General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI Believe We Need a New Presidential Candidate in 2020.
I've been involved in presidential elections since I was 15 years old in 1960. That year, we elected a fresh new face as our Democratic President. Then, just over 30 years later, we elected another young, dynamic President. In 2008, we did the same.
JFK
WJC
BHO
In between and before each of those Presidents, we had Republicans in the White House. Once again, we have a Republican as POTUS, and a moronic, witless one, at that.
As we look beyond the 2016 election and toward the 2020 election, I'd like to propose that we start looking for another fresh, rising star in the Democratic party. Let's find someone who is currently serving in Congress or as the Governor of a state who is in his or her 40s and is making a difference right now. Let's look for a candidate who represents a generational change, just as we have done in the past.
Instead of looking backwards at candidates and potential candidates from the past, let's find the next wave of leadership and move forward. As an old fart of almost 72 years, I'm not eager for someone in my generation to run to be President. In 1960, I was 15 years old and was inspired by JFK and worked hard to help him win.
In 1992, I did the same for Bill Clinton, and did it again for Barack Obama in 2008. Now, in what will probably be my last chance to help someone become President, I want someone who brings bottomless energy, a deep understanding of today's world, and a vision for the next two decades to run for that office. I want to move on to the next generation of leadership.
I'm about the same age as some of the people who are being talked about right now. They were talked about before the 2016 election, too, but did not become the actual candidate. I want to talk about some new names. I want new leadership for the Democratic Party in 2020, not the same people who didn't succeed in 2016.
So, let's talk about the rising stars in the Democratic Party and see if we can find the best of the best of those to run as our candidate in 2020. I don't know all of the names of those potential candidates, so lets discuss possibilities.
Let's bring a new generation of Democrats to the table and find someone who can lead our party and our nation with the same optimism and strength we've seen from previous new generation leaders in the past. Let's elect a new JFK, WJC or BHO in 2020, not someone who has tried and failed already.
Please! I'd like to go out with a leader who gives me hope for a progressive future. Let's hear your suggestions.
pdxflyboy
(678 posts)MineralMan
(146,351 posts)during the investigation of Trump's Russian connection. Listening to him, I've heard someone who thinks clearly, reasons well, and appears to have strong leadership abilities.
I think he's someone we should keep an eye on for 2020. I look forward to hearing more from the Congressman.
arfcorps
(21 posts)Adam and Eve, how's that for messing with the Evangelicals?
DK504
(3,847 posts)Is there one out?
athena
(4,187 posts)Watch the documentary on the Roosevelts that is now available on Netflix. It's six long episodes, but well worth it. You will see that FDR was a center-left politician first and foremost focused on the art of the possible. He was not the liberal firebrand so many people seem to think he was.
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)presidency. Nobody. He was President of a completely different United States than we live in today. While he accomplished a lot, particularly in economic areas, he also was deeply flawed in other areas.
Different times. Different world. Different realities.
We need a different, more contemporary vision. FDR was a man of his times. We need a person of our own times.
Initech
(100,149 posts)He's scandal free, not tied to Hillary or Obama in any way (conservatives would hate that), and he can drop kick the conservatives to the curb when he has to!
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)I love Al Franken. He's one of my Senators. I don't think he'll be a candidate for President, ever.
athena
(4,187 posts)MineralMan
(146,351 posts)Thanks!
Dem_4_Life
(1,765 posts)Here in Texas and especially in San Antonio (generally speaking) Joaquin is much more popular than Julian.
Even though he is not running (yet) for Senator, Joaquin is already beating Ted Cruz in a statewide poll.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)MineralMan
(146,351 posts)Thanks. This is what we should be looking at going forward.
lutefisk
(3,974 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Republicans get away with that stuff, but Democrats are held to a higher standard. If the right decision is made in California, the current Mayors or Oakland or LA should be the next Governor, they are effective and scandal free.
The people that I like at the national level are Chris Van Hollen, Robert Kennedy III, Joaquin Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand or Amy Klobuchar.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Newsom is expected to be the next California governor.
We'll see if Democrats "have a higher standard."
[img][/img]
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-governor-2018-money/
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)I am not ok with him being married while doing it. I am perfectly ok with a bachelor or bachelorette President who has special "guess" come to the White House, that would not bother me. Compared to Newsome, the Mayors of LA and Oakland have been excellent administrators and have kept largely free of scandal or impropriety.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Hula Popper
(374 posts)accepted Koch sucker and NRA money ?
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)I don't think it is wrong to accept NRA money as long as she was clear it would not affect her vote and she voted for legislation to control who could get guns. I don't hunt and never will, buts lot of people do hunt and support someone that supports their free access to hunting implements.
Jake Stern
(3,145 posts)We're already portrayed as the party of coastal elites and a California-California ticket would not help dispel that.
We need someone from the South or Midwest or a running mate from the South or Midwest.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)It's amazing that we already have bashers "eliminating" our prominent new candidates.
"Unity my ass!"
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)We need some leadership from the West Coast.
TNLib
(1,819 posts)His experienced smart and charismatic.
