Is Kirsten Gillibrand the most electable female democrat in 2020?

[varesurgent]

Gillibrand has none of Clinton's baggage (real or imagined). That's huge as she'd be able to assemble the same coalition and then add to it as moderate suburbanites (especially the women) would have less reason to wander to Trump.

I like Klobuchar and I think she'd be a good candidate.  Rather a foil to Trump -- what character attacks can Trump lobby on her?  Perhaps a bit dry?

Warren is probably less electable simply because of the antipathy she's already garnered.

McCaskill would do well, too, but no chance she runs.  Can't do a competitive Senate race and then turn around and immediately run for president.

There are a lot of ways in which Harris can be attacked, some legitimate, but most dog-whistley.  Being rather inexperienced and far to the left wouldn't help, though I'd like to see a former prosecutor go after Trump during a debate

[varesurgent]

She'll be attacked for her Wall Street connections, of all the female potentials she's the one with the biggest Wall Street problem by far. And she's married to a banker and has received gigantic donations from Goldman Sachs.

"But her record on Wall Street will haunt her. Gillibrand, as usual for New York senators, has worked assiduously on behalf of the financial industry. In 2010 she briefly suggested filing an amendment making it harder to regulate derivatives trading, though she later backed down after a backlash. In 2011, she complained that derivatives regulation would make U.S. banks uncompetitive. In 2013, she and five other Democratic senators wrote to then-Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew arguing essentially for an indefinite delay of regulations on cross-border derivative trading. As Reid Pilfant wrote in 2012, she has "quietly overcome considerable skepticism about her on Wall Street to become a go-to advocate for the financial services industry in her own right.

http://theweek.com/articles/691363/kirsten-gillibrand-2020-not-wall-street-problem

Regulations on derivatives trading sounds kind of esoteric though.  Can whoever attacks her on that connect her position on derivatives trading to a real impact on people's lives?  That is the question.

Attacking candidates don't need to explain, they'll just label her "friendly to Wall Street."  She'd have to explain why and that becomes hard given that no one understands derivative trading.

[varesurgent]

Attacking candidates don't need to explain, they'll just label her "friendly to Wall Street."  She'd have to explain why and that becomes hard given that no one understands derivative trading.

That may do some damage in the primary, but since the thread is asking about electability in the general election, I'm not so convinced that's such a killer line of attack.  Again, barring some easy way to connect the dots between her votes on these topics and regular people's lives.

No argument there. Without the optics of paid speeches to Wall Street, hard for Trump to argue that Gillibrand is closer to big banks