âBig news today, my family is on board including my in-laws, so showing momentum,â Klobuchar said.
Thaât like - say - 15 votes ? Thatâs a startâŚ
This is good news. Iâm not on board with her, but Iâm going to give her a good hard look. She may be just what the Democratic Party, and the nation, need.
Just for fun Donaldâs civil war âhistoryâ
I donât like Klobucharâs chances in the primary (the field is just too big and noisy), but I think sheâd do well in the general and, if she won, would make for an excellent president.
So, weirdly (?), I see each step getting easier for her.
Well, considering that her fingies are #4 on the Al Franken knife, she still has some âsplaininâ to do.
Go peddle your whataboutist papers elsewhere.
Itâs hard to parody blaming a woman for a manâs #metoo problems, but you keep doing you.
Your heartfelt concern is noted.
538 has an interesting write up on the electability of some early contenders.
Nate Silver doesnât think she has broad appeal among the (5) essential groups he feels are necessary to win the nomination/election.
My preferred candidate and has been for some time.
Itâs not a good sign of her chances that sheâs been my Senator for more than a decade, and still, a relatively-dedicated political news follower like me canât remember what she looks like, what she sounds like, or what she stands for beyond being a sorta centrist-leaning generic Democrat.
This requires more nuance.
538 offers this analysis as one way of attempting to understand the primary process, and in this framing, Klobuchar appears to have low upside among several constituencies whose support she would likely need to secure the nomination. They are very explicit in saying this is only one way of attempting to frame or contextualize the primary, and indeed they are trying to come up with a variety of different framings in order to judge robustness.
I think Silver pretty explicitly rejects the idea that any single framing is a priori âbestâ or âcorrectâ (or even âcompleteâ!) â these are ways to think about the primary, not projections in and of themselves.
(I agree that itâs a really good article)
Canât say I know Klobuchar well, but I keep wondering â do we have a candidate who can siphon attention away from the horrible orange creature? He may be despised, but he sucks up all the attention, everywhere he goes, and that wonât stop. Whoever gets nominated has to fight that preternatural monstrosity, no matter their policy positions. Can she do that?
Doesnât this sort of ignore the biggest chunk of Democratic primary voters: Voters looking for someone who can win a general election? Sure, some people just vote for their favorite, but a big chunk are voting for the most electable Democrat regardless. Whether you buy it or not, thatâs basically going to be Klobucharâs appeal. She wins by stupidly big margins in Minnesota, a state that almost went for Trump.
EDIT: My bad, after reading the explanation, the âparty loyalistâ category is basically what I thought was being ignored: electability voters. Itâs about 30 percent of primary voters though, so it is a pretty big chunk.
Definitely not. Sheâs boring (although sneaky-ambitious, which is not a bad thing). But does the country really want someone who out-Trumps Trump? I think focusing on the Trump s***-show for 4 years will have the country begging to vote for any empty suit in the Democratic column. The conservative media will LOVE to focus on a splashy democrat instead of Trump. I think people who think the Dems need to âgo bigâ are misreading things. Go small, donât do anything fancy, and relieve the country of the madmen currently running it.
She won me over during the Kavanaugh hearings.
I think the group you mention would fall under what he calls Party Loyalists.
But Iâm not quite sure how she builds a winning coalition. Klobuchar is potentially a near-perfect choice for Party Loyalists, who are liable to see her Midwestern moderation as being highly electable, especially after she won her Senate race by 24 percentage points last year in a state where Trump nearly defeated Clinton.
That position makes a lot of sense. Personally, I think a middle ground is perfect â someone who has a healthy dose of charisma, but can deliver the serious goods. In short, someone who has enough charisma to make the current occupant look as silly as he is. It will be hard to go back to a boring president for many people, I think.
Donât know her well, but there is one quality to her that I find interesting. When she first starts talking, she sounds pretty vanilla. Then I realize I sat and listened to her all the way through and found her compelling in content and presence. She may grab more people than we think as she gets more exposure. There is a stealth bit of charisma to her. Not a very political view point on my side, but she does have something there.
Iâm of the mind that what you described is basically a rave review of why she (or at least, someone like her) should be the candidate. Every liberal constituency is going to be motivated to the hilt to vote against Trump, and none of what you said is going to turn off any swing voter.