https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
That said, I wouldn't pick Baldwin just because she's a lesbian. That won't help. Sure, you may pick up a few votes, but then may also lose some. Expecting a 'straight guilt' effect? (like Obama's 'white guilt' speculation as to why whites voted for Obama in 08.)
For those wanting to hear her speak, I'm sure you could easily find some speeches, but here's a random one:
Not terrible, but not presidential is my opinion, but I'm not really into judging voices.
It's not so much about the general election as the primary. Being able to claim membership of multiple disadvantaged groups is popular among a variety of American left-wing types nowadays, and what I want is a candidate who could get plausibly through the primaries - despite a couple dozen candidates at the beginning - but still be popular in the Midwest for the general election.
The voice - yeah, not great but not terrible. It's mostly "not terrible" that is the important part. Hillary's voice just sucks, sounding like someone from HR coming over to scold and/or fire you, and/or trying to put a positive spin on downsizing or something. Not having a voice that is difficult to listen to, or difficult to take seriously, is about 3/4 of the battle.
So what's CFC's take on the 2020 election? Are we expecting Texas to flip blue?
I actually don't think it's completely impossible for Texas to flip blue. I think it's impossible that it would flip blue in a situation where it matters that it flipped, though.
Blue Texas 2020 would require an economic crash, a consequent collapse in Trump's popularity, and a Democratic candidate good at both appealing to Texas suburbanites and at driving up the vote among minority voters (i.e. Beto or someone like him). Under those ideal conditions, it could flip. I fondly remember my old home state Indiana voting for Obama in 2008, something I never thought I'd see. It took a combination of factors exactly like what I'm laying out for Texas in 2020.
Still, in order for it to matter, Texas also has to be the tipping point state or somewhere fairly near it. That's a concept Nate Silver introduced; I recently made a
post about that in the 2018 election thread. If, for instance, you list all the states Obama won in 2008 from his largest margin to his slimmest, and go down the list, he gets to 270 with Colorado, where he won by 9.0%. Then he won a bunch more after that, with Indiana and North Carolina being his narrowest margins among states he won. Neither of those two really mattered, because he had already easily won the race without them. That's what happened in 2012, when he lost both of those states but no others, which meant he still won easily.
Of course, with 38 EVs, Texas is a giant. That many EVs still doesn't get it to matter a whole lot in any conceivable 2020 race, because it will still be substantially more Republican than the nation as a whole. Any scenario where the Dems win it involves them having already won in a blowout even without it; it just lets them run up the score. But as soon as Texas stops being guaranteed to be more Republican than the national average, it becomes the new super-Florida.
Not my horse, but I think the Obama strategy might still be potentially valid. Voice seems ok but not great, might be too fat for a woman on t.v. if we're being shallow. And the whole wheelchair thing, I guess.
I don't follow our senators closely. I think she and Durbin along with Lipinski just introduced a sewage/Great Lakes bill. Not totally up to speed on that one either.
I forgot all about Duckworth - she'd be a solid contender. Voice is fine too. The Thai birth thing could be an issue, no matter that many of the people it would be an issue to supported or would support a certain Canuck by birth.