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)I've met him personally and talked with him. Truthfully, though, I don't think he is really interested in running for President. He'd be OK with me, though, although he's on the very edge of my age limit for presidential candidates who appeal to me strongly. He's my Senator. I helped him get elected. I hope he remains in office for a very long time.
TNLib
(1,819 posts)He's been impressive in these hearings and I can see him as president.
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)If he were the candidate, he'd certainly have my enthusiastic support. However, I do not believe he is interested in running for that office. That's based on conversations with him. So, I'm looking elsewhere at this time.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,003 posts)Their actual age might be somewhat less relevant than the fact that maybe they would take a different approach to the process than the same-old-same-old that doesn't seem to be working. I don't want to see any more relatives or spouses of established political families, either. So, no more Clintons and no more Kennedys; and not Bernie either (he'll be 78, so I don't see him wanting to do it).
But obviously we don't want someone who has never held public office. I don't understand the public's apparent loathing for "professional politicians"; if I want a professional surgeon operating on me and a professional pilot flying the airplane I'm on (instead of someone with a lot of confidence but no experience), why shouldn't I want a professional politician to be directing the management of my government at the highest level? There are bound to be a few smart, progressive senators or governors or congresspeople out there. I don't know who they are.
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)should have a deep understanding, from experience, of how government functions. We're seeing right now what happens when a President doesn't have that. So, whoever our candidate is, it should be someone who is in government now and is successful in office. That seems to be to be an essential qualification for the presidency.
I agree, though, that it should be someone new to running for President. No more rehashes.
Rustyeye77
(2,736 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,003 posts)She had her chances, she failed; and she's part of a political generation whose time has come and gone (I'm her age, by the way).
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)And I know for a fact that she's very smart. Second time is not a charm, frankly. If you lose once, find something else to do. Really.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)He's a rising star in MA and there has even been some talk about him running in 2020. He was on Bill Maher's show a few weeks ago. He's young, progressive, charismatic and has military experience. Here's more about him.
https://moulton.house.gov/
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)I didn't recognize his name.
hamsterjill
(15,224 posts)He's been awesome on the health care debate, and I foresee great things for him in the not-so-distant future.
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)All of the people being mentioned in this thread bear watching and considering, I think.
lutefisk
(3,974 posts)But seriously, JPK III represents his family well, and I believe he would do the same for the country.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,003 posts)hamsterjill
(15,224 posts)I hear where you're coming from, but I also don't think he should be automatically disqualified because of his name either.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,003 posts)who are not entitled members of political dynasties who take advantage of their family names. I think a family name can make people think more of a person than they might deserve. They hear the name Kennedy and they automatically think Oooh! JFK! Bobby! Teddy! Swoon! I don't want to see another Kennedy, Clinton or Bush running for president.
Volstagg
(233 posts)It needs to be an outsider, not another political family.
BannonsLiver
(16,548 posts)They've had their time.
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)Some of the later Boomers, I think, are young enough to be considered.
I was born in 1945, so I predate the Boomers by a year. I'm a war baby. I was born a week before the Hiroshima bomb was dropped. My father was still in Southern Europe and North Africa, flying B-17s on transport missions at the time. He met me three months later. There are Boomers, though, who are still in their 50s. It's a big, big group, and I wouldn't disqualify all of them for consideration.
hamsterjill
(15,224 posts)Thank you, MineralMan, for pointing that out.
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)at different times, to exclude. Sadly, a lot of later generation folks think of the Boomers as all old geezers like me. That's not the case at all.
hamsterjill
(15,224 posts)Age should not qualify nor disqualify a candidate IMHO. As has been pointed out in other threads, Joe Biden isn't perceived as "old". I think we get into a slippery slope when someone - anyone for that matter - tries to paint a whole generation or generations with such a broad brush.
I still hope that Democrats look at the individual.
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)one lived in, I think. Our personal histories play a large role in our thinking. For example, I was part of the development of computer technology and the meteoric growth of the personal computer and the technology we're using now. However, I lived in a world most of my life when that technology didn't exist or wasn't so all important as it is today. I still remember seeing a television for the first time in 1950. I had one of the first cell phones available.
But, I'm no longer relevant to that technology, even though I was part of its beginnings. I'm not longer a participant in what will come next. Today, our technology simple IS. What that means for the future is something I'm not part of any longer. I'm part of history, not part of the next steps we'll be taking.
I wan't leadership that will be part of the next steps, not leadership that led in the past. While I embrace everything that is real today, I'm no longer part of what will be. I'm from the past. You won't find me sitting in a room discussing the next breakthroughs in anything. 30 years ago, I was in that room, and often leading the conversation.
I want people who can lead the conversation without being so deeply influenced by the past. I will support that new leadership, because it will be setting the course for the future - a future I won't be part of.
It's time to pass the torch, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the Boomer generation is too old to lead. Not by a long shot. But, there is a time to step aside and let the next wave come. For me, it's time.
BannonsLiver
(16,548 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,395 posts)Better a fighter than a fresh face. If both, so much the better.
