Your 2020 Presidential Candidate Speculation Thread

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

The Inevitability of Kamala Harris

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.

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

i really dig gillibrand.

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.

"Inevitable" is an albatross as a political tag

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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

(re: KH)

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

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.

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/

agreed

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

"Inevitable" is an albatross as a political tag

especially 3 years out from an election

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.

The Secret to Understanding Kamala Harris

nothing to add here pic.twitter.com/ARYNwCaqA3

— Shuja Haider (@shujaxhaider) January 12, 2018

Warren says she's not running.

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

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.

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.

Warren will not run.

but who will unite the dems, whoooooooo

if Gillibrand sticks to eschewing corporate PAC donations and will unambiguously argue for single payer i think she'd probably do ok at bridging the Bernie wing and the With Her Still wing

Yeah, Gillibrand is carefully constructing her 2020 candidacy while everyone else is just looking at their month-at-a-glance calendars.

Not if you’re watching Senate hearings but OK

TOMBOT WHO WILL UNITE THE DEMZ

When was the last time anybody scored a soundbyte in a senate hearing that paid off big dividends in a presidential campaign?

subquestion: does it matter whether or not a presidential candidate knows anything about policy

which is more important: how much a candidate knows about, i don't know, anything at all, or how much time they've spent on tv

i actually think that overall, even in the post-trump era, knowing anything about anything is more important, but it's not a slam dunk case

boy, all those undecided voters who are paying close attention to what potential candidates are doing 24 months before the primaries are going to flock to gillibrand, i tell you! flock!

This far out, the most a candidate can do is talk to insiders, by which I mean elected politicians, county-level party chairs, donors, and known activists (paid or unpaid), and try to drum up early support, whether it is a wholehearted commitment or a cautiously provisional one. The voters have no one on their radars, yet.

Nobody is going to unite the demz

Whichever poor bastard has to pretend to be the DSA “leader” endorsing the 2020 candidate at the convention, well, they will have taken the job, such as it will be.

The verb phrasing will be easier at that point though

The Democrats looked kind of disunited in 2006, too. Right up until they didn't.

so youre saying obama should run again

danny de vito is going to unite the demz

demz what?

demz nutz

he didn't add "unless I am blocked by Congress."

also promised to walk a picket line with a union HAHAHAHAHA

also said he was "against stupid wars" and continued to wage about seven of them

also something about letting Dr Morbius choose his own doctor

that was literally the first executive order he signed after being sworn in, and he was blocked by Congress.

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, January 30, 2019 9:21 AM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

seem to remember obama having a democratic majority in the legislature for 2 years

I’d personally appreciate a little more insight into why she feels those positions were wrong before and why she’s changed her mind aside from the changing political winds

― k3vin k., Wednesday, January 30, 2019 11:06 AM (twenty minutes ago)

otm

Okay Ted Cruz

“also something about letting Dr Morbius choose his own doctor”

seem to remember obama having a democratic majority in the legislature for 2 years

yeah, and they fought him over it

hey like you never agree with the mass murderers in the CIA, right NP?

(ie dont be a pussy)

fuck all presidents really

wake me when it's over

Not reading any of the Canada or UK stuff.

Obama was critical of Iraq war but I remember him repeatedly promising to go after terrorists in Afghanistan

also promised to walk a picket line with a union

this is not a policy position fyi

if you can point me to Obama's anti-union legislation though let me know

Obama also drew down all our troops from Iraq (I know, Morbz thinks this war is still going on)

why am I bothering

I think we can be forgiven for a lack of clarity on which wars are or are not going on

WWII is still going on too iirc, after all we still have troops in Germany.

Not reading any of the Canada or UK stuff.

lol

when will Obama finally end the Korean War

seem to remember obama having a democratic majority in the legislature for 2 years

yeah, and they fought him over it

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, January 30, 2019 9:34 AM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

his administration also fought against transferring prisoners who had been cleared by the periodic review board despite that very transferring being their stated aim ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

but yeah, it's not fair to call something a broken promise when it would have cost political capital to get it done

Obama was against the individual mandate

I don't think it was a question of political capital as much as Obama didn't have leverage over the hawks in his party who wanted to block him over it, and had the authority to do so. The president is not an autocrat.

and I thought the transfer thing was because the Senators of the states they were gonna get transferred to objected and blocked them

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius) at 11:07 30 Jan 19

just deliverin' some Realism milkshakes today


2 Morbz 1 Cup

gross

sorry shakes Puritanism is alive and well

lol

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-failed-to-close-guantanamo

multiple "viral" 80s Bernie vids making the rounds lately but none seem particularly damning (or interesting)

where someone did the dramatic heel turn and reversed a stance upon getting safely elected?

this happens all the time

There's a good case to be made that Trump made half a dozen outrageous promises while campaigning, such as 'every one will have great medical insurance and it will be cheaper, too', then transparently did the opposite, but he was transparently conning people in a way rarely seen before.

In general, presidents reverse themselves far less often than Congressional reps, who arrive in Congress and discover they have almost no power as individuals and they need to compromise their positions to fall in line with their party or to horse trade their vote. By contrast, the president has the power to do more things by fiat and doesn't need to heel turn to fall in line.

I'm sure Jim in vancouver sees it more in Canadian politics than we do in the USA, because parliamentary politics are differently structured than here.

This @PeterBeinart piece gets to something that has always bugged me: She was seen as a lackluster campaigner until she beat Scott Brown, then a dynamic campaigner when she didn't challenge Hillary, and now a "school marm" campaigner because uh reasons https://t.co/qmh9YRNbxf

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) April 9, 2019

My hot take on Warren is that she indeed damaged herself (years ago) with the Indian heritage claim, and that this has hurt her in polling, but that polling is being mis-read by people assume she's not a good campaigner. She is *very* good on the stump.

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) April 9, 2019

why bump this thread and not the other one

it all goes to the same place in the end

Forgive me

Current List:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/politics/2020-democrats-running-for-president/index.html

Yes. Still 19 candidates.

And also for all of my degenerate friends:
https://www.oddsshark.com/other/2020-usa-presidential-odds-futures

although I like this, because it's graphical
https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/politics/democratic-party-presidential-nominee-odds/

Didn't realize Beto had so much money.