Add to that the widespread belief that she's less than honest about her sexuality, i.e., the Cory Booker problem.

Clearly that's no longer the case, remember?

Besides, she's head of a very large and successful company, which gives her the necessary chief executive experience, which is quite a bit different from the political part. However I think she'd handle that part better than most people. She'll have tons of political capital if she wins, after all -- way more than Obama.

Besides, how much relevant experience does being, say, a junior Senator from Illinois (or Massachusetts) really give you for the role of POTUS? Yet BHO did a great job, especially early on in his term, as did Kennedy.

Yeah, if you win. But without the winning all else is moot.

The Dem bench is weak. To beat Trump they need a powerhouse, not just another check the box progressive. Oprah is that person.

Hard to see how that would matter to the current day Dem coalition. If you are voting for the pro-trans rights party I can't fathom why you would care who the candidates are sleeping with (assuming all are consenting adults).

It's not that they'd care who she sleeps with - they might be unhappy with her living on overt lie for decades.

it's almost as if dems understand why somebody would "live on an overt lie for decades" if they were gay

concept seems completely lost on you tho

Or maybe you could pause for a second to think that someone like Oprah, who, perhaps more so than nearly anyone in the US, has the power, stature, wealth, and respect to be honest about her sexuality and make a real difference in doing so, yet still opts to stay closeted, might actually rub some people the wrong way due to her not disclosing it and still others if/when she does.

I pointed it out as a flaw in her as a candidate, and I stand by that.

oprah has spent the last 30-40 years building a business empire/brand and coming out as gay at any point in time could have significantly affected her in a financial way.

you aren't pointing out flaws, you're just mashing buttons in a misguided, illogical attempt to throw shade on her...and you're doing it based on speculation, not even real facts.

Shouldn't you first, like, show that she actually is gay prior to judging her for not coming out? Or is that just an absurd notion for some reason?

Also hilarious is the blanket assumption that just because a woman (or a man for that matter) hasn't married she clearly must be gay, despite the fact that she's been with a dude for like 25 years.

It's not the case that you need political experience to be elected and hasn't been for quite a while, if ever. It is the case that you need political experience to do a decent job after you win. Both of these points are supported by ~all of US history. Nobody is arguing that Oprah is unelectable. Lots of people are arguing she shouldn't be. Hope that clears things up.

Huh? I'm not arguing about whether she can win an election. Electing someone with no experience is a terrible idea, full stop. The example of Donald ****ing Trump does not refute that.

Just no. The parallels between running a company and running a government are not that large.

You keep saying this (and I mean, if by most people you mean the general population, then sure) but it's based on nothing. Why would she handle it better than someone with experience handing it?


How do you figure?

A hell of a lot more than being a talk show host, or pretty much any non government job.

As I said, if we grant your bat**** insane premise that no other Dem can win, but Oprah can, then Oprah is a slam dunk choice. But uh, that premise is ****ing stupid. Trump is super vulnerable and Oprah is not a good candidate.

Please stop trying to make Oprah happen. Thankfully, it seems like she's smart enough to realize it's a bad idea.

I don't really have an axe to grind re: Oprah, but would point out that 99.9% of celebrities have more self-awareness than Trump and thus would do a better job of delegating, hiring smart people, embracing the role of figurehead etc. I don't really know a lot about Oprah but I disagree with the premise that having a celeb as president is inherently a disaster.

Wait, you seriously think Oprah is straight? Did you think that with Jodie Foster or Kevin Spacey too? And have you met Queen Latifah's "personal assistant" or followed the sadly unsuccessful romances of Taylor Lautner and Zac Efron?

All that aside - I'm not throwing shade on her. I'll admit that I think a person of her stature comes perhaps the closest to having almost a utilitarian duty to come out, but in the end it's her choice. That having been said, 100% if she doesn't run this is the reason.

Well, someone in this thread sure did

oprah needs to watch phil donahue run for president, then do exactly what he did but through powerful charisma elevate it into something way bigger and more successful. a global phenomenon. oprah 2020!!

But she's waiting for a sign from God before she makes a decision.

Every Trump ****up is a sign from God, so she shouldn't have to wait too long.

We are already being governed by the laughingstock of 1980's tabloids, why do we need Oprah?

Ugh. So now Oprah says she absolutely will NOT run... unless she receives a clear sign from God--'so obvious even I couldn't miss it'--that He wants her to run. Her bestie Gayle King told her "being president would be bad for you, but good for the country."



She's running.

If the goal is to have a Democrat defeat Trump in 2020, is there a strategy that has a higher chance of winning than persuading Condoleeza Rice to switch parties and run?

I honestly don't think he'll win the republican nomination.

Based on what? His approval rating among Republicans is still north of 80% last I checked.

Yes.

Just throwing stuff against the wall. We'll see.

Um, see this plan really sucks because more than being interested in having my party in power, it would also sort of be nice to have someone hold the same ideals that we support. And by we I probably don't mean you.