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 (eleven 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 (eleven months ago) Permalink

And I guess for Republicans we have:

Trump
Cruz
Sasse
Kasich?

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

Moore

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

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

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

Kasich is almost a certainty.

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

Dolores is missing from this list

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

Is that Sarah Sanders?

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

here we go

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

eff gabbneb and this thread

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

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

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

the rock
tim tebow

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

three weeks pass...

The Inevitability of Kamala Harris

Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Sunday, 3 December 2017 18:13 (ten months 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 (ten months 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 (ten months ago) Permalink

i really dig gillibrand.

sean gramophone, Sunday, 3 December 2017 19:50 (ten months 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 (ten months ago) Permalink

"Inevitable" is an albatross as a political tag

Οὖτις, Sunday, 3 December 2017 20:09 (ten months 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 (ten months 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 (ten months 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 (ten months 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 (ten months ago) Permalink

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

Randall Jarrell (dandydonweiner), Sunday, 3 December 2017 22:00 (ten months 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 (ten months ago) Permalink

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

Simon H., Monday, 4 December 2017 00:41 (ten months ago) Permalink

(re: KH)

Simon H., Monday, 4 December 2017 00:41 (ten months ago) Permalink

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

.oO (silby), Monday, 4 December 2017 00:45 (ten months 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 (ten months 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 (ten months ago) Permalink

agreed

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

sleeve, Monday, 4 December 2017 18:15 (ten months 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 (ten months 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 (ten months ago) Permalink

one month passes...

The Secret to Understanding Kamala Harris

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

Warren will not run.

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

but who will unite the dems, whoooooooo

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

'Ave another, Avenatti.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 August 2018 15:53 (two months ago) Permalink

To Have and Have Avenatti

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 August 2018 15:53 (two months ago) Permalink

the hottie and the avenottie

the bhagwanadook (symsymsym), Friday, 10 August 2018 15:58 (two months ago) Permalink

sorry but if you’re the least bit “conflicted” about that clown running for president you’re a lunatic

k3vin k., Friday, 10 August 2018 17:59 (two months ago) Permalink

Could be! I just mean that, presuming that some colorful clown will be on at least one half of the ticket, or at least the potential for a colorful clown, since the election - my god, ELECTION! - of Donald Trump means that literally anyone can become president, I'd rather it be Avenatti than Vince McMahon or whomever.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 August 2018 18:06 (two months ago) Permalink

I wonder if a country that could or would elect Trump can ever be normal again

lol

wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Friday, 10 August 2018 18:09 (two months ago) Permalink

we've always been that country, as Mencken predicted this a century ago. We just had to wait for skin-crawling shamelessness to reach weekly TV.

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 August 2018 18:20 (two months ago) Permalink

I don't think we've ever had this degree of daily insanity driven by one person for years on end.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 August 2018 18:27 (two months ago) Permalink

media saturation ftw

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 August 2018 18:30 (two months ago) Permalink

Would love to be able to pretend Trump wasn’t a uniquely dangerous/damaging and that the nukes he’ll probably threaten to use again don’t exist.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Friday, 10 August 2018 19:51 (two months ago) Permalink

no one's pretending

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 August 2018 19:53 (two months ago) Permalink

let's be real Trump is too much of a coward to nuke anything

Οὖτις, Friday, 10 August 2018 19:55 (two months ago) Permalink

not true. He's literally too stupid to understand the consequences of using a nuke

Dan I., Friday, 10 August 2018 20:03 (two months ago) Permalink

which is why it's totally plausible that he could do it

Dan I., Friday, 10 August 2018 20:04 (two months ago) Permalink

He also believes that missile defense works. He thinks his threats brought NK to the table. Even if he ultimately is a self preservationist who doesn’t want to manage a war, his rhetoric could box himself in and lead to miscalculations on either side of conflicts. Also he appointed Bolton who has actively tried to sabotage diplomacy in nuclear negotiations.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Friday, 10 August 2018 20:12 (two months ago) Permalink

[Seth Moulton](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/28/seth-moulton-congressman-run-president-2020-profile-215428) certainly has the background story, though most expect him to enter the Senate first.

