2020 Democratic presidential primary

Gillebrand?

ah fuck oh well

oprah ✔️

Symmetry required gabbneb to start this.

I'm on my lunch break

police state, no more elections!!!

plz don't

warren i guess

eager beaver here

imago otm

gotta be Hilary, show those misogynists they can't win

most of these people suck

I think we need to recruit bruce springsteen

god, politics suck

martin omalley dot com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1SdjRSqqHE

tbf even the lamest of these accommodating fucks will represent real change in 2020

let us see what happens tomorrow

Duckworth hasn't distinguished herself during the nomination process/voting, but theoretically I'm okay with putting up a veteran/child of an immigrant up against Trump.

gotta be Hilary, show those misogynists they can't win

OTM

really don't wanna know what Trump would have to say about Tammy Duckworth.

I'm basically on board for Harris and Duckworth; I don't know if Jay Inslee is really likely to explore a run but he's been a good governor and maybe he will gain some national prominence suing the present administration.

I like every one of these people and would happily vote for them and give my money to their campaign

same goes for HRC btw

And Buttigieg! What about my man Buttigieg?!

stoppppppppppp dave stoppppppppppp

Disclaimer - I'm a midwesterner and probably don't know enough about my proposal here: I'm really not super-aware of his politics (I know progressives have tried to run against him in primaries in CA), but something always gets me about Gavin Newsom whenever he's on Real Time or news programs. I know he's done good things for homeless issues/causes. same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization, etc. There's a gravitas about him that just telegraphs potential youth vote/new blood presidential candidate.

gavin newsom has skeletons in his closet

i think at this point he is a bit too much of a stereotypical big city liberal w/ loose morals to really make a palatable national candidate

maybe when he is older

Newsom and Harris both strike me as too in-the-bed with finance/Clinton neoliberalism to get people excited to turn out in vote. (Alternately, the Dems might be able to nominate Roger Clinton and Billy Carter in 2020 and win.)

wait he's a pirate? xp

(not to even mention Bloomberg)

actually the shit i am referring to happened when i was living in the bay area which was about 10 years ago now, i.e. ancient history, maybe it doesn't matter

newsom is kind of a dumbass too and the gop would like to highlight his tenure as mayor of sodom aka san francisco when this happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGBgb0XKVs

he's also dated a 19 year old

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2581600

FISH CANNOT CARRY GUNS

and also Kamala Harris and Joe Biden

There's a gravitas about him that just telegraphs potential

honestly thought this sentence was gonna end 'serial killer'

Brittanie Mountz sounds like a porn name

i dated a 19 year old

admittedly its not in the top ten reasons im not gunning for the top political jobs but still

maybe not for 2020 but i wonder of mahty wahlsh has national ambitions, esp seeing the way he's come out against trump's immigration ban. he might be all right, he has union support and working class youth, people are weirdly enamored w/ boston accents

working class youth roots

republicans claim the moral high ground by hiring teenagers for sex, not dating them

the free market at work

almost put him on the list actually xp

he's also dated a 19 year old

nice

almost put him on the list actually xp

dmac???

all growed up

Brittanie Rae Mountz, LMFT offers individual and couples counseling. Offices in San Francisco and Berkeley.

he might be all right, he has union support

Unions will be systematically starved of members and money between now and 2018 at least

yea i meant more that he can signal working class empathy & support better than someone like HRC

Marty Walsh is interesting – but untested. If, however, we can dig up Menino and insert some kind of robotic endoskeleton. Or what about Somerville, Massachusetts' own Joseph Curtatone?

yeah the dating a 19 year old thing is what i was getting at

really it was nothing sheesh

Marty Walsh sucks super hard, though

I mean, he's decent at his job but one of the first pieces of opposition research on him that is going to surface is how super NIMBY he got about a homeless shelter

this is trump's america, anything short of advocating setting the homeless on fire is now officially a hard-left opinion

.......
particularly if its set out as an alternative to oil.....?

Alison Lundergan Grimes

This one is a bit out there. I guess she would be the Democratic darling if she beat McConnell, but it really wasn't that close.

She had a DNC speaking slot and a good name, was trying to do at least a couple deeper pulls.

thats very noirish, would prob read

my preference would be for Al Franken, tbh

I don't have too many policy disagreements with Newsom but he is a total shitbag

if the current disposition towards establishment dems keeps up or worsens over time (as they so richly deserve) the vast majority of these people would all get murdered in a general election I would think

but of course it remains to be seen if current outrage levels can be maintained for even a couple months, let alone 3-4 years

Idiot Thread Repositoryyyyyyyyy

Welp.

So this happened #Bernie2020 pic.twitter.com/m5sA6ywuyB

— 🍪Lumpy's Coveted Cookies🍪 (@lumpylouise) December 15, 2017

I remember when Ron Paul ran in 2012 he was mainly an afterthought championed on by people who wouldn't let 2008 go.

Hope the precedent holds.

I must have missed that time when Ron Paul was the best-liked politician in the country (including a supermajority of Dems)

(I don't think his running is a good idea, I just think it's a weird comparison.)

Nonagenarian Dem prez candidate or gtfo.

it's a stupid comparison

the only reason not to dismiss Sanders, however, would be everyone else

I must have missed that time when Ron Paul was the best-liked politician in the country (including a supermajority of Dems)

― Simon H., 15. december 2017 16:15 (twenty-four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yes, because this worked so well for the Dems last year.

Sorry, nevermind that. Let this be a thread where we mostly just joke about the stupidity of the early part of the process. I like that Gillbrand isn't even on the list, and now with #MeToo she's considered the frontrunner in certain areas. So much speculation :)

One more time, Fred:

I don't think his running is a good idea, I just think it's a weird comparison.

xp

is Gillebrand the one who has essentially voted against Trump every single time?

And yes Gillibrand seems to be the least offensive to the widest swath of the left and center-left...for now

My comparison was based on him being a movement candidate in 2008 and a relic in 2012. Would like to see this play out in 2020 for Sanders, should he be dumb enough to get in the race again.

I suspect that if anything Bernie is more popular now than when he was running, so I don't expect quite the same trajectory there. But obviously it's a long way out.

Not really that long. Midterms in under a year and I’m sure there’s going to be meaningful trial balloons before then. Heck, summer’s Medicare for All sign-ons were pretty suggestive of primary-oriented thinking on the part of Booker, Harris, etc.

I’m concerned way too many people decide to run but maybe that’s better than a sparse field. I fear Tulsi Gabbard and Booker the most for different reasons.

Bernie’s big foreign policy address he gave a couple months back was a pretty good presidential gesture that others should be doing if they are serious and he should have done in 16. Gillibrand’s political instincts have been the best so far and maybe just a complete break from 2016 baggage is the best step forward but honestly who knows if we have an election at this point.

Gillibrand’s 'centrist' past still a big red flag to me; who knows when she'll flip again

What?!! Uh oh.

no Klobuchar wtf

I’m concerned way too many people decide to run but maybe that’s better than a sparse field.

remember 2008?

jeez i wonder if people would vote Dem if they promised free public health care for all

do they have a Think Tank that has raised that question yet?

needed Have You Seen the Other Guys? poll option

I’m concerned way too many people decide to run but maybe that’s better than a sparse field.

remember 2008?

