you're just trying to gain name recognition.
reason I ask
I disagree with you on saying she lacks charisma. I think she is very charming. I think she hit it out of the park at the Kavanaugh hearing. I am prolife and voted GOP for every President since Ford (except for Trump) but would vote for Kloubacher over Trump. If it's Warren or Sanders I may have to just write in another candidate. The further to the left the candidate is the more likely many voters in the nation's heartland (even those who can't stand Trump) will still vote for him. It would be deja vu 2016. Their thinking will be Trump is awful, but I will not vote for a progressive liberal. I live in conservative rural Minnesota and realize my opposition to Trump is absolutely an anomaly to this day.
Being charming or personable is not the same as having charisma or being charismatic. JFK had it. Reagan had it. It is the quality of being able to light up a room when you enter it. I am sure I would find her very likable if I were to meet her, but charismatic, she is not IMO.
More important than the progressive vs moderate divide: we need a Reagan. In other words, we need someone charismatic with a positive, optimistic outlook. This can’t be all about how awful Trump is; it has to be about a future vision of America that makes people feel good.
One synomyn of charismatic is charming. I get your point but can we really say any human is fascinating?
The right wing media will try to turn any Democratic nominee into a monster. The question is how believable that portrayal will be. Lots of people were predisposed to think the worst of Hillary. I'm not that knowledgeable about Klobuchar but it seems like it might be harder for them to demonize her.
When I'm doing election math in my head (yes, I have no life), I sometimes wonder how many of those third party votes in '16 were strictly "anybody but Hilary" votes. And I wonder how many of those voters could come back to the Dems with another candidate who hasn't been ripped apart by Fox and Donald for the last decade. Because that group could be a big part of the difference in '20.
Charismatic can mean a lot of things. Klobuchar is not charismatic in the sense of giving rousing speeches like Obama or inspiring a movement like Bernie, but she's charismatic in the sense that everyone who gets to know her seems to really like her, especially voters. She has what can only be described as "midwestern charm." The Marge Gunderson of politics. America gets to know its presidential candidates pretty well during a campaign, so you would think her charisma in that sense would come through.
I think she'd make a very good President. But I can't imagine her sticking out in a crowded primary. That will be her main issue.
Yup, I agree. Great general election candidate, but the path to the nomination is steep. Her best bet is probably to push like hell in Iowa because it's similar to her home state in a lot of ways, and hope for a win that moves her to the forefront. Forget about New Hampshire for now.
They also make him unpopular.
I don't think this is gonna be an issue. Sanders is the only one as far as I know, and I think there's a lot of resentment of him among many Democrats left over from 2016, and also some resentment of the fact that he refuses to actually join the party.
I agree with his stance on candy #####, but what if he turns heel?
I like Schiff, but I don’t think he has a shot in this field. It’s pretty hard to go from the House directly to the White House. (I would tell him to run for Senate or Governor first, but that’s pretty tough in California ... although not tougher than running for President.)
We can also add Maurile's take on Schitt, that he shouldn't run because it is hard to go directly from the House to the White House, yet he is advocating for a Beto run
I hope that was an unfortunate typo on your part.We can also add Maurile's take on Schitt, that he shouldn't run because it is hard to go directly from the House to the White House, yet he is advocating for a Beto run
I assumed he meant Roland Schitt, the mayor of Schitt's Creek from the TV show of the same name. A straight talker who would appeal to rural white voters, he's got a lot in common with our current president:
