2020 Democratic presidential primary

lmao he also made a reference to being a "tactile" politician and that this also gets him into "trouble"

don't blame me, i voted for razor 1911

A person from the American midwest knowing some of a Scandinavian language = magic?

Uh, ok I guess. Musta slept through the Garrison Kiellor presidency

I just saw this: Buttigieg (pronounced BOOT-edge-edge)

Indiana aint the heartland of the Scand emigrants

DOVER, Del. (AP) — Did Joe Biden accidentally reveal his plans to run for the White House? Or was it just another slip of the tongue by the former vice president with a reputation for veering off script?

In a keynote speech at a dinner for the Delaware Democratic Party, Biden boasted Saturday that he has “the most progressive record of anybody running.” The only problem is that Biden hasn’t announced whether he will launch a third run for the White House, despite repeatedly teasing the possibility.

He quickly corrected himself, clarifying that he meant to say “anybody who would run,” then adding “I didn’t mean it” while a cheering crowd in his home state nearly drowned him out.

step aside Joe

gillibrand is official

I’m running for president. Let’s prove that brave wins. Join me: https://t.co/I1vp93LBUR pic.twitter.com/Giu4u4KEZQ

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) March 17, 2019

do best

be best

if i were running for president i would hire a musician to follow me around and play dramatic swelling piano whenever i spoke

I think Gillibrand was official a couple of weeks ago--she announced on one of the late-night talk shows.

Might have been a “I’m forming a committee to look into running” bs announcements

she 90% announced it on colbert back in january, but it wasn't official official until today, i guess

I assumed she was official weeks ago as well. the apparent Beto fundraising woes have me thinking anyone that's announcing this late is going to have cashflow problems if they're relying on small/non-PAC money

kinda seems like the top 6 is already in place (biden, sanders, harris, warren, booker, o'rourke). its hard for me to imagine anyone polling under 5% catapulting into serious consideration. ad i like castro, but competing with o'rourke for texas delegates helps neither's chances. feel like harris being the lone californian/west coaster in contention is an underappreciated aspect (sorry, inslee). granted, national name recognition will help biden and sanders, but them+warren+booker are all in the northeast.

Is Booker really polling above 5%? In my head he's got as much of a shot as the Booty Judge.

your head is not accurate. big booty jooty is a small-town mayor and cory booker is a u.s. senator.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

booker sitting in 5th on average

Warren's doing better than I thought she was!

I would like to see Buttigieg and Yang get enough coverage so that they could be a viable VP.

the more I learn about Yang and his fanbase, the more I fear and distrust his candidacy

I went back to look at 2008 early polling data, and even in November 2006 Obama was in second place behind Clinton (she had a 33%-15% lead). So it can't be explained away as easily as just "name recognition" for Biden I guess. It's true that Bernie and Biden are the biggest names in this pack and are leading accordingly, but they might also be people's actual favorites?

I do think Warren will be remarkable on the debate stage if she's allowed to speak for longer than 90 seconds.

hard to imagine how *anyone* will get to speak for more than 90 mins considering the number of candidates

This is prob some pollyanna bullshit but I hope (think?) that some of the lower polling candidates will drop out much sooner than similarly polling GOP dopes in 2015-2016. I just don’t believe the grift game is quite as good on this side of the aisle.

going by the real clear politics link m bison posted, the only three candidates that have a chance are biden, sanders, and harris (in that order).

i work in tech, and weirdly enough, there aren't a whole lot of yang supporters; at least not around me.

the problem with yang is his figures for automation replacing jobs are deceiving and it hasn't really affected jobs as much as people thought it would. also economists have recalculated automation's affect on the US (as of 2018) and have reduced it by something like 10%, which is still meaningful, but way less than before.

he is also basing most of his platform on a problem that might be an issue in 5 to 10 years, but not enough people are actually losing their jobs to automation right now, so it's hard for these people to take yang's word for it. and that makes sense. it's also hard for lower to middle-class midwesterners to trust a rich CEO who is a technocrat and not only inexperienced politically, but who is also pretty anonymous. the whole re-training aspect of his solution also has tons of holes in it, like what type of jobs would even be available in the towns where these people live, and would they want to take those jobs, and even want to be trained in doing them.

UBI is its own separate issue. it's complicated. but i question what these people will spend their UBI checks on and how that will actually create and/or increase demand in other sectors and jobs.

(xpost) Agree. The thing that sustained Trump in 2016 more than anything else was the large field (that stayed at three or four most of the way, as I remember it...Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich took forever to drop out). If that had narrowed fairly quickly early on, say Trump and somebody else, I think there would have been a much better chance he wouldn't have won. Which doesn't really mirror the Democratic field this year--they don't have a Trump in there--but a large field is chaotic, and chaos doesn't necessarily yield the best result.

I guess the obvious counter-argument is the Democratic nomination last time. Not a large field, narrowed to two almost immediately. Did not yield the best result.

The Hot Takes Are Bigger In Texas

https://www.houstonpress.com/news/texans-are-the-key-to-2020-presidential-victory-11253697

TS Tribalism: Republicanism Vs. Texanism

"Brave Wins" sounds more like a Warren slogan!

https://i.imgur.com/bRR9OgU.gif

alt: good to see Gillibrand staking her entire run on Mexicans' right to stay in the UK

bootyjudge doesn't have the yang nerd fans (or really any fans), but the extremely online press seem to like him. i have no idea about his politics, except that unlike beto they appear to exist.

I've been seeing a lot of Buttigieg fans on my fb due to his response on NZ and the CNN townhall. And I am loving that they all think Beto is a dipshit too.

i haven't seen a big VF/politico profile of him. this is the most recent thing but it's pretty light https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pete-buttigieg-the-young-and-openly-gay-midwest-mayor-finds-a-voice-in-crowded-democratic-presidential-field/2019/03/16/839f4f3c-474c-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html

I've seen Biden's "accidental" announcement three or four times today. Maybe this is too obvious to even mention, but he corrects himself so preemptively--mid-sentence, not after-the-fact--that it seems quite intentional, like he was fishing for (or gauging) audience reaction.

he's running, he's just a terrible ham

Yeah, the only thing that would stop Biden from running would be a health issue at this point, and even then he's probably keep it a secret.

oh my god he would NEVER keep that shit secret

Buttigieg is exceptionally (at least to me) likable, reasonable, smart, positive, not bad looking... frankly, if he weren't gay and didn't have a goofy name, I assume he'd be the great white hope that o'rourke apparently is.

Biden is a dead name to me. It's over.

bleh that IDW shit sounds so goddamned smug

insufferable dork web

@Yerac: The big POLITICO profile of Buttigieg came out more than a year ago.

Oops, sorry -- @Caek, not @Yerac

As that piece points out, Frank Bruni was marveling at PB as early as 2016.

buttigieg’s superpower is he never grandstands

For that matter, here's a WaPo profile from 2014 (a year before he came out as gay).

PB in 1999

https://i.imgur.com/1RXZwP0.jpg

You know, the same year AOC turned 10.

this is the clip of him i keep seeing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSY6AqyBrYA

it's a fine answer. whatever. and i assume given his background (harvard, oxford, mckinsey, navy) his politics are suspect. the main thing i get from that clip though is imagine him debating trump.

i assume given his background (harvard, oxford, mckinsey, navy) his politics are suspect...