Your 2020 Presidential Candidate Speculation Thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

Well, since Gabbneb still isn't here to kick around anymore I guess I'll take the reins again.

Danny gets the honors:

I think it would be reasonable for any of the following Democrats to run for President:

Cory Booker
Kamala Harris
Tim Kaine
Julian Castro
Amy Klobuchar
Deval Patrick
Tammy Duckworth
Tom Perez
Keith Ellison
Donna Brazile oops, sorry
Kirsten Gillibrand

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

― the Hannah Montana of the Korean War (DJP), Friday, November 10, 2017 3:31 PM (thirty-six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Friday, 10 November 2017 21:07 (one year ago) Permalink

medicare and social security for all. free college tuition. tax the rich to pay for it

reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 10 November 2017 21:08 (one year ago) Permalink

And I guess for Republicans we have:

Trump
Cruz
Sasse
Kasich?

Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Friday, 10 November 2017 21:09 (one year ago) Permalink

Moore

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 November 2017 21:09 (one year ago) Permalink

I assume Sanders will run again until/unless he explicitly rules it out

Simon H., Friday, 10 November 2017 21:10 (one year ago) Permalink

Kasich is almost a certainty.

Ⓓⓡ. (Johnny Fever), Friday, 10 November 2017 21:11 (one year ago) Permalink

the four women on that list are more impressive than any of the men imo

Dan S, Friday, 10 November 2017 21:12 (one year ago) Permalink

Dolores is missing from this list

Simon H., Friday, 10 November 2017 21:14 (one year ago) Permalink

Is that Sarah Sanders?

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 November 2017 21:25 (one year ago) Permalink

here we go

sleeve, Saturday, 11 November 2017 00:51 (one year ago) Permalink

eff gabbneb and this thread

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 11 November 2017 01:21 (one year ago) Permalink

aka "This is the thread where we make premature ejaculations"

A is for (Aimless), Saturday, 11 November 2017 01:24 (one year ago) Permalink

the rock
tim tebow

brimstead, Saturday, 11 November 2017 01:34 (one year ago) Permalink

I don't think there's any chance whatsoever that Pop would run, but I wouldn't not vote for him.

Ⓓⓡ. (Johnny Fever), Saturday, 11 November 2017 01:50 (one year ago) Permalink

lol morbs. How long ago was gabbneb banished? Seems like about ten years ago now.

Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Saturday, 11 November 2017 14:16 (one year ago) Permalink

his crackpot insights into the political affiliations of the critical ozark mountain czech-american bloc were a thorn in the side of the 2016 threads iirc

Doctor Casino, Saturday, 11 November 2017 14:24 (one year ago) Permalink

How long ago was gabbneb banished? Seems like about ten years ago now.

gabbneb was banned about four or five years** back, then he returned for at least a year as benbbag (or some such moniker). that gabbneb had come back was not a secret. he behaved for a time, then was banned again maybe a year** back.

**chronology subject to a weak memory for such trivia

A is for (Aimless), Saturday, 11 November 2017 18:47 (one year ago) Permalink

I feel like the Democrats have a ton of great VP candidates, but no Presidential candidates yet.

grawlix (unperson), Saturday, 11 November 2017 19:18 (one year ago) Permalink

Julian Castro would have been a great VP pick this time IMO (and probably in 2020) but he doesn't have Obama's charisma to leap from minor political office to President so quickly.

louise ck (milo z), Saturday, 11 November 2017 19:22 (one year ago) Permalink

He's kind of screwed in that regard, though, Texas won't be electing a Democrat to a statewide office just yet.

louise ck (milo z), Saturday, 11 November 2017 19:23 (one year ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

The Inevitability of Kamala Harris

Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Sunday, 3 December 2017 18:13 (one year ago) Permalink

Kamala Harris would make for a very interesting race, assuming Trump survives to run again as incumbent. Her presence on the ballot would ensure Trump would retain all the social conservatives whose hatred of Hillary was deeply entwined with her being a woman and perceived as a liberal and feminist. On the flip side of that, Harris would easily grab HRC's core constituencies for herself.

The main interest for me would be in what issues she chose to highlight as the definition of her politics and how she'd react to the inevitable attacks about being 'soft' (iow, being a woman). Would she hit hard on profressive issues, or soft peddle herself as a centrist, or 'triangulate' in a Clintonian way?

Any way, a national campaign is a brutal trial by fire. I wish her well, if she decides to run.

A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 3 December 2017 19:38 (one year ago) Permalink

I still see the Dem nomination coming down to Harris vs. Gillibrand, and I'd be ok with voting for either.