Roomba with an attitude (Sanpaku), Friday, 10 August 2018 20:19 (two months ago) Permalink

Seth Moulton certainly has the background story, though I'd expect him to do a term in the Senate or MA governorship first. At the very least, he'd make a good VP pick to debate Pence.

Roomba with an attitude (Sanpaku), Friday, 10 August 2018 20:21 (two months ago) Permalink

a few xps, but why are we discussing this dude like he has thoughts? His foreign policy is nonexistent; it consists entirely of lizard-brain instinctual domestic politics.

75% of it is base-pandering red meat. the MAGAhedeen guys are all like "I want a president who comes to the negotiating table with such a big swinging dick that they need to cut a semicircle out of the table to accommodate it."

He doesn't know much but he knows who loves him, and what they'll cheer about when they hear it at a fucking rally. Their adulation gives him life; he doesn't spare a moment's thought about whether people die to get him another fix of that drug. Note well: I don't mean that he knows and doesn't care. I mean that he doesn't even care enough to want to know.

Sure, there's another 25% of it that is just dictator fanboyism. But that's not like some coherent ideology - it's just that he sees that Putin has power and can act with impunity, so he's like "Man I wish I had some of that Putin-style power." It's as complicated as seeing that a guy at a skate park has a nicer board than yours, so you want a board that is like that.

Pirate's booty call (Ye Mad Puffin), Friday, 10 August 2018 20:27 (two months ago) Permalink

I wonder if a country that could or would elect Trump can ever be normal great again

No organ. (crüt), Friday, 10 August 2018 21:01 (two months ago) Permalink

I don't think we've ever had this degree of daily insanity driven by one person for years on end.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 10 August 2018 18:27 (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

do u mean the US or do u mean ilx

cos

dele alli my bookmarks (darraghmac), Friday, 10 August 2018 21:10 (two months ago) Permalink

Morbs should run 🏃

grandaddy of all liars (Ross), Friday, 10 August 2018 21:11 (two months ago) Permalink

Not sure if this got posted

always psyched when new folks stop by my happy hour pic.twitter.com/zWl4MmfNdF

— we're going to abolish ICE (@SeanMcElwee) August 10, 2018

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 11 August 2018 00:15 (two months ago) Permalink

can we keep trump outta this thread tho

k3vin k., Saturday, 11 August 2018 00:21 (two months ago) Permalink

Yes please

flappy bird, Saturday, 11 August 2018 18:44 (two months ago) Permalink

i heard andrew yang discuss dem pres campaign and i tried to envision the most technocratic policy revisions evar getting traction. still, if conditions decline as forcefully as he envisions, death might be more desirable, just in terms of societal collapse factors.

Hunt3r, Monday, 20 August 2018 23:46 (one month ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

watch out america, garcetti is coming

I am concerned for the Mayor's safety. This crowd is dangerously fired up. Someone please call the Ohio National Guard pic.twitter.com/Pdv1kHOwNm

— Hayes Davenport (@hayesdavenport) September 7, 2018

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Saturday, 8 September 2018 00:45 (one month ago) Permalink

it's so sad that he survived the joker only to be felled by bane's attack on the football stadium :(

got the scuba tube blowin' like a snork (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 8 September 2018 00:54 (one month ago) Permalink

one month passes...

I want Flake to run. I do. It will be like watching red ants set upon stale meat.

— Richard M. Nixon (@dick_nixon) October 16, 2018

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 18:16 (yesterday) Permalink

I'd prefer not to give Trump the easy W of getting to own fuckboys like Flake and Sasse and Kasich on TV for six months.

evol j, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 19:09 (yesterday) Permalink

Sasse won't run against Trump. I doubt Flake will. Kasich badly wants to and probably will.

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 19:11 (yesterday) Permalink

Mittmentum

and he’s going to get eaten alive

1-800-CALL-ATT (Karl Malone), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 19:13 (yesterday) Permalink

Mittens won't challenge Trump. Kasich wants to real bad though. I don't think it will go well for him.

