Five Women Contending For Democratic Presidential Nomination: Who Has Best Chance, Or Will They All Cancel Each Other Out?

The Presidential Election competition for 2020 is certainly the most diverse ever seen.

Instead of seeing one woman or two women competing as in recent elections, we have a total of five women trying to gain the Democratic Presidential nomination.

The question which arises is whether America is really ready to elect a woman President in a nation which has so much misogyny, while so many other nations have had women leaders without any controversy.

The question is who has the best chance, or will they all cancel each other out, and we will end up with a male Presidential candidate in the end.

It would seem to this author and blogger that of the five women candidates for President, that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who has the appeal of being potentially the youngest President at age 39 in 2020, has zero chance of being the nominee. Only one sitting member of the House of Representatives, James A. Garfield of Ohio in 1880, ever was elected President, and tragically, was assassinated six months into office, after being shot after just four months in the Presidency.

Among the other four, it would seem that New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, with her bullying of former Minnesota Senator Al Franken over unsubstantiated charges of sexual harassment, would be the second most like to fail in her bid for the Presidency.

The other three, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts; Kamala Harris of California; and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota all would seem to have a much better chance of survival.

However, Warren might be more to the left than the nation would tolerate; and Harris, being of a mixed race background, might face a daunting task of overcoming both racism, and what all women candidates face–misogyny.

So on paper, Klobuchar, from the Midwest, and coming across as more centrist a progressive, in the tradition of Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, Walter Mondale, and Paul Wellstone, might have the best chance to be nominated and elected.

Time will tell ultimately whether any of the women will survive, or even if any of them might be a Vice Presidential running mate, with only Klobuchar, and possibly, Harris, agreeing to be in that role.

Early Caucuses And Primaries Favor Different Democratic Presidential Nominees

A year from now, the early Presidential caucuses and primaries create a situation where different candidates may have an edge, and are likely to create more complications in deciding who will gain and who will lose favor.

The Iowa Caucuses might favor Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar or Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown.

The New Hampshire Primary might favor Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders or Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

The Nevada Caucuses might favor California Senator Kamala Harris or Colorado Senator Michael Bennet.

The South Carolina Primary might favor either New Jersey Senator Cory Booker or California Senator Kamala Harris, with its heavily African American Democratic membership in that Southern state.

On Super Tuesday, March 3, Harris might be favored in her home state of California; and former San Antonio Mayor and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro or former El Paso Congressman Beto O’Rourke might have the edge in Texas.

As the month of March wears on, with a number of Midwestern primaries in Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Illinois, Klobuchar and Brown would seem to have the edge, assuming no one has become the obvious Presidential choice after Super Tuesday, as at least seven other primaries are conducted that day.

Of course, based on past elections, it could be that the nominee would be decided simply by the large number of states conducting their primaries on March 3 (at least 9 states, including the giant ones of California and Texas).

The Border Wall Conflict Comes To A Head As Trump And Beto O’Rourke Have Competing Rallies In El Paso, Texas This Evening

Tonight, we will see a classic confrontation on the Border Wall conflict as Donald Trump and potential Democratic Presidential contender Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke have competing rallies in El Paso, Texas, on the issue of the Border Wall.

Trump has called El Paso a city of crime, when it has one of the lowest rates of crime over the long haul, even before there was the building of a wall in 2008. The Republican Mayor of El Paso, along with other Republican and Democratic political leaders in the area, have denounced the lies that Trump perpetrates about the effects and the rationale for a wall.

Trump is holding a campaign style rally, and O’Rourke, who gained notice by his close race against Senator Ted Cruz, coming within three points in the deeply Red state of Texas, of defeating him, is to conduct a competing rally at the same time and basic location.

The question will be how large the crowd will be for each rally, and how effective their oratory will be. O’Rourke has been able to gain large rallies during his Senate campaign, and has had the ability to gain large amounts of campaign funds from ordinary citizens, who find him appealing in a way only Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has been able to before now, in the Democratic Party.

Is this the beginning of a Presidential campaign, and will Beto O’Rourke be the magical figure to overcome Donald Trump?

Also, will there be the potential for violence tonight, hopefully not, but not beyond possibility, on an extremely emotional and divisive issue.

This will be a split screen news event this evening, and could be a major moment in the making of the Presidential Election of 2020.

