I Believe We Need a New Presidential Candidate in 2020.

[MineralMan]

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]

1. Congressman Adam Schiff, D CA

[MineralMan]

5. Yes. He has distinguished himself

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]

16. and his wife is called Eve

Adam and Eve, how's that for messing with the Evangelicals?

[DK504]

2. I'm still looking for the FDR candidate.

Is there one out?

[athena]

6. HRC was the FDR candidate.

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]

8. There is not anyone on DU who was alive or of age during FDR's

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]

3. I think Al Franken could do it.

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]

9. I doubt seriously that he has any intentions of running.

I love Al Franken. He's one of my Senators. I don't think he'll be a candidate for President, ever.

[athena]

4. Julian Castro.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/319735-the-case-of-julian-castro-as-the-2020-democratic

[MineralMan]

10. He's another strong possibility, for sure.

Thanks!

[Dem_4_Life]

66. I would pick Joaquin over Julian

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]

7. Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris.

[MineralMan]

12. Two more strong possibilities.

Thanks. This is what we should be looking at going forward.

[lutefisk]

25. Gavin Newsom is at the top of my list! nt

[Blue_true]

41. NO to Newsome. He has a history of being unable to keep his pants up.

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]

46. That's a quaint sentiment.

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]

47. Yes, I am a Puritan. Not really, I am ok with Newsome having all the sex he wants.

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]

69. One, no one cares in 2017, and two, his last name is spelled "Newsom".

[Hula Popper]

50. Hasn't Amykins

accepted Koch sucker and NRA money ?

[Blue_true]

52. If she has, that will come out in the primary.

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]

58. Both of them are amazing politicians BUT

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]

62. I'm just offering up potential candidates, not a ticket.

It's amazing that we already have bashers "eliminating" our prominent new candidates.

"Unity my ass!"

[Warren DeMontague]

70. I agree.

We need some leadership from the West Coast.

[TNLib]

11. I'm impressed with Franken

His experienced smart and charismatic.

[MineralMan]

13. I like Franken a great deal.

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]

18. I think he's a gem in the party

He's been impressive in these hearings and I can see him as president.

[MineralMan]

20. I agree with that.

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]

14. I'd like to see some people run who haven't run before.

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]

17. Thanks! I think anyone who runs

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]

15. Flame away...I want Hillary.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. Nope, and that's not a flame.

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]

21. If she's smart, she won't even try again.

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]

22. I like Seth Moulton (D-MA)

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]

23. I'll check out that link. Thanks!

I didn't recognize his name.

[hamsterjill]

24. He may not be ready for 2020, but Joe P. Kennedy, III has a bright future!

He's been awesome on the health care debate, and I foresee great things for him in the not-so-distant future.

[MineralMan]

26. Another name to think about, for sure.

All of the people being mentioned in this thread bear watching and considering, I think.

[lutefisk]

30. He could run against George P. Bush in 2024

But seriously, JPK III represents his family well, and I believe he would do the same for the country.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. No more Kennedys! Enough of the political dynasties!

[hamsterjill]

33. Have you seen him in action?

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]

38. I know who he is; I've heard him, but there are plenty of other good people out there

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]

36. I like him, but we don't need another Kennedy

It needs to be an outsider, not another political family.

[BannonsLiver]

27. Hopefully no more boomers

They've had their time.

[MineralMan]

29. The Boomers cover a large age group.

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]

35. I'm a boomer in my 50's and I don't consider "our time over".

Thank you, MineralMan, for pointing that out.

[MineralMan]

39. Exactly. It's too large a group, born

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]

40. I honestly don't think age should disqualify anyone.

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]

44. It's not really age. It's the times

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]

48. I won't disqualify but would prefer someone under 60

[BeyondGeography]

28. Not a bad thought but I think people are going to be hard to seduce

Better a fighter than a fresh face. If both, so much the better.

[MineralMan]

32. There are plenty who are both.

Some of the names mentioned in the thread qualify.

[BeyondGeography]

43. Not that I've seen

at least compared with Franken and Warren.

People will not be in the mood for romance; pretty sure about that.

[tallahasseedem]

34. Al Franken would have my 100% support.

[MineralMan]

37. Al's 65 years old right now.

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]

42. Zuckerberg's wife

First one in her family to go to college, female person of color, mom, not a businessperson, not a politician, self funded.

[SticksnStones]

45. Wife of a billionaire businessman, conflicts galore

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]

49. No record means no record to vote against

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]

53. Well, agree to disagree...

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]

55. The "Being There" argument...

DUDLEY
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]

67. I said elsewhere on this thread that I don't understand why

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]

68. Exactly! nt

[Kahuna7]

51. I nominate Al Franken and Gavin Newsome!

[Kirkwood]

54. The responses in this thread scare me. nt

[Jim Lane]

56. I wouldn't rule out Martin O'Malley as a rehash.

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]

57. As far as I'm concerned, it would be fine for him to run.

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]

59. Amal Clooney is real impressive to me as an outsider candidate

Other established politicians:
Hickenlooper
Eric Garcetti
Kamala Harris
Cory Booker
Kristin Gillibrand

[MineralMan]

60. That name is not familiar to me, actually.

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. I think some of the oldest Democrats need to make room for younger

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]

63. Whoever it is, I hope for their sake that they have never accepted a corporate dollar in their lives

since that seems to override all other priorities now...

[Atman]

64. I nearly got banned from DU for saying this a couple of months ago.

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]

65. I suppose so. I say what I think, and damn the torpedoes.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Yeah, the rules seem to change depending on who is fighting about what.

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]

72. Schiff

[Jno_Gilmor_]

73. My dream candidate would be Tulsi Gabbard!!!

But I don't think she has the name recognition yet... but who knows