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)Some of the names mentioned in the thread qualify.
BeyondGeography
(39,395 posts)at least compared with Franken and Warren.
People will not be in the mood for romance; pretty sure about that.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)MineralMan
(146,351 posts)I don't think he's even considering a run, actually. I spoke to him a couple of years ago, and he scoffed at the idea of running for President. I wouldn't put much hope in him running, frankly. I don't think he wants that job.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)First one in her family to go to college, female person of color, mom, not a businessperson, not a politician, self funded.
SticksnStones
(2,108 posts)No...lets get someone who wouldn't be using the Presidency to cut political teeth.
I want to root for someone who has a sense of how governing and politics work because they have some experience in that arena.
The notion that the best person for office is someone with no or little experience in that field stymies me.
Generally, I don't get the "but he's not a politician" as a positive for electability...I don't get that mindset.
What other job, what other industry would find value in wanting to be led by a person whose skillset doesn't really fully match the job requirement?
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)Because everything that you have ever done politically is a problem for at least one person out there.
She is not Zuck, and Zuck's conflicts of interest are not hers.
SticksnStones
(2,108 posts)Zuck's conflicts are not hers...one might extrapolate that to say the same for 45 and sons...personally, I don't buy it. What, we would have some kind of Chinese wall between the president and first gentleman? Uh uh...
No candidate will ever appeal to everyone. That candidate is a unicorn. A voting record gives a clearer idea of the candidate's true values, actions speaking greater than words n'all -
If this presidency has shown us anything, I hope it shows the value of having actual politicians in politics, as well as the necessity to elect people who have some experience governing and forming coalitions.
Running a company and holding elected office are not the same thing.
And I will say it again: the Presidency is NOT the place to cut your political teeth.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)But what do we know of the man?
Nothing! We have no inkling of
his past!
NELSON
Correct, and that is an asset.
A man's past can cripple him,
his background turns into a
swamp and invites scrutiny.
CALDWELL
...Up to this time, he hasn't
said anything that could be used
against him.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,003 posts)so many people seem to consider being a "professional politician" to be a bad thing. I want an experienced professional surgeon to operate on me, and an experienced professional pilot to fly the airplane I'm traveling on, and an experienced professional lawyer to represent me in court. Why should I not want a president who is an experienced professional manager of high-level government functions? While I agree with the OP that it would be great to see some new people run for president next time instead of the same-old-same-old dynasts and long-time insiders, at the same time it's essential to have someone who actually knows and understands how government works. Dolt 45 is living proof of the vital importance of having a clue about the job you're supposed to be doing.
SticksnStones
(2,108 posts)Kahuna7
(2,531 posts)Kirkwood
(58 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Yes, he ran in 2016, but only barely, because he saw the writing on the wall and exited so early.
In 2020 he'll turn 57. I don't see that as too old.
During all the Clinton versus Sanders bitterness on DU, there were several people in each camp who, after O'Malley's withdrawal, mentioned that they were impressed by him and hoped he'd run again.
Of course, the issue is whether, having done so badly last time, he could be taken seriously as a contender next time. My answer is that he'd have a chance. In the 2016 cycle, he faced an unusual situation in that (1) the party establishment was overwhelmingly behind one candidate, to a degree unprecedented for a nonincumbent; and (2) the voters inclined toward an insurgent had an alternative who was extraordinarily different from the usual run of candidates. That left no room for anyone else. I don't expect either Clinton or Sanders to run in 2020, so O'Malley won't have those problems.
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)I question whether he'd make it out of the primaries, though, with many delegates to the convention.
He's not getting much attention these days, but neither are most of the others I think might be contenders. It's still a bit too early for that to happen, really.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Other established politicians:
Hickenlooper
Eric Garcetti
Kamala Harris
Cory Booker
Kristin Gillibrand
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)I'll look it up on Wikipedia.
OK, she is not a U.S. Citizen, nor was she born in the USA, so never mind. She's not eligible to run for President, or any other office in the United States, as far as I know.
Sorry, but that's not really a helpful suggestion.
Ilsa
(61,717 posts)Congresspeople and senators to work and become known for their values and contributions.
Sure, the power wielded by people like Feinstein is a tremendous advantage. But that is also a job a younger D could hold on the way to the WH.
My fear is that we have too many older Ds in Congress that are not upwardly mobile for some reason.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)since that seems to override all other priorities now...
Atman
(31,464 posts)I was called age-ist (I'm 58) and all sorts of other things. Good luck. I agree with you completely. Why do we keep looking back to the candidates that I've been seeing on tv since I had only thirteen channels?
MineralMan
(146,351 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I had a post hidden for factually pointing out that a Democratic Representative from Florida voted repeatedly to send medical marijuana users to prison, because that was "attacking Democrats".
But this week it's apparently okay to post thread after thread attacking a Democratic Senator from Massachusets, even to the point of flat-out accusing her of being a racist. That, I guess, isn't "attacking Democrats".
Because reasons, I guess.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)Jno_Gilmor_
(127 posts)But I don't think she has the name recognition yet... but who knows