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn),

Yeah I guess that worked out. Although that GOP 2016 field was a little ridiculous with the second stage/b candidates. Mainly I just don’t want celebrities running.

just so you know re celebs, an extremely dumb movie-awards blogger is already writing shit like this

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2017/12/rock-20-not-24/

it's normal when the party out of power boasts 245 candidates. Remember 2004 too?

"moderate republicans" can fuck off forever, celebrities or otherwise xp

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-six-candidates-for-the-republican-nomination-in-the-news-photo/543727074?esource=SEO_GIS_CDN_Redirect

https://i0.wp.com/hennessysview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/1988-Republican-Candidates.jpg?fit=948%2C619&ssl=1

^ sign behind them said "American Generics"?

dems should grow some balls and run franken/weinstein

*pretends to be wound up*

thank you

I don’t think the rock should be allowed to coast to the nomination without his judgement being called into question by the press for some of these recent movies of his imo.

I have come to the conclusion that Dwayne Johnson running would be quite literally the worst possible thing that could happen

The idea that someone with zero experience in politics at any level ought to be elected president of the United States is profound foolishness. And yet it happened in the case of Trump. (btw, I count being the top commander of the U.S. armed forces as a political position, so Grant and Eisenhower get a pass on that one.)

Why would it be anyone but Warren?

because Harris has foreign policy credentials which will matter if, say, anything happens on that front in the next 3 years, or because Gillibrand is actually positioned to take advantage of a cultural moment of upheaval against an opponent that's an avatar of all she has spent her career fighting, or because damned fools are starry eyed over bernie, or because the donors really like Booker

She never seems like she is triangulating. She has a strong economic message that has been consistent throughout her time in the Senate, and she is good at articulating her outrage and disappointment at Republicans in a way that seems authentic. Her social democratic leanings come from a familar, even traditional understanding of fairness and a belief that the American system is perfectible. All of this has the potential to appeal to nearly every American.

Harris/Gillibrand - would be enthusiastic in my support of either of them
Warren - titan on consumer protections, need her profile to become more well-rounded in the next 3 years
Booker - c'mon, this guy is a pee wee football coach

Cory Booker seems like a more corrupt Adrian Fenty, which if he is would explain why he’s more successful than Fenty was.

listen i didn't say i like the guy

That was understood.

I can't think of anyone else around here who really does, either.

haha fair

xp, Fenty was middled by his commitments to fight the old corruption when his new corruption wasn’t fully capitalized yet. And he didn’t have the sense to see how badly Rhee was going to fuck him over to increase her own Q rating.

Booker has similar characteristics but he’s working a bigger tax base, can compare himself favorably to pathetic wannabe gangsters like Christie, and doesn’t have a singular union-hating class-baiting subordinate siphoning all his press whenever he pretends to give a shit about working families.

But yeah. Same same, although I’d rather have a beer with Fenty for sure.

If for no other reason than to try and get him to round three and laughing at my jokes so I can ask “in your own words, how bad did Michelle own you?” And then “bike lanes and cab meters are nice, but you knew you already had all us white folks, right?”

lol that guy talking about a 2020 Sanders run seems like the most unpleasant dude in the history of the world

Why would it be anyone but Warren?

Who knows if she'll even choose to run? Beyond that, 2020 is seven years away in political time. At this time in 2005, Obama was just the size of a small cloud on the horizon you could cover up with one hand.

damned fools are starry eyed over bernie

who would've won

make that could've and I'd agree. would've presumes too much omniscience.

xp agreed, in the past tense

harris i guess

make that could've and I'd agree.

whoa are u sure

seems self-evident. as opposed to absolutely certain victory for sanders.

seems self-evident.

huh, yr right

“hardworking middle class families,” this fetish... https://t.co/jk66uzTDfs

— Zoé (@ztsamudzi) December 21, 2017

that thread otm

https://splinternews.com/the-10-worst-possible-democratic-presidential-tickets-1829056282

lol none of those are going to happen

why do yr read a garbage agent-provocateur rag like splinternews anyway

lol "these are just the plausible ones"

well #1 clearly not gonna happen

why do u watch a garbage agent-provocateur hack like tarant... ah fuckit

My guess from watching the primaries: It's between Warren, Booker nd Harris. In order of likelihood

bezos notably absent

it'll be a governor not a senator

Bloomberg just announced a run, and Cuomo is obviously trying to set himself up for one. Both are delusional.

bloomberg does check off a very important box for me. i just can't trust anyone to represent me who isn't a billionaire

A FB friend keeps posting about how he thinks Bloomberg can win and I clown him every time. RN I'm trying to goad him into taking my $100 bet that he will not win a single primary. Easy money imo, I'm considering giving him odds. I'd go 10:1.

Bloomberg and Cuomo both definitely delusional, no nat'l audience wants to listen to either of them

I dunno anyone who likes Booker, dunno where his base would come from.

It's between Gillibrand and Harris and Warren and Biden I think.

Biden won't make it I don't think

I know he's polling well right now and all but there are too many skeletons in that dusty old fucker's closet

he's also just sooooo old and his main "advantage," which is very much an on-paper advantage, would be as a kind of "return to normalcy" candidate with spoken or unspoken "he could win the white working class" material, but more generally as "hey folks agree or disagree on policy we all can say that, this craziness in the white house, it's not supposed to be like this, what happened to (wipes away tear) decency?"

which might genuinely play in the general election, but it's not where the energy is in the primary electorate, at all. yes people loathe trump and every noxious fascist thing he standa for. but they're also fired up on fifty policy fronts. and ready for fired-up, victorious women and POC giving a giant fuck-you to the white supremacist party that's captured teh castle. biden just doesn't feel like the vessel for any of the unspoken redemptive dreams out there, where the trump nightmare in some topsy-turvy way later makes sense and feels resolved because it precipitates a new era of major progressive policy shifts. medicare for all is at the center of this but there's a lot more. basically i just don't see volunteers getting fired up to organize for joe biden, there's not a hook there that would inspire that with these other people in the running.

which might genuinely play in the general election, but it's not where the energy is in the primary electorate, at all.

agree with yr guys' posts - but Biden is going to very much try to thread this needle, and a certain portion of the party (the "sensible adults") are gonna buy it.

he'll get some big donors, some labor endorsements, but yeah he isn't going to play well with the primary base

and his opponents shouldn't have a hard time picking out the Anita Hill thing, his usurious credit card business ties, or any number of other blatantly disqualifying factors

It will never be Gillibrand xps

Booker and Harris are better bets. People in New Jersey like Booker, especially people who have met him. He’s a cool guy but a highly compromised centrist. Warren’s the one.

no more old men

Unless it’s someone cool.

why wouldn't Gillibrand make it idgi, she's positioned herself for the primary just the same as Booker, Warren and Harris

For this race it should be Warren. No one else has her consistency and passion on economic issues and that’s what matters. People need to be able to afford to live.

