I'm a Democrat with libertarian (not Libertarian) leanings and I, for one, wish we had more choices than Hillary Clinton. I don't like the idea of political dynasties, I think her personal style puts a lot of people off, and I think she has some baggage that won't serve her well in a campaign.

Who else would you like to see run and why do you think they may ultimately be more electable?

Views: 576

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Martin O’Malley may do well in the campaign. His family have a military background and his Irish ancestory could be a vote winner for some. He had some success with reducing crime when Mayor of Maryland and he is against Capital Punishment which I think is become more “acceptable” to voters. He is also pro Marriage Equality which shows his more liberal side. He is also a lawyer with plenty of election campaigns behind him. I think it took a certain amount of bravery for him to seek his nomination with a speech made in Baltimore given its recent history. He is new to the race but I think he may do well.

So, you are an American who is just living in Ireland? 

Not that I mind you having an opinion but I'm hoping to hear from actual American voters.

No Unseen, I am not an American. I do intend to spend (more) time there. Some of my immediate family have US Citizenship but I am not sure if being one improves ones understanding of US politics. If I was one I would be voting Democrat. Now I will butt out :-)


Don't listen to Unseen Reg. You probably know more about U.S politics compared to most Americans.

   Personally, I would be more enthusiastic voting for either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren., especially since neither of them has ties to Wall Street, while Clinton does.  In terms of more off-the-wall possibilities, I like Al Franken or Bill DeBlasio.  I still bemoan the lost opportunity to have long ago elected Mario Cuomo President.  Everything would be so much better for most of us if he had.

   In terms of electability, I can't imagine any Democrat choosing one of these Republican troglodytes currently running over any of the Democratic candidates mentioned above.  Every single one of them is reactionary and regressive in his politics and wants to further move the U.S. towards becoming a third world, banana republic ruled by a few super-wealthy, white, male oligarchs like the Koch Bros.  F.Y.I.: I am voting for Bernie Sanders in the California primary in hopes that he can pull off the impossible and overturn the Clinton machine, then go on to spearhead a grassroots uprising of the middle and lower classes.  But I'll vote for Clinton in the general election if she is the nominee.    

While I too would prefer a Democratic candidate like Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, the real question is who can defeat the Republicans in November '16. Of course, Democrats will vote Democrat and Republicans will vote Republican. I doubt that there will be much crossover in this election, the 2 sides are so much more diametrically opposed to each other than any time I can recall in my lifetime. This election will be determined by the uncommitted voters in the middle. Remember that the Koch brothers have pledged an obscene amount of money in their effort to buy a Republican victory and they will attempt to portray whoever the Democratic nominee is as a far left socialist wing nut, despite the fact that the Republican candidate will possibly be so far to the right that they're in danger of falling off the edge.  Someone like Bernie Sanders will be an easier target than the more centrist Hillary Clinton. The uncommitted voter, faced with the portrayal of two extremes (whatever the reality is) may decide, especially with the deluge of negative campaigning we will almost certainly see, that the time is now for a "new" direction and vote Republican. Most will probably not take the time to objectively research the actual issues and be swayed by the television propaganda they are exposed to. My greatest fear is that one of these Tea Party idiots will be elected, and this scares the shit out of me. Yes, Hillary has some baggage, but I believe she is the best shot the Democrats have of retaining the White House and thwarting the Republican controlled Congress.

Sanders is as unelectable as Ted Cruz or Scott Walker (Cruz hasn't declared yet, right? There are so many GOP candidates, it is becoming bewildering).

What about Joe Biden? I think he has a lot of appeal to ordinary Americans who have grown weary of the technocrat Barack Obama really don't want to see Hillary in the Oval Office.

He is given to gaffes, of course, but that is part of what endears him to many voters.

You have it backwards in your first paragraph (not that I blame you).  Cruz was the first one to declare.  Walker, as far as I know, has not declared yet.

@Dale, your post above mirrors my sentiments so well, it's saved me a bunch of typing :)

+1 to Strega's +1

I would vote for Warren FIRST (if she ran) then Sanders. 

On one hand I'm happy to see the far left getting a voice. On the other hand I'm not sure this will pull Hillary to the left. She might find it necessary to distinguish herself from the far-left Sanders. 

I just heard a Bill Maher interview at OxfordUnion which mirrors my sentiments - there currently is NO political party to the left of center in the US. The Democrats, struggling to be centrists, have crossed the line and are now right of center, and, of course, the Repugs are in crazy land. Somehow we need to convince the DNC that the number of leftists is increasing and are becoming much more vocal (and are now more likely to vote). If voting were required, like in Australia, the political landscape would shift dramatically to the left and none of these teabag goofballs would ever get elected.

Unseen: Sanders is as unelectable as Ted Cruz or Scott Walker

My guess is that you were one of those who said the same thing about Obama at around this stage of the cycle in 2007.

Democrats, struggling to be centrists, have crossed the line and are now right of center, and, of course, the Repugs are in crazy land.

The flaw in your argument is that where the center is isn't a fact, it's an opinion, and the opinion varies with the prejudices of the person who assumes s/he knows where it is. If you want a rational definition of "the center" it would be based on polling average Americans, which I think would turn up views to the right of what you'd like to think is the center.

My guess is that you were one of those who said the same thing about Obama at around this stage of the cycle in 2007.

Bad guess. I knew he could win when he drew this monstrous crowd here in Portland very early in his campaign for the nomination in 2007. 

It would be funny if Al Fraken became the president. He'd havea a chance to authenticate all those claims he made during those Saturday Night Live monologues. 


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service