Ⓓⓡ. (Johnny Fever), Sunday, 3 December 2017 19:42 (one year ago) Permalink

i really dig gillibrand.

sean gramophone, Sunday, 3 December 2017 19:50 (one year ago) Permalink

For this outsider, after the last month or so, I really don't see how the nomination goes to anyone but a woman. The anger and the energy is there, and I would assume anyone trying to portray it as 'tokenistic' or only about identity would be shouted down pretty fast.

Frederik B, Sunday, 3 December 2017 19:58 (one year ago) Permalink

"Inevitable" is an albatross as a political tag

Οὖτις, Sunday, 3 December 2017 20:09 (one year ago) Permalink

The one that seems to be getting dragged down by the 'inevitable' tag is Bernie, or is it just me? That that profile of Harris includes so many snide remarks about his voters illustrate that quite well, imo.

Frederik B, Sunday, 3 December 2017 20:42 (one year ago) Permalink

i really dig gillibrand.

I can't remember if it was Pod Save America or Axelrod's podcast where she did it, but Gillibrand openly and convincingly apologized for a vote she once cast and that she now has a full understanding of why it was the wrong side to take on an issue (gun related legislation, iirc) and I've never heard a politician on any level in either party be so contrite and willingly admit to being wrong. That won me over on her for sure (and voting no on all of Trump's cabinet appointments for as long she did helped).

Ⓓⓡ. (Johnny Fever), Sunday, 3 December 2017 21:19 (one year ago) Permalink

At the Women's March almost a year ago, Harris was a shockingly flat public speaker. I wonder if she has improved since then? Compared to the fired up Duckworth and Gillibrand, she just wasn't that compelling.

Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 3 December 2017 21:39 (one year ago) Permalink

Gillibrand wanted to run in 2016 but that was not going to happen with Hillary around. But she is well connected in NY and is very good at raising money.

Not really sure what the core source of love for Harris is.

Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Sunday, 3 December 2017 21:50 (one year ago) Permalink

Also, the Kamala article mentionsJason Kander as a possible candidate.

Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Sunday, 3 December 2017 22:00 (one year ago) Permalink

re Johnny Fever

I think I heard the same (Axelrod) interview, and it's largely responsible for my pro-Gillibrand feelings. Contrast the way she talks about this stuff - or, say, Bill Clinton on The Daily - with Kamala Harris's bland calculations and I know where I fall. Even pre-election, she was loudly advocating Sanders and Warren.

sean gramophone, Monday, 4 December 2017 00:40 (one year ago) Permalink

I would really prefer not to have a prosecutor as president tbh

Simon H., Monday, 4 December 2017 00:41 (one year ago) Permalink

(re: KH)

Simon H., Monday, 4 December 2017 00:41 (one year ago) Permalink

I’d take Harris over Booker every time, at least

.oO (silby), Monday, 4 December 2017 00:45 (one year ago) Permalink

My guess would be that criminal justice reform is going to be a bigger issue than it was in 2016, and whether or not that hurts or helps KH I don't know. According to that article she could run on that issue if she wanted to, and I'd guess she'd win if she managed to do so.

Frederik B, Monday, 4 December 2017 12:02 (one year ago) Permalink

former prosecutor is not a career path that leads one to restrict fellow prosecutors' discretion, which is what is necessary to accomplish criminal justice reform.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/are-prosecutors-the-key-to-justice-reform/483252/

El Tomboto, Monday, 4 December 2017 18:03 (one year ago) Permalink

agreed

my current faves: Gillibrand, Duckworth, and Oregon's Junior Senator Jeff Merkley.

sleeve, Monday, 4 December 2017 18:15 (one year ago) Permalink

"Inevitable" is an albatross as a political tag

especially 3 years out from an election

flappy bird, Monday, 4 December 2017 18:18 (one year ago) Permalink

i really dig gillibrand.

I can't remember if it was Pod Save America or Axelrod's podcast where she did it, but Gillibrand openly and convincingly apologized for a vote she once cast and that she now has a full understanding of why it was the wrong side to take on an issue (gun related legislation, iirc) and I've never heard a politician on any level in either party be so contrite and willingly admit to being wrong. That won me over on her for sure (and voting no on all of Trump's cabinet appointments for as long she did helped).

― Ⓓⓡ. (Johnny Fever), Sunday, December 3, 2017 4:19 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i think it was immigration actually, unless she's done it twice, in which case all the better.

evol j, Monday, 4 December 2017 18:21 (one year ago) Permalink

one month passes...

The Secret to Understanding Kamala Harris

Alan Watts (dandydonweiner), Thursday, 11 January 2018 22:32 (eleven months ago) Permalink

nothing to add here pic.twitter.com/ARYNwCaqA3

— Shuja Haider (@shujaxhaider) January 12, 2018

Simon H., Friday, 12 January 2018 13:52 (eleven months ago) Permalink

one month passes...