Why would someone support gillibrand? What’s her deal?

Also, fair or not, al franken supporters hate her and think shebrailroaded him for political gain.

*she railroaded

Ftr i am not agreeing with those people at all and support franken’s resignation, but it’s a real point of contention as franken is a popular figure among progressives

It doesn’t matter though because if I’m not happy with the candidates I will run myself

you should probably get started now

do you guys see Beto as a potential democratic nominee?

in 2020?

yes

no, not even remotely

i just ran a simulation of 1 trillion universes and none of them resulted in Beto running for president in 2020

lol

but if he is elected to the senate wouldn't he be in basically the same point in his career that Obama was in when he won?

don't know much about him so not sure what his ambitions are

sorry, that was rude. but no, not a chance. to run for president with only 2 years of legislative experience would take a freight train's worth of political momentum. even obama had 4 years as a US senator, and that was in addition to years of experience as a state senator, a reputation-cementing keystone speech at the DNC convention, and being barack fucking obama

also, him winning in texas is a slim chance, and if he gets it it's like doug jones. his job will be to hold the fuck onto that seat, build the party in texas, spend all his time visiting texas town halls and churches and quinceañeras, listening to issues etc. etc. the last thing anybody needs is some smooth-talking, non-waxen republican appearing in 2024 running on "while beto o'rourke is going to liberal parties in new york and LA, real texans are struggling..." etc.

It will never be Gillibrand

Gillenbrand is not well known outside the NE and will get to "introduce" herself to most democratic-leaning voters in 2019-20. She's a looks-good-on-paper type of candidate, who will fly or flounder based on her ability to construct a solid campaign, which will mostly depend on her ability to co-opt the most popular issues for her own, and to project likeability, sincerity and passion.

lol keynote, not keystone
xpost

Nobody even remembers or cares Al Franken used to be a senator outside Minnesota do they? Or that Gillibrand was even involved?

at least a couple of friends of mine from NY remember, and definitely hold it against her.

I think she would make a great president

I think if Kamala Harris can wash off enough the cop stink it’ll be her. symmetry demands it

I still wish it were gonna be Tammy Duckworth but I may be the only person talking her up anywhere.

really would love any of these - Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tammy Duckworth, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren - It should be a woman imo

I’m still rooting for an all-woman ticket. I think Gillibrand has the best shot at being at the top of said ticket. Would love to see Harris do a little more work at not being such a prosecutor, as I (and many, many others, with more at stake) have pointed out before. I think Warren wants to run so that she can bring attention to her signature issues, but she likes her current job and is really good at it.

Am still waiting for a potential candidate to start talking about what our foreign policy needs to look like, and I mean more than platitudes about allies.

It doesn’t matter though because if I’m not happy with the candidates I will run myself

Treesh between this and the cat diet book I am suspicious of your ability to follow through on great ideas.

sorry, that was rude. but no, not a chance. to run for president with only 2 years of legislative experience would take a freight train's worth of political momentum.

Cat President xp

Symmetry required, etc

Booker has skeletons for a youngish guy (con man, lifestyle)

Obama had two full years of being a US senator before he began campaigning in earnest for 2008. If Beto were to win this year, he'd have to immediately begin working towards 2020. No time spent as a Senator at all.

Harris is basically the Obama of this race, calendar wise.

that makes sense

I think Harris would be good against trump tbh. I don’t see her getting fazed or bamboozled.

Oh no, she'd welcome it

Trumpish, only whiny not slobby

https://splinternews.com/michael-bloomberg-becomes-a-democrat-just-in-time-for-a-1829651504

I've been assuming the base would chew up and spit out some of these awful charlatans but the response to avenatti makes me smdh

I think the Dems will wanna run with "who will Trump's attack style be least effective against"

Bannon is out there saying Aventatti would be hardest to beat so they probably have dirt on him

Bannon is out there saying a bunch of horseshit i assume as he is a living sack of horseshit

really? seems like a fine chap

i just think it is impossible to derive any useful information from anything he "says" aka anything that sputters fartfully from his infinitely joweled face

In another half a year, how this is shaping will become much plainer. Speculating very hard when we still have the midterms in front of us seems like playing a board game with lots of the pieces missing.

Really hope this fucker formally drops out in the near future

BREAKING: Former VP @joebiden will present this year’s #LibertyMedal award to former President George W. Bush and former First Lady @laurawbush for their commitment to veterans.

The ceremony will take place on #VeteransDay, November 11, in #Philadelphia: https://t.co/jnl1ouWrmk pic.twitter.com/KdcYhDHy31

— National Constitution Center (@ConstitutionCtr) October 10, 2018

gross

I would hope Biden would be disqualified in this day and age just based on the Anita Hill episode alone

W loves vets, he made so many of them

I would hope Biden would be disqualified in this day and age just based on the Anita Hill episode alone

― Οὖτις, 10. oktober 2018 18:10 (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, after Kavanaugh I don't think he has a chance. Perhaps the Bush thing is a sign that he knows he doesn't have a chance, and has stopped preparing and just does the shitty stuff he wants to do.

No Biden no Bloomberg no old fucking white men

Julian Castro sez he's "likely" to run

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/julian-castro-2020-president-run-738584/

No Biden no Bloomberg no old fucking white men

IT'S 1977!

Castro sez he's "likely" to run

many are called, but few are chosen

gotta dig out my JULIAN CASTRO FOR MAYOR SOLD US OUT shirt from the drawer

lmao at the poll showing Biden way ahead only counting ppl who are 45+

(I know, I know, they vote in droves, but still.)

I don't get the joke? Biden was still ahead with people under 45. He beat Sanders 26% to 21%. 33% to 13% overall, and 39% to 8% over 45. I don't see what's so funny about that?

It was my (possibly wrong) understanding not enough under 45s were even polled there to provide a workable figure

anyway my 2020 candidate will need to have a "radical left" climate stance bcz gradualism is out the window.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/10/climate-change-united-nations-report-nordhaus-nobel

All the old, white men need to sit out and put their full throated support behind a not-old, white man candidate. But they never fucking learn.

I read this as "all the old, white men need to slit their throats..."

i am fine with that too.

It was my (possibly wrong) understanding not enough under 45s were even polled there to provide a workable figure

― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), 16. oktober 2018 22:49 (six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The CNN article presents the numbers, but in the poll it says N/A, yeah. But pollsters weigh demographics, so even if they've reached fewer people under 45 than they wanted to (which they almost certainly have) the answers they have from young people potentially count for more. Or less, perhaps, the disparity between who votes in primaries is pretty big as well.

(Aimless raises his hand to his throat and touches it gently, thoughtfully.)

you're one of the good ones

viz., not a politician, as far as we know

so there was a page-one feature in the NYT last Friday about Sherrod Brown saying he's considering a run

he's been a liberal a lot longer than Gillibrand

whatever else, the race for the democratic nomination is going to be hotly contested in 2020. Beyond the 13 names in the OP poll, there must be at least another 10 by now who are rumored to be weighing their chances. I voted 'someone else' on general principles. odd that gillebrand got left out of the OP poll.

seems like a good time to buy low on alison lundergan grimes i guess

https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article217669790.html

I fear the Grimes brand may be irreversibly tainted.

