New Republic: The Democrats Must Nominate Another Woman for President

[Mr. Morden]

I think I remember some articles (I found a NYT one, back when Hillary lost 2008, that serves that purpose) about who could be the first woman president, and I mean, where are they now?

Janet Napolitano
Kathleen Sebelius
Lisa Madigan
Maria Shriver
Gabbie Giffords
Kirsten Gillibrand
Amy Klobuchar
Claire McCaskill
Bev Perdue
Kamala Harris

And since everyone knew Hillary was going to run in 2016, most of these either faded away or had no presidential ambitions. So there's very few women who have those presidential ambitions, experienced enough, and haven't lost their last election.

I mean, given the kind of hints they've been dropping for years now, it seems clear to me that Gillibrand and Klobuchar have both had presidential ambitions for years.  It's just that they didn't run in 2012 because Obama was running for reelection, and didn't run in 2016 because they figured Clinton was unbeatable in the primary.  IIRC, Sebelius also flirted with the idea of running for prez in 2008, but likewise figured that she probably couldn't beat Clinton.

[Mr. Morden]

It must be either Kamlah Harris or Elizabeth Warren, or else we would have to wait for a generation for a female POTUS.

Uh there's gonna be a ton of new female governors and Senators in 2018.

They're going to run off and compete for the presidential nomination their first year in office? Any new Democrat women in the Senate or the Governor's mansion will be VP picks at best.

The implication (that I thought was clear from my reply) would be that there would be plenty of women on the bench in 2024 or 2028 if need be. Not a generation.

Yeah, if Kamala Harris is already presidential material in 2020 after first being elected to the Senate in 2016, then it follows that any governor or Senator elected in 2018 will be experienced enough to run for prez as early as 2024.

Plus, it's not like primary losers can't run again.  If Gillibrand or Harris run in 2020 and fail to get the nomination, they'll probably run again next time.

[Mr. Morden]

Bill Scher has a new story about this in Politico:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/24/2020-year-of-woman-democrats-post-weinstein-kamala-harris-klobuchar-gillibrand-warren-215860

He makes an interesting point about the potential landmines that might exist for male candidates running against a woman in the Democratic primaries, that might not have existed before this year’s cultural moment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

“Kill a primary candidacy dead” may be overkill, but I can certainly imagine a repeat of something like “you’re likable enough” being received in a different way in 2020 compared to 2008.

[Mr. Morden]

My prediction is Kamala Harris wins the nomination since California is fourth to vote

No it isn't.  The first four (tentatively) are Iowa, NH, Nevada, and South Carolina, and then comes Super Tuesday, when California, Texas, and probably about ten other states all vote.

[Mr. Morden]

Mod(s)

Why can't this thread be combined with Virginia's thread, since it is essentially the same subject, regardless of the different news publication?

Arguably this lack of consolidation is part of the reason why the 2020 thread is virtually unreadable...

Report the OP to the moderator.  That has a better chance of getting results than posting your complaint here.

Also, it should probably also be reported for copyright infringement, since the quote in the OP is way too long.

[Mr. Morden]

We will likely see at least one if not two Republican Women challenge Trump in the 2020 'Pub Primaries (Assuming he has not been impeached nor indicted and decides to run for a 2nd Term)....

That seems like a reach.  Assuming that Trump is still in the race by the end of 2019, my guess for the number of primary challengers he has who will be women is zero.  I do think he'll probably have a primary challenger, but it's far more likely to be a man than a woman.

[Mr. Morden]

You should vote for a candidate not based on gender, race, or sexual orientation, but rather strictly based on qualifications; in the true egalitarian (and left-wing) spirit.

What about voting in the primary on the basis of electability?  And in that sense, is it wrong to consider how general election voters will react to a candidate's race and sex in assessing electability?  E.g., what if you're a partisan Democrat who thinks that women are at a disadvantage in the general election?  Is it wrong to then not vote for a woman in the primary, on the basis that you think the fact that she's a woman means she's less electable than a male candidate?