Warren says she's not running.

http://www.newser.com/story/256430/warren-not-running-for-president-but-hedges-on-one-thing.html

Simon H., Sunday, 11 March 2018 20:07 (nine months ago) Permalink

Warren is pretty clear about it every time she gets asked. I don't know why it makes news sometimes and doesn't at others.

Johnny Fever, Sunday, 11 March 2018 20:59 (nine months ago) Permalink

I have no idea whether she will in fact run, but anytime anyone says "I'm not running" without further specification, they should be understood to be referring only to the present moment and not any future moment.

Moo Vaughn, Sunday, 11 March 2018 21:05 (nine months ago) Permalink

Warren will not run.

El Tomboto, Sunday, 11 March 2018 22:24 (nine months ago) Permalink

but who will unite the dems, whoooooooo

NBA YoungBoy named Rocky Raccoon (m bison), Sunday, 11 March 2018 22:30 (nine months ago) Permalink

settling for an incrementalist in the face of climate catastrophe would also be a moral failing imho

resident hack (Simon H.), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:01 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I like Duckworth, but I'm hoping she becomes much, much better at public speaking. I donated to her Senate campaign, and I felt a bit crestfallen watching clips.

Sanpaku, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:02 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Bernie was not exactly an ideal candidate, but he proved that if you speak strongly about issues that excite people, age is not a primary factor.

A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:08 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Obama was a centrist

important to remember, in terms of electability and why certain candidates won elections, that regardless of what he was, Obama was perceived as a far left progressive candidate by a significant chunk of the democratic base, especially before the election. even now, a lot of people who dabble lightly in politics still perceive him that way.

Karl Malone, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:12 (two weeks ago) Permalink

and he didn't gain the momentum against Clinton in the 2008 primaries by playing up what a centrist he was, that's for sure

Karl Malone, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:13 (two weeks ago) Permalink

honestly I worry more about a left candidate having a genuine shot of getting the nomination than I do a left nominee actually winning the presidency. a lefty isn't going to win the nomination without a huge amount of momentum and enthusiasm behind them, it's not going to be like Clinton being the heir apparent in 2016. it's far more likely than not that the nominee is going to be A-OK with the donor class, even if they espouse some left policies. and perhaps the latter is the best we can hope for.

evol j, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:15 (two weeks ago) Permalink

also the right portrayed him (and every other Dem "centrist") that way

xps

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:15 (two weeks ago) Permalink

is there any chance of Sherrod Brown running because I think he'd be great

frogbs, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:16 (two weeks ago) Permalink

everybody is running

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:16 (two weeks ago) Permalink

in other words, I think basically the same is true with Bernie as it was in 2016: he could beat Trump if he won the nomination, but I think his odds of being the nominee are still pretty long, regardless of his favorability rating.

evol j, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:17 (two weeks ago) Permalink

This whole centrist-can't-win thing is complete horseshit. All you really need is some charisma.

DJI, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:21 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Centrists can absolutely win elections, just not a hell of a lot else.

resident hack (Simon H.), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:22 (two weeks ago) Permalink

(this is true of all democracies AFAICT)

resident hack (Simon H.), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:22 (two weeks ago) Permalink

“Centrist” is too polite a word for people who won’t stand up to corporate power in the face of unecessary immiserarion and ecological doom. It’s not that they’re moderate, it’s that they’re sell outs.

Trϵϵship, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:23 (two weeks ago) Permalink

No democrat thinks something like raising the minimum wage to be in line with real wages in the 60s is “too radical.” It’s stupid. They just know the donor class doesn’t like these kinds of policies.

Trϵϵship, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:24 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Our politics is bizarre because common sense solutions to obcious problems, be it healthcare, the environment, or poverty, are decried as “radical” if they disrupt the flow of capital a little bit.

Trϵϵship, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:26 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I’m “moderate” by temperament basically but of course I want medicare for all.

Trϵϵship, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:27 (two weeks ago) Permalink

not a uniquely American problem but yes, the notions around what's possible needs to be radically reframed (or I guess we could all just die or whatever)

resident hack (Simon H.), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:28 (two weeks ago) Permalink

or I guess we could all just die

don't give them any ideas

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:46 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Sorry I meant "non-centrist can't win." :P

DJI, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 21:02 (two weeks ago) Permalink

lol DJI

resident hack (Simon H.), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 21:03 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Pretty much the same thing :)

DJI, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 21:09 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Sherrod Brown is reportedly the candidate the Right fears most.

