Democrats: if only women were running in 2020

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Who would be your first choice?

Based on the wiki list of potential candidates (excluding those who already declined, like Warren or Gillibrand; yes, it may change, but for now we'll rule them out.)

[Rookie Yinzer]

Kamala.

Isn’t Klobuchar more hawkish than Senator Hillary Clinton? No thanks.

The rest are lightweights who I don’t take seriously.

[Sir Mohamed]

Kamala

[Karpatsky]

Klobuchar is pretty high on my list anyways, so her for sure. People say she lacks charisma, but I think she has an earnestness to her which would make her a more than solid candidate.

[Mr. Smith]

Gabbard

[You don't see any blue avatars now]

Klobuchar

[MAINEiac4434]

Out of these, Kamala.

[Sirius_]

Easy vote for Harris.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Tulsi, no question. I ain't casting a vote for Kamala Rodham Clinton.

[Thunder98]

Klobuchar

[Mr. Morden]

Isn’t Klobuchar more hawkish than Senator Hillary Clinton? No thanks.

I would say she's about equally as hawkish as Clinton was.  E.g., I think Klobuchar is the only one of the 2020 Dems who was backing a no-fly zone in Syria a few years ago, which if memory serves was also a Clinton position.  She also praised both of Trump's attacks on Assad over chemical weapons, whereas nearly all of the other 2020 Dems were critical.

She does claim that she opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but she wasn't in federal politics yet at the time, so there's no public record to prove it one way or the other.  But given her foreign policy record since being elected to the Senate, it's really hard to imagine her having voted against the war if she'd been in Congress at the time.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Amy Klobuchar. One of very few non-deplorable options on that list.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Harris.

[Kleine Scheiße]

1. Klobuchar — Underrated electability, right attitude; partisan enough but not hardcore about it

~~~~~~POWER GAP~~~~~~

2. Gabbard — Ideological agreement, relative inexperience not withstanding; I also get the feeling we’re in for a realignment and I really would love that to come from a minority woman from Hawaii who is also a Hindu. That would be a fantastic way to clearly repudiate everything that’s happened to American politics over the last few years, and I actually think she could be in a unique position to pull it off if she got the nomination

3. Harris — I like her but I have concerns about her authenticity and credibility, and some questions about her electability as a result.

4. Kennedy — She would actually probably do a better job than most think, but I don’t want someone with no elected experience.

5. Wilson — Would absolutely not win. No issue with her, but she’s also a much better fighter than an administrative type.

N/A: Turner — she’s young and needs to run for run for US rep., at least

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Any except Gabbard.

Slight personal preference for Klobuchar. Large personal preference for the unlisted Hillary Clinton.

[President Johnson]

1. Kamala Harris
2. Amy Klobuchar

3. Caroline Kennedy (actually not presidential material at the moment, try Secretary of State or UN Ambassador first).

The rest of the list is a joke.

[Ogre Mage]

Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar are the only viable choices on that list.  I understand why Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand were not included but with their exclusion this polls says little about Harris and Klobuchar's popularity on Atlas.  I actually believe Gillibrand is likely to run.  Warren might or might not.

[NewYorkExpress]

Warren and Gillibrand "declined" just like Obama declined to run on Meet the Press in 2006.

[Ogre Mage]

Warren and Gillibrand "declined" just like Obama declined to run on Meet the Press in 2006.

That was my thought. "Declining" to run is pretty standard for possible White House aspirants at this point in the cycle.

[Dr. MB]

Tulsi!

Warren would be fine too.

[Lechasseur]

Tulsi!

[cvparty]

tULSi

[Mr. Morden]

Warren and Gillibrand "declined" just like Obama declined to run on Meet the Press in 2006.

I would go farther than that and say that Obama's early denials seemed more like real denials, and most people believed them.  I think it's quite possible that they *were* real denials, and he simply changed his mind late in 2006 and decided to run.

Gillibrand's and Warren's "denials" seem fake, and they're not even consistent denials.  What happens is that journalists ask them hundreds of times whether they're going to run for president, and they give differently worded non-answers each time, with some of them coming out like real denials while others don't.  E.g., Gillibrand said "I'm ruling it out" back in November:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gillibrand-on-2020-presidential-run-im-ruling-it-out/article/2621823

But then, a couple of months later, the media forgets that she said that, and keeps asking her.  And when they ask her again, she gives a non-answer rather than a denial:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But Wikipedia doesn't update their list to indicate that she's gone from "denying" to "dodging" because she has to completely repudiate her earlier comment for it to count.  In contrast, Caroline Kennedy and Nina Turner stay on the "potential candidates" list because they haven't denied that they're going to run, because no one ever asks them.  The real candidates get asked all the time and sometimes give "denials" that qualify for Wikipedia to exclude them.

[Liberalrocks]

Kamala !!