I believed she had a shot a beating McConnell, widely hated by GOP voters and in Kentucky, but she couldn't do it. Don't know how she'd do on a national stage. She's no Beto.

Oh wait, I just clicked through...she's aiming for governor. I'd like to think any Dem with a pulse who's ever fired a rifle could beat Bevin, but who knows.

was that an elon musk joke

somebody get Alex Padilla to run imo

did i tell this thread about the incredible email i received from an angry harris supporter after i was quoted online expressing some skepticism about harris?

i remember that, but maybe on FB

no? but do tell

after this quote:

Many in the grassroots are cautious, as is BIG HOOS, a digital organizer for the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. “I am instinctively skeptical of a former prosecutor. People who made a living putting Black and brown people in jail deserve scrutiny,” he says.

i got this email

MR Smith,

You are nothing but a little Digital Communications Strategist. You aren't qualified to shine the shoes of Kamala Harris. You will not silence her. You will NOT bully her. You will not dismiss her. You will not insult her. You will not make her go away. Be careful how you refer to her and how you speak about her. We black voters are sick and fucking tired of fake allies like you putting down black candidates because of purity bullshit. We are watching and taking names. We learned our lessons from BernieOrBust and 2016 especially. You people will NOT change the makeup of black voters.You will NOT bully us into changing for you. We WON'T. WE will properly be vetting Bernie Sanders this time unlike 2016 when white liberal media gave this sucker a pass. It will be painful for him and painful for YOU as well. You want to talk about black and brown people in prison and Bernie Sanders? We can go there... Bernie Sanders will be answering questions this time and you people won't have Hillary Clinton as scapegoat anymore when fellow black voters send his ass packing again IF he has the audacity to run again. You come for Harris, we come for YOU. We are VERY proud of Kamala Harris and we don't give a fuck she took money from Mnuchin. We are getting shot at, fuck Mnuchin's $. Your problem with Mnuchin is a white person's problem not ours. We are done with folks like you making the rules for us. Those days are over.

A female black voter

AnyoneButBernie2020

big hoos the digital organizer eyyy

"nothing but a little Digital Communications Strategist" is going on my tombstone

kinda agree w her tbh, although I wouldn't have um expressed it quite in those terms

also HOOS I hope u know I have a shit ton of respect for the work you do and yr general principles

a lot going on in that email

when the xanax runs out

Yeah I mean I don't even take issue with the substance of her political points about Bernie and I'm not one of those people that waves the Mnuchin thing like the bloody shirt, there sure is a lot going on in that email though

I do tend take exception to people talking about minority voters monolithically whether the speaker is among the group in question or not

BIG LITTLE digital communications strategist

yea lol @ all the capitalized WE's

ah, better

BIG YOUS aka nothing but the digital communications strategist

lmao

Dems start screen testing their potential losing ticket. https://t.co/PDKN5ImWIB

— Dennis Perrin (@DennisThePerrin) December 14, 2018

fp'd

that's nice

u still live in Canada, shame that

it's not all that bad

not all that good either

bit like a dennis perrin tweet

Would vote for them if i had to, obviously. I dont think its such a bad combo, in terms of electability.

Remember when biden was disqualified because he plagiarized a speech? Simpler times

I don't think Harris would accept the VP spot, California Senator is a better gig.

Otoh Biden is p fucking old...

get used to it now, fellow libs

Biden may run, Harris assuredly will. It's far less common for a nominee to pick an opponent as VP than it seems like it might be.

biden makes me so IA. 2020 is going to be a nightmare. new lows like 10,000 feet into the mariana trench (we're at 9,000 right now and have 27,000 until we hit bottom).

That seems like a losing ticket - mostly bc of Biden's age - but who knows

The nominee will probably be a sitting senator who will then select a senator or governor who did not run. It's not rocket science.

Unless it's Beto.

Asked if he’s a progressive, @BetoORourke says, ‘I don’t know.’ He’s not big on labels, he says pic.twitter.com/gDczpTZ2Bb

— David Siders (@davidsiders) December 14, 2018

He's Texan. He can't cop to being a progressive even if he is.

Policy wise, he's left of Obama but right of Ocasio-Cortez. That's progressive enough for a hell of a lot of Dem voters.

Politico runs a story about beto every fucking day

that picture is p funny tho

I don't really buy the "Texans can't identify as progressive" thing tbh, he knows he's playing on a national stage now. [citation needed] on his hidden progressive credentials

I buy it, because I live in Texas and just suffered through 6 months of "Liberal"/"Progressive" attack ads comparing us to something millimeters away from Hitler.

Actually, I tell a lie--it was 10 months.

known progressive hitler

People willfully misinterpret the "socialist" part of the National Socialists, not just in Texas. Pretty much in all 50 states.

I think you mean *Democratic* Socialists?

I don't buy it because a moderate Democrat isn't going to get any more votes in rural Texas than an open Leninist.

how much of the Texas vote is rural Texas?

(don't really know)

don't worry guys, Biden is a proven nonvotegetter

I think you mean *Democratic* Socialists?

No, I meant Nazis. That's where the "Hitler was on the left" fallacy comes from.

ok, wasn't sure I understood

I'm interested in Johnny's relative precision placing Beto between Obama & AOC, curious to hear what's behind that.

I don't have charts and graphs ready to go, tbh. I've just picked stuff up along the way, as much as I've been able to not actually living in Texas or following his every move. I know he's not all the way in the Abolish ICE or Medicare For All bag, but he's also pro pot legalization and against standardized testing. I imagine, if he indeed runs, he'll get pushed as far as we can go on foreign policy and we'll see where he lands. I know he's vigorously pro choice, though I don't expect anyone who wasn't would make it very far in a Dem primary. I dunno guys, he just scans as a very slightly left of center-left Dem and Obama was basically toeing the actual center in 2008 where Ocasio-Cortez needs a telescope to see it. He's a mushy, middly guy who I think would have a sympathetic ear to activists over time.

I mean, definitely prove me wrong if I'm wrong. I would prefer not to be duped.

I guess I just don't see or know of any reasonable evidence for that supposed sympathetic ear

The probability of a sympathetic ear is increased by getting progressives into congress. I am 100% in favor of AOC's idea of primarying centrist Dems in safe blue districts so the blue gets bluer.

I don’t get what people like about Beto so much compared to the other candidates. Bernie and Warren are the ones who have a real track record of progressivism. Both can articulate issues like health care and economic inequality in clear terms and they’re not inclined to cooperate with Wall Street. Considering a candidate that isn’t one of them seems like a losing prospect if you really want a different kind of democrat.

Bernie and Warren are also a THOUSAND YEARS OLD. Do you get that?

Warren isn’t

Anyway, I’m speaking from the perspective of the change I want to see in America. I don’t care about a hot candidate who can connect with the juul generation.

beto plays well on viral videos and knew how to copy obama's 2008 playbook. he is a standard-issue democrat which in 2018 makes him more liberal than a standard-issue democrat ten years ago. he should be trying to win the senate in 2020 against cornyn.

