Dems are 0 for the last 17 years when they run a white candidate, losing to W twice and now Trump. They ran a nobody black guy against one the most respected members of senate and won and ran him again against a well respected businessman/politician and won again. I think I’d go the black guy route again if I were a dem strategist.
They didn’t win because Obama is a black guy. They won because he was something new. After the Iraq war, people were weary of Bush and wanted change - in fact this was Obama’s slogan. Not just US voters, but the world saw him as hope for a new direction in US politics. That’s why he was given a Nobel Prize 4 months into his Presidency, before he had any actual policy achievements.
Now compare Obama to other, failed Democratic candidates. Obama was young, brilliant, handsome and charismatic. Hillary Clinton or John Kerry do not have those characteristics. Hillary lost largely because she had nothing new to offer voters. In the end, she tried to campaign as the heir of Obama, and people rejected her.
Similarly, Trump won because he rejected the status quo. His campaign promises were unrealistic and his personality is repugnant. However, resetting the political message was enough for him to win. His lack of substance didn’t matter, because it is more important for the candidate to be interesting than realistic.
So like I said, running another Obama or Hillary is not going to work. The approach will have to be something new and truly interesting. I don’t know what that is, but we’ll know it when (if) we see it.
…over the last 17 years? That’s 5 elections and four candidates on the Dem side. Who lost the biggest: HRC and Kerry. Old establishment Dems. Gore lost in basically a coin flip, also with no Nader he wins.
There are two things that will decide the 2020 election:
-
How badly the RNC screws up or succeeds in governing the next 3 years.
-
Whether you can find some actual new blood in the DNC ranks/if the old guard relinquishes power or has it stripped from them
Gore lost to Bush under very different circumstances than those that exist today. Compared to today, Americans were comfortable and happy with things not changing. So, they were less likely to support progressive politics. Plus, after the Clinton sex scandal, many of them probably found W appealing, due to his homely nature and his coming from a nice family.
Ohai for president!
^not born here
So then Elizabeth Warren has a good chance because she has ‘stuck it to the establishment’ numerous times and is offering something different? Kinda like Uncle Bernie on steroids
I think you guys are greatly overestimating the American voters.
give the mucc a bone, leave the dog alone
the Mooch is now banging Kimberly Guilfoyle. I would give my left nut to bang that floozie. What a cuntry! What a cuntry!
Like to me like she may have some sad saggy bewbs
4.5
^agreed. mucc should do better. he’s worth $1.5b
^ source?
According to Fortune, his net worth is between $44.8 million and $64.3 million.
https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/wall-street/anthony-scaramucci-net-worth/
but i guess he isnt really worth taht much.
http://heavy.com/news/2017/07/anthony-scaramucci-net-worth-house-age-money-trump-skybridge/
your source seems more accurate
That’s low but any standard, but considering she’s in her late 40’s, way low.