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 (two months 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 (two months ago) Permalink

And I guess for Republicans we have:

Trump
Cruz
Sasse
Kasich?

Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Friday, 10 November 2017 21:09 (two months ago) Permalink

Moore

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 November 2017 21:09 (two months ago) Permalink

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

Simon H., Friday, 10 November 2017 21:10 (two months ago) Permalink

Kasich is almost a certainty.

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

Dolores is missing from this list

Simon H., Friday, 10 November 2017 21:14 (two months ago) Permalink

Is that Sarah Sanders?

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 November 2017 21:25 (two months ago) Permalink

here we go

sleeve, Saturday, 11 November 2017 00:51 (two months ago) Permalink

eff gabbneb and this thread

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

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

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

the rock
tim tebow

brimstead, Saturday, 11 November 2017 01:34 (two months 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 (two months 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 (two months 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 (two months 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 (two months 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 (two months 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 (two months 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 (two months ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

The Inevitability of Kamala Harris

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

i really dig gillibrand.

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

"Inevitable" is an albatross as a political tag

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

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

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

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

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

(re: KH)

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

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

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

agreed

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

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

one month passes...

The Secret to Understanding Kamala Harris

Alan Watts (dandydonweiner), Thursday, 11 January 2018 22:32 (one week ago) Permalink

nothing to add here pic.twitter.com/ARYNwCaqA3

— Shuja Haider (@shujaxhaider) January 12, 2018

Simon H., Friday, 12 January 2018 13:52 (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.