I don’t care about a hot candidate who can connect with the juul generation.

lol

Anyway, I think Trump's electoral map is weaker than most of the press does, and his team does, but still I'd rather not risk it with a professorial type or crank, neither of whom would bring out the numbers of voters needed on election day to ensure a Trump beatdown. We may have to sacrifice a bit of progressive pleasure by choosing someone who can light a fire under voters' asses when it counts—the general election, not the primaries. Take the white house back. Make congress bluer. Do the right (left) thing on Scotus appointments. That's how you transform this place. Not with the candidate who gives you a chub when you're caucusing.

(To be clear, I'm not saying nominate a person like Michael Bloomberg either, whose entire constituency is wealthy donors.)

I don’t know if there is evidence for that. The Democrats have been trusting the wisdom of moderation for decades and over the long haul they’ve lost a ton of ground.

Just look at what the Republicans did, man. Sure, Obama won two terms, but while he was being president, they ransacked state legislatures all around the country, gerrymandered the shit out of districts, amassed both houses of congress, shaped the federal bench by denying judicial appointments—all while having a president of the opposing party.

You're vesting too much in THE PRESIDENCY. A standard-issue dem, as m bison said, is just the boss. The left has to keep doing the work.

I’m not vesting anything. I’m not a democratic strategist. Why would I want a more moderate candidate if my policy goals align with bernie’s?

Me: Here's everything the Republicans did to remake the country and hold on to power at all levels, and we should study that and emulate it for the benefit of everybody.

Treeship: BUT I LIKE BERNIE!

*bows*

Also we shouldn’t emulate the republicans because they completely fucked up our system through their power grabs. We should pass anti-gerrymandering legislation.

Beto looks like Ed O'Brien from Radiohead

while I am sympathetic to the idea that the president as a position is overemphasized, there's a symbolic level to the role that bears keeping in mind, esp as it impacts turnout and morale. just look at how much it feels like our brains are all experiencing early death from having to think about trump every goddamn day even though his actual power is quite limited in important ways

even though his actual power is quite limited in important ways

Why is everybody dancing around this? That's where all the focus should be. Push the institutions in a more progressive direction and a progressive presidency will follow. We didn't get from George H.W. Bush to Donald Trump overnight. A lot of out of the spotlight ground game went into it.

btw, I'm not advocating for gerrymandering districts the opposite way, as may have been implied. That's undemocratic bullshit. I'm talking about a reset.

if Sanders does run he should plaster this graph everywhere

When Trump supporters tell you who their enemy is, believe them. (CNN 12/18) pic.twitter.com/Nw9dDGZ6XI

— Carl Beijer (@CarlBeijer) December 15, 2018

where's Clinton in that graph, I wonder?

i doubt democrats can hope to get many votes from actual trump supporters in 2020 but candidates who are trying to win office generally don't boast about their unfavorability ratings

i will be the one to point out that the graph pretty much lines up with name recognition (other than biden, i guess)

I think Carl was one of the people who argued that Bernie could pick off Trump supporters.

"ppl who voted Trump" vs "ppl who currently identify as Trump supporters" is a distinction worthy of interrogation

We may have to sacrifice a bit of progressive pleasure by choosing someone who can light a fire under voters' asses when it counts—the general election, not the primaries. Take the white house back.

I find it odd that you think these things are mutually exclusive. Obama '08 was the most 'progressive' campaign of most of our voting lives... and a blowout that drove turnout.

Trump's power being limited is exactly what keeps me sane. We haven't even approached the abyss of the GWB years.

in terms of innocent dead people, that's true. in terms of damage to gov't institutions, idk.

Johnny Fever may be overlooking that some ppl are insanely trying to make the case that Biden can light a fire under people's asses

the people are stoked about supporting the credit card corporations and draconian bankruptcy laws

I get the feeling that somewhere behind all this talk of Biden running for president is a media conspiracy spearheaded by The Onion.

would that twere so!!!!

what no one knows is that all this time biden has been running the onion

trump would beat biden imo

also he would definitely make a jibe about biden's dead wife and or children at some stage of the campaign

the next president should turn 35 on inauguration day

— Italian Alex Pareene (@pareene) December 17, 2018

thus meeting the most crucial criterion sought in a national leader

I’ve inadvertently encountered some rabid Kamala Harris fans on twitter who are very mad that anyone is criticizing her 15 months before the primaries. while I’m wary of her, reading her Wikipedia page did give me at least one reason to think a little better of her, and somehow dislike Feinstein even more, what a fucking scumbag:

In April 2004, San Francisco Police Department Officer Isaac Espinoza was shot and killed in the line of duty.[7] Three days later D.A. Harris announced she would not seek the death penalty, infuriating the San Francisco Police Officers Association.[7] During Officer Espinoza's funeral at St. Mary's Cathedral, U.S. Senator and former San Francisco mayor Dianne Feinstein rose to the pulpit and called on Harris, who was sitting in the front pew, to secure the death penalty, prompting a standing ovation from the 2,000 uniformed police officers in attendance.[7] Harris still refused.[7]

San Francisco Police Officers Association

some of the worst ppl in the world, tbf

Harris has alway been personally opposed to the death penalty I think

NEW from me - a year later, a bunch of big Dem donors are still burning at @SenGillibrand for saying Franken should go -- but meanwhile, she's raised more money (much of it from small dollar donations) than any 2020 contender in the Senate except Warren https://t.co/cvYhZaEJOM

— Edward-Isaac Dovere (@IsaacDovere) December 18, 2018

Good

Buttigieg has announced he won't run for another term as mayor of South Bend, clear the field everyone

PETEY B

he seems nice but c'mon now

BREAKING: Texas Rep. @BetoORourke has been removed from the "No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge" following Sludge's report that he received more than two dozen large campaign donations from oil & gas executives. https://t.co/r3DSGsO58R

— Sludge (@readsludge) December 18, 2018

have to say that ppl pushing for Beto to run is the dumbest phenomenon so far

jfc doesn't he realize people will be looking at things like this? What a dum dum.

You just can't live in Texas and not get money from Big Oil

p sure I have friends in Texas that don't get money from Big Oil

Why are you not a fan? Or are you just not a fan right now, for 2020?

Buttigieg has announced he won't run for another term as mayor of South Bend, clear the field everyone

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, December 18, 2018 3:30 PM (forty-five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

pretty sure he's either a) angling for more name recognition to put him in better position for 2024/2028, or b) trying to get on the radar for a cabinet spot if the dem candidate wins

Why are you not a fan? Or are you just not a fan right now, for 2020?

to be clear, I think Beto is fine for a Democrat from Texas. I don't have any particular beef with him, and I def wish he had beat Ted Cruz. However, the effort to make him into some great white hope with presidential aspirations seems really misguided - he's not a good national candidate, he is a white guy with very little experience and no real progressive credentials, and it seems like what people see in him is p much Obama redux but this time as a white guy. And the big push for his candidacy seems to be coming from inside-the-beltway hothouses of overheated rhetoric like Politico (which, as I've noted elsewhere, is literally running a story a day on him). Pushing for his candidacy strikes me as an attempt to move the party back towards a centrist platform guided by white guys, as if Beto is some magical combo of the best qualities of Obama AND Hillary AND Biden, which is not what we need right now imo.

