CU77 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:02 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:23 pmMichelle would crush Trump, but reportedly she is loathe to get into the fray.
a fan wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:46 pm
Michelle would win. She'd get the turnout, no question.
Usually I think you two are spot on, but in this case, I beg to differ. What does Michelle bring to the table that the other D candidates don't? I don't see any reason why she would be a better candidate, once she's forced to state views on all the issues out there. Throw in the votes she would lose for being a woman and for being black. And finally, the pure nepotism of it turns me off (as it did with HRC).
Extraordinarily high approval rating currently, even higher than Barack who is currently very high. A reputation for integrity, a reputation as very bright. Strong approval for personal values.
We live in a world in which name recognition and popularity are 'trumping' experience.
I don't think being black and/or a woman is actually a negative in the current environment. I think we mix up the animus towards folks of color from the right wing and the misogyny of the right wing, as if the strong majority of Americans wouldn't welcome an opportunity to rebuke those in the right wing on those lines. They would.
But it requires the 'right' sort of woman, the 'right' sort of person of color. They need to be perceived as strong and personally charismatic, yet not 'threatening'...much less corrupt. Barack checked those boxes and won strongly.
HRC was perceived as corrupt, arrogant, 'entitled', and she definitely was not charismatic. Smart, qualified, sure. But she had a very high negatives built up over decades. IMO, deservedly to some extent, though we shouldn't ignore that the right wing pounded for decades. But then the Clintons cashed in big time on their personal celebrity and more importantly, on the prospect of HRC being President. Bernie pounded on the perceived corruption, the Wall Street largesse, and the right wing continued to pound as well. Very high negatives. Which made every misstep easy to amplify. Not to mention that she ran a terrible campaign, never really reaching out to working class whites rhetorically.
I think Warren "threatens" as well. Not just because she's smart and detailed, but because her policies are so far left and her tone so strident. That said, she does work way harder than HRC and she does tailor an appeal to working class folks, regardless of race. I don't know if that's enough to overcome the tone issues. I'm not eager to having her lecture us for 4-8 years.
Kamala I think checks the right boxes in terms of personal likability, brains, tone. I think she could pull it off, but she'll need to work super hard to win back those states that Trump flipped from Obama. She'll likely need a VP candidate from the heartland who can appeal to those voters perhaps better than she could, much as Biden (though coastal) did help with working class white voters in those states.
But she doesn't have Michelle's rockstar appeal.
Michelle's weakness is that she would be bypassing any prior elected or high office experience (not a problem for HRC); but Trump blew up that requirement.
Is there any doubt as to whether Michelle would have a first class Cabinet, attracting top quality people back into service or stepping up?
But she reportedly doesn't want it. Which may be her best recommendation!