Sanpaku, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 21:15 (two weeks ago) Permalink

they clearly fear AOC more than anybody

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 21:20 (two weeks ago) Permalink

and she turns 35 a month before the 2024 election

flappy bird, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 21:25 (two weeks ago) Permalink

plus she'll probably be a mealymouthed centrist by then

resident hack (Simon H.), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 21:25 (two weeks ago) Permalink

are there signs of that beyond the prevaricating on Israel or something

flappy bird, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 21:26 (two weeks ago) Permalink

no, just the trendline of what happens to ppl when they spend too much time in Washington

also a reflection of my own strategy not to hang my hopes on individuals, esp over long periods of time

resident hack (Simon H.), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 21:29 (two weeks ago) Permalink

good lord the idea of AOC running in '20 or '24

Joe Gargan (dandydonweiner), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 23:17 (two weeks ago) Permalink

i definitely think she should run in 2020

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 23:33 (two weeks ago) Permalink

she will be too old in 2024

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 23:33 (two weeks ago) Permalink

🤔

I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 23:43 (two weeks ago) Permalink

lol

flappy bird, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 05:01 (one week ago) Permalink

oh god, Bloomberg's been doing appearances in Iowa

mh, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:16 (one week ago) Permalink

oh hell yeah

resident hack (Simon H.), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:19 (one week ago) Permalink

Best of luck to Orlando Bloomberg

Trϵϵship, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:19 (one week ago) Permalink

don't worry, even dumb appearances this far out are being protested

At a Des Moines screening of his new film about climate change, "From Paris to Pittsburgh," a group of protesters interrupted his opening remarks, shouting questions and holding a large sign. Some of the protesters were carried out by security, while others marched out and chanted.

The protesters were associated with the Central Iowa Democratic Socialists of America as well as the Ames and Grinnell chapters of Iowa Student Action.

“As Iowans, we believe a record of systemic misogyny, a history of racist stop-and-frisk policing, and complicity with the fossil fuel industry is anything but bold,” the groups said in a statement. “… Bloomberg’s history of personal and organizational misogyny should disqualify him from consideration for the presidency.”

mh, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:23 (one week ago) Permalink

he will focus on the environment, in his whiny Brahmin voice

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 15:24 (one week ago) Permalink

I'd be onboard with Bloomberg, but I only know him as actually successful technology capitalist and national commentator, not as mayor.

Sanpaku, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 16:42 (one week ago) Permalink

MORE BILLIONAIRES IN POLITICS

We're in 2009—it's time to take risks, (bizarro gazzara), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 16:43 (one week ago) Permalink

it turns out that being a successful capitalist means your priorities diverge from those of the laboring classes, including the citizens governed by a mayor

|Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 16:43 (one week ago) Permalink

people just can't get enough of this guy who loves stop and frisk

mh, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 17:04 (one week ago) Permalink

Best of luck to Orlando Bloomberg

anticipating ilx "nicknames suck ass" posts when i persist in calling pres bloomberg "bloomps."

Hunt3r, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 17:35 (one week ago) Permalink

Obama was a centrist. Clinton was a centrist. Carter was a centrist. The last time a representative of the Dem left was elected was 54 years ago. The last time a representive of the Dem left was elected having not served as VP was 86 years ago.

I want to win, I want to give a Left leaning Dem congress a chance to do things. The existential threat of climate change is the paramount moral issue of the day, and to lose in 2020, because we nominated some DSA approved character that couldn't carry swing states, will be a moral failing that will redound through millennia to come.

― Sanpaku, Tuesday, December 4, 2018 8:00 PM (four days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This has a nice patina of using historical evidence to support your point, but each of the Presidents you've named was elected at a confluence of particular and distinct historical circumstances that had more to do with the American moment and their opponents than their purported moderation. Like you I don't just want to win, I know we must win -- there is no alternative -- but "some DSA approved character that couldn't carry swing states" is a figment of your imagination. Evers and Baldwin in Wisconsin, Whitmer winning comfortably in MI after being pushed left by Al-Sayed, we've got enough indications people are ready for a progressive leader in the likely 2020 swing states that it's not even an interesting question anymore. The interesting question is who the right one is.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 8 December 2018 17:18 (one week ago) Permalink

well argued

conclusion: hoos is running

aphextriplet85 (mh), Monday, 10 December 2018 00:42 (one week ago) Permalink

hey guys primaries exist, you can test their values and everything, shit's wild

gbx, Monday, 10 December 2018 00:44 (one week ago) Permalink

leaning toward HOOS or Sherrod Brown

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Monday, 10 December 2018 04:05 (one week ago) Permalink

Brb, mocking up the "I'm With HOOS" bumper stickers.

Make America steendrive again

Ra's al Gore (Ye Mad Puffin), Tuesday, 11 December 2018 18:46 (one week ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.