I don't know how centrist he is, though yeah, he is a white male. But so will be most of the field of hopefuls, none of whom are as appealing as this dude, imo, who, yeah, p much Obama redux but this time as a white guy. But in the non-white guy category I don't see any real hopefuls, not Harris, hell no Warren, maybe Gillibrand I guess, but she seems a risk just a few years after 2016. Or maybe not! The thing is, *someone* has to run, and while Beto is unproven, too centrist, too this, too that, I'm not sure any of the other potential runners are really any better. Maybe he can just run for Senator form Texas again.

there's gonna be like at least a dozen people running, I don't see Beto adding much of anything that the others don't have except for some "I don't believe in labels, I like to listen to people" centrist mush and a great fundraising gimmick

Also, people like him, which may make a difference.

Not sure if I love the guy either, but a charismatic, hopeful guy seems to be the type to get elected president as a democrat.

xp

people like him, which may make a difference

not sure this hypothesis has really been sufficiently tested

Shakey otm. Beto's good looking and did wonders but c'mon.

tbh it kind of amazes me that ppl are so eager to run a guy that was beaten by ted cruz against a guy who beat ted cruz by, like, half-remembering a headline from a supermarket tabloid

people like him, which may make a difference.

it's increasingly looking like the progressive base actually *doesn't* like him, and things like that oil money gaffe upthread will tarnish him quickly

also lol J.D. otm

p sure I have friends in Texas that don't get money from Big Oil

You'd be surprised at how many people in Texas get some amount of money, either directly or with a degree or two of separation, from Oil interests.

But I was really riffing on a Doug Sahm line, repurposed to say you can't be a Texas politician and not get energy (i.e. OIL) money.

Being verifiably human is inspiring enough when running against Ted Cruz but in a primary field that consists of other non-sea monsters, there's no particular reason to care about Beto.

I think looking for a "great white (male) hope" is definitely at work in regard to Beto-for-prez fandom.

If it's true that no Texas politician can run without oil money, then no Texas politician should run for president as a Democrat.

All true or relevant or whatever. But so far there is not a single candidate that's been floated that has any clear slam-dunk advantage over Trump (in a world where Trump was elected) other than not being Trump. Which may be enough! People don't like Trump. But ... may not be enough.

I'm not sure what that advantage would look like

(and nobody else does either, which is why the field is going to be so crowded)

Beto is total token white guy who doesn't pronounce hard H sounds in spanish VP material.

inspiring turnout among black and Latinx voters would be #1 to me

I'm not sure what that advantage would look like

Name recognition, charisma/likability? Something that offers an advantage beyond Not Trump, which is an advantage every Dem candidate will begin with. And yeah, inspiring turnout among etc., but I'm not sure who does that, either. Numbers were way up for Dems this past midterm, which took a lot of work and money. But a lot of those races were still relatively close.

iirc

I kinda hate to be this blunt but the key to beating Trump will obviously be turnout of several key constituencies: college educated white women, african americans, and latinx. that's it.

Beto's not gonna deliver any of those.

fwiw, Sanders has the highest favorability with non-whites in this recent CNN poll (see pg 15)

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/12/14/rel12e.-.2020.and.economy.pdf

though obviously that could fluctuate a lot if he says anything else dumb

Every person I've met in real life who wants Biden to run is a white male, the people we don't need in 2020.

Harry Potter World is totally saving Florida right now.

If he doesn't run, maybe those doofuses can draft Jim Webb for another go

people who want Biden are the ones who don't think anyone who doesn't look like them can't beat someone else who looks like them. I don't necessarily think he wouldn't have the best shot but it seems like it'd be one step forward vs the GOP, two steps back within the Dem party from the recent midterms.

The woman on my fb feed who is pushing Biden is buying the whole "we-have-to-get-working-class-whites" line.

I think turnout, period, is key, across the board, and that takes time and money, both of which were spent in impressive amounts this past midterm. I'm not sure the race, gender, etc of the candidate matters that much, at least not enough to convey a significant advantage. It's a matter of boots on the ground.

It wasn't white male candidates who carried the democratic party during the midterms.

yeah this is obviously gonna be an all-hands-on-deck scenario

xp

Who cares honestly if they can beat trump. I don’t think I can live through six more years of this.

My heart is with the economic progressives but I’m fine with president whatever who cares

I think that is a v common sentiment

and one that just might, hopefully, deliver us a genuine progressive president

Who cares honestly if they can beat trump. I don’t think I can live through six more years of this.

My heart is with the economic progressives but I’m fine with president whatever who cares

We're talking about the primary, where we decide who has the best chance to beat Trump.

The "ugh, why all the negativity" sentiments going around are counterproductive to doing that.

also you presumably want to avoid a repeat of the circumstances that helped to set the groundwork for Trump to get elected, incl electing mealy-mouthed centrists. believe it or not there can always be someone worse

Harris has alway been personally opposed to the death penalty I think

― Dan S, Monday, December 17, 2018 6:59 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol

I don't even know what standards you folks are even using for "centrist." Is anyone to the right of AOC a centrist? Is she a centrist? What are the centrist tenets?

imo, centrist ideas tend to congregate around kowtowing to "small business", limiting "entitlements", using "market-driven incentives" and "measurable returns on government investment". A centrist expresses concern about "reliance on government" by "growing the pie".

Pretty much all of the above nostrums and clichés are found in the mouths of "moderate conservatives", but a "centrist Democrat" will express their support for Social Security and "working families" with slightly stronger rhetoric and will vote with their caucus in the 70% range, while "moderate Republicans" (rare as they are) vote with their caucus in roughly the same proportion - maybe 80% or 85% because Republicans assert party discipline more vigorously than Democrats do.

What about cultural/social stuff, where does that fit in, equal/civil rights, abortion, et al? Are you differentiating progressives and centrists mostly on the basis of economic policy?

for me that's the dividing line. i would like someone who believes we can have a fundamentally different kind of society--one where the prerogatives of corporations to make profits are not automatically given priority over the needs of the demos. however as i said who cares

tbh it kind of amazes me that ppl are so eager to run a guy that was beaten by ted cruz against a guy who beat ted cruz by, like, half-remembering a headline from a supermarket tabloid

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, December 18, 2018 5:00 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I mean, this is complete apples to oranges. one guy almost beat cruz in a general election in texas. the other guy beat him in a primary among batshit republican primary voters

fine, i'll vote for senator beto gillibrand harris

a centrist is someone who does what Booker does

Abortion is not a social issue.

Gay marriage is not a social issue.

Right, these are civil rights issues in my mind. I’d never vote for a candidate that was against those things.

What about cultural/social stuff, where does that fit in, equal/civil rights, abortion, et al? Are you differentiating progressives and centrists mostly on the basis of economic policy?