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 19:17 (yesterday) Permalink

anyone who runs will know exactly what they're up against this time

President Keyes, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 19:17 (yesterday) Permalink

Not so sure about that

flappy bird, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 19:23 (yesterday) Permalink

i honestly can't think of a republican who would stand a chance in that primary field at this point, trump has so completely warped that party's brains. My racist republican uncle slams Paul Ryan, Sasse, Romney, Kasich almost as much as he continues to bring up Hillary clinton

akm, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 19:34 (yesterday) Permalink

They won't win, but they might succeed in reexposing the Republican party to values that they associated with that party in their youth. Honesty, dignity, ideological principles (not mine, mind), maybe even reality.

In truth, though, the next election will be decided by gasoline prices, which in my opinion will be north of $6/gal. Dems can run anyone more charismatic than HRC and Trump loses. I still hope its a national security Dem, as I'd like the GOP to become a minority party for two generations.

godless hippie skank (Sanpaku), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 19:49 (yesterday) Permalink

Gas prices? What makes you think that?

DJI, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 19:57 (yesterday) Permalink

wtf / whomst tf is a "national security Dem"

wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 19:57 (yesterday) Permalink

gasoline prices, which in my opinion will be north of $6/gal

Shale oil and fracking will probably keep gas prices under that $6/gal threshold for a while longer, but there is a lot of liquidity in the system now, with few places to re-invest it for a quick profit, so inflationary pressures are going to build until the bubble bursts again, which could happen before 2020. In which case, gas prices are def not going to be north of $6/gal.

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 20:09 (yesterday) Permalink

Biden

xp

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 20:09 (yesterday) Permalink

Sasse won't run against Trump. I doubt Flake will. Kasich badly wants to and probably will.

― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, October 17, 2018 7:11 PM (fifty-nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

kasich has been running against trump for the last 3 years, trump has been running for the last 4. if Biden runs will be living in 2016 for the rest of our lives

officer sonny bonds, lytton pd (mayor jingleberries), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 20:13 (yesterday) Permalink

I feel like Beto O'Rourke and some attack dog as VP would probably be a good ticket. They absolutely need to run someone out there who is not 80 years old.

frogbs, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 20:15 (yesterday) Permalink

Gas prices definitely an underappreciated sleeper issue for 2020 (even without SA kicking off) but the rest of that sanpaku post ... I don’t know

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 20:18 (yesterday) Permalink

speaking of the superannuated....

From Esquire, June 1982. Joe Biden's been considered presidential material for nearly 40 years. The undead walk among us. pic.twitter.com/sehBI2jONc

— Dennis Perrin (@DennisThePerrin) October 17, 2018

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 20:20 (yesterday) Permalink

stopped clock

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 20:21 (yesterday) Permalink

> wtf is a "national security Dem"

Military and State dept vets. I've mentioned Seth Moulton upthread as the JFK-alike natural VP pick for 2020 (and he would be a contender for the top slot in 2024+ after a stint in the Senate/MA governor), but there's Gabbard etc. and a whole slate of 2018 newcomers.

As for oil prices, the secular trend is driven by the lack of major conventional reservoir discoveries over the past 50 years or megaproject investments over the last 10 (Chris Skrebowski used to be a great resource on this). US shale wells experience annual decline rates of 25-30%, so with increasing scale they've become a Red Queen's race ("running to stand still") with little opportunity for market impacts. There's a huge backlog of drilled but uncompleted wells in the main plays, but again, the scale and protracted price slump has resulted in a severe shortage of enough fracking completion crews or wastewater disposal to markedly increase production over the next couple years. As for the companies involved, shale E&Ps screwed their shareholders years ago, screwed their institutional creditors over the past couple years, and the Fed cash spigot is closing thanks to "full employment". So, its still all about the Saudis and Iranians.

godless hippie skank (Sanpaku), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 21:56 (yesterday) Permalink

Serious Chevy Chase vibes off that '82 Biden pic.

Ubering With The King (C. Grisso/McCain), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 22:08 (yesterday) Permalink

maybe all men looked like that in 1982

shwarmaduke (symsymsym), Thursday, 18 October 2018 02:41 (seven hours ago) Permalink

no. as I recall it, they did not.

A is for (Aimless), Thursday, 18 October 2018 03:23 (six hours ago) Permalink


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