Losing Presidential Candidates Who Should Have Been President: Henry Clay, Charles Evans Hughes, Hubert Humphrey

When one looks back in American history at losing Presidential candidates who should have been President in their times, three names stand out:

Henry Clay of Kentucky, 1824, 1832, 1844

Charles Evans Hughes of New York, 1916

Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, 1968

All three of these Presidential candidates were exceptional public servants.

Henry Clay was the most important legislator of the first half of the 19th century, known as the Great Compromiser, for his promotion of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Compromise Tariff of 1833, and the Compromise of 1850. He was the youngest Speaker of the House of Representatives, Secretary of State, and also served a number of terms in the US Senate. He stood for a stronger national government, in the Alexander Hamilton model, and had a great impact on many others including Abraham Lincoln, who became a Whig Party member due to the influence of Clay on him.

Charles Evans Hughes was the progressive Republican Governor of New York, in the Robert LaFollette-Wisconsin model in the early 20th century, served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, resigned to run for President against Woodrow Wilson in the closest electoral vote election since 1876, and third closest electoral vote election of all time, and then went on to be Secretary of State. Finally, he became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the 1930s, the New Deal era.

Hubert Humphrey was the Democratic Senator from Minnesota, a leading liberal figure, who had been Mayor of Minneapolis before going to the Senate. He was seen as a premier liberal in Congress, responsible for many of the ideas that became the Great Society. He was Vice President under Lyndon B. Johnson, unhappy in that position and forced to support the Vietnam War in speeches, which undermined his Presidential campaign in 1968 against Richard Nixon. He came back to the Senate after his Presidential defeat, and sadly died at the young age of 66 in 1978.

If these three losing Presidential candidates had won, the history of the United States would have been vastly different.

The Political Knives Are Out For Democratic Presidential Contenders

The Presidential Election is upon us in February 2019, as more Democrats are announcing their candidacies for President.

And as they announce or are about to announce, the political knives are out for them, both by opponents in the party, and Republican and right wing critics, out to undermine all of them by any means possible.

There is no question that Donald Trump operatives are part of the equation, but we also are getting reports on POLITICO, HUFFINGTON POST, BUZZ FEED, and the NEW YORK TIMES and WASHINGTON POST that make it clear that all candidates have flaws, imperfections, and issues that could derail their candidacies.

But of course, Donald Trump has plenty of flaws, imperfections, and issues, well demonstrated since he announced his candidacy in June 2015.

So what are some of the imperfections, shortcomings, flaws of Democratic contenders?

Joe Biden has a tendency to gaffes, stupid statements he makes very often, as he tends to be extremely wordy and gabby as a personality. Also, his handling of the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill matter in 1991 bedogs him, despite his apologies on that matter. Additionally, he is known as having been the credit card Senator, because of major banks and their credit card operations being centered in Delaware, his home state. This has led to overly high interest rates for customers over the years, and to inability of many people to go bankrupt when they are strapped financially, particularly those who have student loan debt. Additionally, he was a sponsor of tough crime laws in the 1990s, which caused many minority groups in particular to face stiff sentences for drug convictions. And finally as Vice President, he swore in Senators for new terms or first terms, and tended to be “touchy feely” with daughters, wives, and other women in the families of Senators, which could be seen as a problem by the “Me Too” Movement against sexual harassment.

Elizabeth Warren has identified herself as a native American, and it has become an albatross around her neck, leading to her apologizing, but it remains an issue which Donald Trump has, and will continue to exploit. Additionally, many people think she is too shrill, but this is a double standard, as many male politicians, including Donald Trump, Chris Christie Newt Gingrich, and Rudy Giuliani are shrill as well.

Amy Klobuchar has now been revealed as a nightmare for her staff to work for, very temperamental, cruel, abusive, demanding, which is totally against her public persona, but a list of Senators tough to work for in the same manner, shows seven out of the top ten are women. So what does one make of this, truly something to shake one’s head over.

Tulsi Gabbard is criticized for her meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who has committed mass murder during the eight year long Syrian Civil War.

“Beto” O’Rourke has the record of several arrests when a college student, for minor burglaries and break ins, seemingly fueled by alcohol.

Kamala Harris is criticized for opposing the death penalty for a cop killer in California, and generally, for being opposed to capital punishment.