I think the argument would be, those questions are more or less "settled" as far as liberals/Dems go and any attempt to move backwards on them would be unpalatable, whereas the economic questions are more contentious and at odds with what needs to be done. Certainly some will be more aggressive about the support of repro rights etc. than others but it's hard to imagine a Dem candidate in 2020 deciding to throw gay marriage under the bus without rightly getting crucified.

yeah what would a "centrist" position on these things even be, given that the "right of center" position is "strip away rights and roll back the clock"? in practice it ends up meaning bland acquiescence to said rollback.

I doubt questions of civil rights are settled, that seems completely nonsensical even from a Danish distance. Voting rights, immigration, criminal justice reform. Pretty central to what needs to be done, no?

Yeah and none of those are social issues either, realt. They’re civil rights and human rights issues.

also you presumably want to avoid a repeat of the circumstances that helped to set the groundwork for Trump to get elected, incl electing mealy-mouthed centrists. believe it or not there can always be someone worse

not to get all Nate Silver on this but the groundwork that led to Trump's election is something that I don't think you can replicate easily. you had 1) the most unpopular Dem candidate ever, 2) an "October surprise" that did markedly influence the election, 3) active interference by foreign entities, and 4) a bad campaigning strategy leading the Dems to narrowly lose Midwestern states and therefore the EC despite winning the popular vote by 3 million. it's true the Dems did a lot of things wrong in 2016 but they also got pretty unlucky

active interference by foreign entities

fwiw Nate Silver himself just said he wouldn't have put Russian meme warfare in the top 100 causes for Trump winning

Right, but they did more than meme warfare.

when did Silver say that because that news gets worse every day

anyway voted Harris from the list above. I'd be into a Harris/O'Rourke ticket or vice versa, ditto either of them with Gillebrand.

Yesterday. Also from that round, his one-tweet summation of 2016 is fine by me.

2016 in one tweet: Hard for a party to win 3 in a row; Clinton unpopular for many reasons, including MSM fixation on email; Trump also unpopular, but GOP voters were loyal and racially-tinged populism worked among non-college whites, who are overrepresented in Electoral College.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) December 18, 2018

That's such a dumb statement from Silver, he knows better. Even discounting his hyperbole, I bet he couldn't get close to naming 100 other factors first before getting to Russian interference. When we're talking about a shift of less than 100,000 votes in a nation of 300 million, every little bit counted.

I'm also curious how the media is gonna cover it this time, if they're really gonna fall headfirst into weeks of "did Hillary and Obama REALLY form ISIS??" coverage or if they're gonna stop giving Trump the exact headline he wants time after time. they do seem to be learning.....slowly....

i like nate silver but lol "racially-tinged"

i think the proper way to not say racist is "racially-charged"

I've heard numerous people debate how to counter Trump in the media and elsewhere, and it's harder than it seems. You ignore something stupid or inflammatory he says and *that* becomes the story. You counter what he says and you use up valuable space and time on his bullshit, and he'll just move on anyway. The best strategy I've heard offered is to acknowledge his bullshit, and then just table it. "Did Hillary and Obama form ISIS? It's a provocative theory. But in the meantime, here are some issues we need to address right now, like health care, or taxes ... " Something like that.

I thought the way Russian interference worked was that it helped intensify things like racist populism and MSM fixation on email

Yeah, absolutely.

They need to focus on the fact that he is a criminal not a businessman. If people believe in the power of the market to reward good actors who provide value to others, Trump represents the opposite of that. He’s not just an “economic elite”—which would be bad enough—he’s been a consistently bad actor his entire life. If all businesses worked like the Trump organization, our society would collapse.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/swamp-chronicles/is-fraud-part-of-the-trump-organizations-business-model

yea I hate to say it but focusing on racism or sexism isn't gonna do much but get us into Yet Another Long Discussion about "political correctness" or feminism or "How is it racist to enforce the law?" like, if you don't believe he's a bigot by NOW, you aren't gonna ever, period. on the other hand it absolutely is provable that the man is a fraud, a criminal, and a terrible businessman, and tbh I really wish Dems had pounded that more in 2016

They need to focus on the fact that he is a criminal not a businessman. If people believe in the power of the market to reward good actors who provide value to others, Trump represents the opposite of that. He’s not just an “economic elite”—which would be bad enough—he’s been a consistently bad actor his entire life. If all businesses worked like the Trump organization, our society would collapse.

And what effect will this emphasis have on the 30+ percent of voters who support him?

They. Don't. Care.

Xp The criminality and the bigotry go hand in hand imo. He is a predator and an exploiter.

xpost Lock them up?

The criminality and the bigotry go hand in hand imo.

Otm, and this is probably why they don't care about the criminality...

Treeship, who are you trying to persuade? No one on ILX or the suburbs, presumably.

Alfred otm. And if you do successfully run the gauntlet of convincing trump supporters that he is a criminal, a fraud, a sexist, a racist, and the dumbest person in the United States, you must face the most challenging test of all: what about abortion

Also, they have said they voted for a criminal, a fraud, a sexist, and a racist, and they think he's the smartest person in DC.

I think it’s good to continually remind people of all of these things, but not as some part of strategy to change the hearts and minds of his supporters. That ship has sailed

One universally recognized indicator of a very smart person is when they repeatedly bring up where they went to grad school (where they did “very well” and talk about IQ tests

number umpty-six, come on down

https://news.yahoo.com/colorado-senator-michael-bennet-says-considering-run-democratic-presidential-nomination-100013444.html

I don’t like the myth of Trump’s invilnerability. Why is his support among rural whites considered a fact of nature?

cuz they like him and they never change and never will

xp please stop, you do this constantly. they hate you and want us all to die. there's no sense in even trying, increasing voter turnout in other demographics is the way forward.

i.e. j. otm

xp please stop, you do this constantly. they hate you and want us all to die. there's no sense in even trying, increasing voter turnout in other demographics is the way forward.

can we just auto-amend this to every hand-wringy treeship post plz

some of them *did* vote for Obama tho

I wasn’t even wringing my hands I was typing with them.

some of them *did* vote for Obama tho

this is actually a really small portion of the electorate afaict, and I doubt any of those people that voted for Obama and then Trump are still hardcore Trump supporters. Or maybe they just reaaaaaally hated John McCain a lot and always did.

at any rate they aren't worth factoring in.

Interesting

like, saying that certain states went for Obama both times and then flipped to Trump in '16 is obviously true - but for the most part that isn't because voters switched parties en masse, it's primarily because of changes in turnout (related to demographics, voter suppression efforts, Russian interference, Clinton campaign fuckups, etc.)

This post and its comments address the last few posts.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-how-many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/

so many caveats

some of them *did* vote for Obama tho

― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, December 19, 2018 11:36 AM (thirty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

“some” of “them” voted for clinton too. this conversation is tiring

I wasn’t even wringing my hands I was typing with them.

