OP: Everybody wants to rule the world in 2020

19 February 2019

Zachary Engelman

zengelma@uccs.edu

    2020 is approaching and with 30 plus candidates expected to run in the Democratic primary alone, it’s clear that this election year is gonna be a doozy. With constant controversy and the record low support surrounding Trump, it seems everyone is confident they can beat him.

    Here is my take on some of the high profile potential presidential petitioners.

 

Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democratic party)

The good:

    Warren comes off as human: which is a welcomed change for Democrats who were unhappy with the robotic and unrelatable Hillary Clinton. Warren’s major goal for 2020 was to not accept money from the Political Action Committee (PAC) as a hardline stance against money corruption in politics. Warren has also proposed a so-called ‘billionaire tax’ that has been incredibly well received, and would be necessary to accomplish the goals she has laid out thus far. Additionally, she has made a career out of punishing banks for practicing unfair and unreasonably risky methods.

The bad:

    Warren has very liberal views on education and healthcare that could scare off those who to have a fear of socialism. Warren’s proximity to Clinton in 2016 could also be potentially negative with voters that are on the fence. Warren is also a career politician which seems to be going out of style.

The ugly:

    Warren has had some controversy surrounding her declared racial heritage. Warren previously claimed to be part Cherokee American Indian going as far as checking a box reading Native American on her bar paperwork in the 1980s. She recently took a DNA test to prove her Native American heritage, which backfired violently. It turns out that her claims were unfounded, making her look racially insensitive toward a group of people who once supported her. To make things worse, Warren has a long list of Twitter feuds with Donald Trump about this issue.

 

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz (Independent)

The good:

    Schultz has made American unity the center of his talking points. Although, he has yet to outline any plan to achieve this goal. Schultz is a very successful businessman: a characteristic that has a history of being attractive to American voters.

The bad.

Schultz, a billionaire, started discussing the idea of running for president when Elizabeth Warren outlined her ‘billionaire tax.’ At first glance, his presidential exploration looks a bit self-interested. This may also classify him as a reactionary. Schultz has yet to talk about his other political beliefs but has historically leaned Democratic. If he had decided to run as a Democrat, he might have had a chance to gain some popularity, but instead, he started picking fights with high profile Democrats and alienated his voter base.

The ugly.

  Many people think that if Schultz runs for president it could split Donald Trump’s opposition and ultimately assist in Trump’s 2020 victory. This may have a bit of a ‘Ralph Nader’ affect on him. Schultz is also the former owner of the Seattle SuperSonics and Seattle Storm basketball teams. He was criticized for his sloppy management of the teams and failed to convince the Seattle government to pay to update the team’s stadiums. This caused him to move the teams, ultimately resulting in a lawsuit. Many Americans harbor negative feelings about this sports debacle to this day.

 

Former senator Kirsten Gillibrand (Democratic party)

The good.

    Like Warren, Gillibrand is a seasoned politician. Also like Warren, Gillibrand has refused to accept money from the PACs. These aspects make her look strong heading into the primary.

The bad.

    Gillibrand’s position looks a lot like Hillary Clinton’s did when she lost in 2016, and was even picked to replace Clinton when she joined Barack Obama’s administration in 2009. This could cause some trouble for her in the general election as liberal-leaning voters tend to shift away from centrist political views and toward more progressive views. Gillibrand also has very little name recognition, which means she has an uphill battle against more household names in this primary.

The ugly.

    Gillibrand has a history of being more conservative toward gun rights. Though her views have since changed, Democratic opponents might dig this up to try to distance her from the parties base during the primaries.

 

Senator Tulsi Gabbard (Democratic party)

The good.

   Gabbard’s main draw is that she has distanced herself from the old Democratic leadership with her more progressive views. Gabbard is also a passionate advocate for the withdrawal of troops from Syria and Afghanistan and also has taken the stance that Venezuela should maintain its sovereignty. Her experience in military service is also beneficial.

    Another aspect worth mentioning is her ability to both scorn and praise her enemies and allies. This gives her a bipartisan attitude that is rare in politics today.

The bad.

    Although Gabbard is known to speak out against Donald Trump, she has also been known to praise him. This will likely distance her from both parties in this extremely polarized political climate.

The ugly.

     Her military positions are a little hawkish in comparison to most Democrats in the field. She opposed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran nuclear deal, and is often quoted talking about extremist Islamics. This has historically played out poorly with Democratic voters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.