Many progressives are unhappy with Sherrod Brown, for being against a one step movement toward Medicare For All, suggesting a slower approach in that direction.

Bernie Sanders is criticized as too far left with his “socialist” views, thought by many to be the road to defeat, particularly with Donald Trump attacking Socialism, which he sees as the Democratic Party direction.

Kirsten Gillibrand is criticized for having “bullied” Minnesota Senator Al Franken to resign over accusations of sexual harassment. Also, her overly conservative record in the House of Representatives before becoming Senator is used against her.

Cory Booker is criticized for being too tied to Wall Street and Pharmaceutical companies, and some wonder if his revelation of a dating relationship with an actress is trying to hide his single status, which has led to rumors about his sexuality.

It is clear one has to have a thick skin to participate in the Presidential race, and it does make one wonder how anyone can survive such scrutiny and remain sane and balanced.

So, sadly, the desire for perfection in a candidate or nominee is gone, and we have to pick an imperfect person to run against Donald Trump, but with the understanding that no matter what the imperfections, Donald Trump is the worst President in American history in his character, his morality, his ethics, his utterances, and his actions.

Losing Vice Presidential Candidates Who Should Have Been President: Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. (1960) And Edmund Muskie (1968)

A category of political leaders very easily forgotten are Vice Presidential candidates on a losing Presidential ticket.

Many of them are seen in history as disastrous for one reason or another, including William E. Miller, who ran with Barry Goldwater in 1964; Geraldine Ferraro, who was the running mate of Walter Mondale in 1984; John Edwards, who was John Kerry’s Vice Presidential nominee in 2004; and Sarah Palin, who was John McCain’s running mate in 2008.

On the other hand, we can find at least two Vice Presidential running mates who were true giant figures in American political history.

One was Richard Nixon’s Vice Presidential choice in 1960, former Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr of Massachusetts, who lost his seat to John F. Kennedy in 1952, but was United Nations Ambassador under President Dwight D. Eisenhower; and later Ambassador to South Vietnam under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson; and also sought the Republican Presidential nomination in 1964. Lodge was a true star figure, the only one of the four candidates in 1960 not to become President, and there are scholars who think he might have been a better President, than Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. He was certainly a solid figure in American foreign policy, and had 16 years service in the US Senate.

The other Vice Presidential running mate who was a star figure was Maine Senator Edmund Muskie, who was Hubert Humphrey’s choice in 1968. Muskie ran a dignified campaign that year, and later sought the Presidency in 1972, but derailed by the “Dirty Tricks” of the Richard Nixon reelection campaign, and lost the nomination to Senator George McGovern, seen as an easier candidate to defeat, which indeed he turned out to be. But Muskie served 21 years in the Senate, and then was Secretary of State under President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Both men would have been exceptional choices for the Oval Office, but never had the opportunity, but their legacy needs to be honored and remembered.

America Will Never Be A “Socialist” Country, But We Have “Socialist” Ideas Americans Want To Keep: Social Security, Medicare, Environmental, Labor, Consumer, Health Care, Education, And Civil Rights Laws, All Which Make Capitalism Work Better!

Donald Trump attacked “Socialism” in the State of the Union address, knowing full well that is simply a code word to attack progressive reforms that have become part of the American tradition and system of social justice.

“Socialism” in America is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Environmental Laws, Federal Labor Laws, Federal Consumer Laws, Federal Health Care, Education and Civil Rights Laws.

These laws are the hard, years fought for, efforts of primarily Democrats and some moderate Republicans over the century since Theodore Roosevelt, including Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and even contributions of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, and innumerable Senators and Congressmen and state governors who saw these laws as essential for American advancement.

We are a nation of capitalism but with “socialism” mixed in, due to the promotion of such legislation by the Socialist Party of the 20th century, and its leaders, including Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and most Americans support and see the need for the laws we have.

We are not going to go back to the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, as the Progressive Era, the New Deal, the 1960s, and the Obama era have made our nation better, and the right wing attack on all these reforms will be fought bitterly and defeated!

Trump’s State Of The Union Address: LIES, LIES, LIES!

President Donald Trump gave his second State of the Union Address last night, and it was full of lies, mistruths, and pure propaganda.

Trump claimed the economy has been brilliant under him, completely forgetting, conveniently, that the greatest economic revival from an economic downturn was under Barack Obama, who came in with 10 percent unemployment and brought it down below 5 percent; and the stock market having its greatest percentage growth ever under any President.

Trump claimed crime by undocumented immigrants was a massive problem, when the crime rate by American citizens is far higher, and crimes by undocumented immigrants, while sadly occurring and creating some victims, is NOT a major issue across the nation. It is white supremacists who are Americans, who are committing most crimes, and the victims are people of color.

Trump claimed that the Mexico border is seeing a massive flow of “caravans”, a claim which is totally created in his imagination, as the migration across the border is the lowest since the 1970s, but he has no issue in making Mexicans the enemy, and undermining relations with our neighbor, which shares a 2,000 mile border with us.

Trump talks about the need for infrastructure spending, and the issue of health care, but his administration has failed to deal with either issue, and instead has just been out to throw millions of Americans off the Affordable Care Act, without any alternative.

Trump speaks about the accomplishments of women, but it is because of his misogyny that we have seen the election of more women to Congress than ever before in American history, and they will not tolerate his sexism, and are working to fight for the rights of women, including to their own bodies.

Trump calls for the end of investigations, but it is the responsibility of Congress and the Justice Department to learn all of the facts about corruption and manipulations of the election, and Trump is on the Titanic, and the ship is sinking. His threat that no progress can be made is empty, as nothing positive has been accomplished in his first two years, and political scientists rate him after one year as number 44 out of 44 Presidents. Even conservatives and Republicans who are part of the American Political Science Association rate Trump only number 40 out of 44. So Trump will not survive his term and will be rated the absolutely worst President in US history, a well deserved conclusion.

The Rise Of “Political Stars” Who Lose Elections

Suddenly, in 2019, we have the rise of “political stars” who lose elections, but are considered future leaders.

So we have “Beto” O’Rourke, former El Paso, Texas Congressman, who ran a close race against Texas Senator Ted Cruz, and is now considered a potential Democratic Presidential candidate.

We also have Stacey Abrams, African American nominee for Governor in Georgia, who will be giving the State of the Union Democratic response tonight after Donald Trump’s State of the Union address to Congress.

And we have Andrew Gillum, African American nominee for Governor in Florida, who is seen as a rising star in the party, and might be a national leader in the long term future.

Of course, others have lost races for office, and gone on to be national stars, such as Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George W. Bush. Lincoln and Bush lost Senate races after serving in Congress, and then went on to be President. FDR lost the Vice Presidency in 1920, and then, twelve years later, was elected President.

One Year To The Iowa Caucuses, And The Democratic Presidential Race Is Wide Open And Even Chaotic

One year from February 3, a Monday in 2020, we will witness the 2020 Democratic Presidential Caucuses, the first test on the road to the Presidential nomination, as it turned out to be exactly 11 years ago on January 3, 2008, when Barack Obama won out over Hillary Clinton.

One year out, it is impossible to figure out who will be the Democratic Presidential nominee, but with the urgency that it is essential that whoever is selected is able to win the Presidency, and save the nation from a second term of Donald Trump or a succession of Mike Pence.

Within just one month, February 3 to March 3, assuredly, the field, which may start as high as 25 candidates, will be winnowed to no more than 5, and March 3, Super Tuesday, with California and Texas and a vast number of other states voting, could cut it down to no more than 3 finalists.

A prognostication, which may prove to be totally preposterous in retrospect in a year, this blogger senses that the following five will be the ultimate finalists:

Vice President Joe Biden, representing the older, establishment, experienced group of candidates and the Barack Obama legacy.

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, representing the Midwest heartland, and like Biden, appeal to white working class voters.

Former San Antonio Mayor and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, a Latino, and younger by months if he became President than Bill Clinton, from Texas, representing the largest minority in America in a state and section of the nation with growing potential to turn Blue in the next decade, and transform the Electoral College in favor of the Democrats long term.

Senator Kamala Harris of California, mixed race (mother from India and father from Jamaica), often called “the female Barack Obama”, representing a candidate who revolutionizes the whole election process with her presence, and if she wins California, it could propel her into front runner status.

I would sense that the Presidential-Vice Presidential team will come from this group of five, but we shall see as the next year transpires.