― Trϵϵship, Wednesday, December 19, 2018 10:37 AM (forty-four minutes ago)

You're wringing everybody else's hands.

well they probly went to the wedding xp

when did Silver say that because that news gets worse every day

it stays exactly the same every day

A bit lol about the term 'Top Democratic Women Of Color', but these numbers are not good for neither Warren nor Sanders.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryancbrooks/kamala-harris-2020-president-black-women-survey

She the People — a national network of influential women of color in politics — just completed a national straw poll of 264 women of color leaders, campaign workers and managers, political strategists, organizers, and activists ahead of the 2020 presidential election. Those surveyed included campaign donors (48.5%), current and former elected officials (10.6%), campaign managers (5.7%), electoral campaign strategists (8.7%), and women who run (23.1%) or work (23.5%) at politically-minded organizations.

Of the women of color surveyed, nearly 40% identify as Latinx, and nearly 50% identify as African American, over 16% identify as Asian, and over 5% as Native. Nearly 90% of respondents identified as members of the Democratic Party.

can you spot anything exceptional about this description of the sample

Those surveyed included campaign donors (48.5%), current and former elected officials (10.6%), campaign managers (5.7%), electoral campaign strategists (8.7%), and women who run (23.1%) or work (23.5%) at politically-minded organizations.

Not a survey of the party base or general public fwiw

Lol xp

They need to focus on the fact that he is a criminal not a businessman.

Hillary's campaign ads about Trump ripping off every contractor who ever worked for him were super effective, after all.

imo the only ads a Dem candidate will need to run are variations of "aren't you tired of all this fucking crap"

i think simon nailed the 'what the heck does progressive even mean' question p well but to refocus specifically on beto, here he stands pretty plainly revealed relative to the rest of the house:

https://i.imgur.com/I4Ic1H2.png

on the left side on so-called "social" issues, but the relative right side on redistributive questions

more on Beto's record

Beto O’Rourke’s spirited run for the US Senate in Texas last month has prompted powerful voices in the Democratic party establishment to tout the outgoing Texas congressman as a 2020 presidential candidate who, as the party’s standard-bearer, would offer a vision of America contrasting against that of Republicans.

However, a new analysis of congressional votes from the non-profit news organisation Capital & Main shows that even as O’Rourke represented one of the most solidly Democratic congressional districts in the United States, he has frequently voted against the majority of House Democrats in support of Republican bills and Trump administration priorities.

Capital & Main reviewed the 167 votes O’Rourke has cast in the House in opposition to the majority of his own party during his six-year tenure in Congress. Many of those votes were not progressive dissents alongside other left-leaning lawmakers, but instead votes to help pass Republican-sponsored legislation.

O’Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic lawmakers said reinforced Republicans’ anti-tax ideology, chipped away at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the fossil fuel industry and bolstered Donald Trump’s immigration policy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/20/beto-orourke-congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main

They should do that with literally everyone potentially running for president, and then the left will be left with nobody.

Except Bernie Fucking Sanders, the only old white male who will primarily alienate old white males.

iirc "the left" has never "had" basically anyone, and has held their noses in voting booths since time immemorial, no idea why this cycle should be any different. doesn't make the way candidates actually vote irrelevant

Nitpicking about past voting records in an upcoming race where the number one bona fide will be how much not like Trump you can be seems to be self-defeating, which for sure is something "the left" knows all about.

Like, I don't think being a "centrist" is necessarily a bad thing. I would much rather have a "centrist" win the White House and have to make compromises to get support from the left than have a right wing government that tries to get support from right-leaning centrists.

outing this guy as a faux progressive is not "nitpicking", I'm sure as hell not voting for him in a primary unless the other choices are really dire

and centrists are bad, full stop. that doesn't mean I won't vote for one if it's all I get.

was thinking about your "what is a centrist" question earlier and my answer is "someone who uncritically supports the military budget"

Hmm, that might be a good distinction. Which of the potential candidates doesn't fall into that trap? And aren't all of the candidates faux progressives? Harris, Gillibrand ...they've definitely been drawn left, which means they used to vote more ... centrist.

I would much rather have a "centrist" win the White House and have to make compromises to get support from the left than have a right wing government that tries to get support from right-leaning centrists.

having trouble understanding this point, since the latter scenario (having to get support from right-leaning "centrists") has been the environment for every Democratic president since... LBJ? Like, any Dem "centrist" in the WH is going to have problems appeasing the right, not the left, who have been reliable party votes for several generations.

I mean, Obama was p much a centrist, and his biggest problems getting legislation through were a) foolishly trying to appeal to GOP votes that never, ever materialized and b) Democrats that were more or less Republicans anyway (Lieberman, Ben Nelson). He didn't bother trying to appease the leftists cuz they were already on-board and knew he was giving them the best deal they would ever be able to get.

but with partisan polarization becoming so entrenched, trying to get votes by presenting as someone who can "work across the aisle" feels like a total fool's game. The real way to get legislative success is to do what the GOP did - get solid, partisan majorities in every branch of government, and then ruthlessly exercise power over the objections of a disempowered minority.

Of course. The only reason Trump has not been able to get much done is that he has been unable to pick up support from even a handful of Democrats (ie working across the aisle). But that's what's happened in most GOP WH scenarios, GOP presidents getting a modicum of "centrist" support while the left waves its fists. So my point, I guess, is that I'd much rather a "centrist" Dem get in the WH *with* the support of the progressive left who can then pull that person to compromise further to the left, rather than have the progressive left discount a centrist for being too (economically? militarily?) conservative and thus force that person to reach out to more conservative centrists and Republicans to get elected and/or get policy passed.

Josh

What is a primary for

Absolutely nothing! Say it again ...

I mean, we know who is likely running for GOP president in 2020, and that person is the worst in every sense, so *any* candidate's policy or record is going to better than his. Which is why I'm not sure, in this (hopefully) rare instance, someone's past voting record matters that much. They will all be degrees of "not Trump," personality and policy-wise, but in the age of ignorance I think (worry?) it will be personality that gets them the votes, and not necessarily policy.

I have no idea, obviously. It really shouldn't be that hard to beat the worst person ever, but it doesn't seem like a sure thing, either, even admittedly this early, which isn't that early anymore. I guess it will help to see what kind of check the Dem congress will really have on him.

Seriously, though, we saw in 2016 that the primary was mostly bullshit that ultimately sowed (still simmering) divisions among the Dems, resulting in a bad candidate who lost to the worst person in the world, who somehow faced a million people in his own party's primary and won.

If your answer to the question "what is a primary for" is "mostly bullshit that ultimately sowed division" I'm not sure you're gonna see eye to eye with people who see primaries as a way to contest for power, which is exactly why one would be nitpicking bona fides -- in a contest for power you want someone who's *actually* one of your own representing you.

Voting records aren't the only thing to consider, I think you're totally right to point out that people like Gillibrand and Harris have tacked left and that it indicates *either* willingness to hear & move *or* bald cynicism.

It's just that past voting records are among the few available barometers to determine which of those two things is happening

Fair enough. The question remains whether 2016 was an anomaly or the new normal. I want a candidate that will beat the current president like he deserves to be beat, by a significant humiliating margin.

heck yeah

I can’t believe campaign season starts in like six weeks

*either* willingness to hear & move *or* bald cynicism.

this is true of both, but I don't care what the motivation is tbh, and it bothers me when leftists bring up the motivation as something critical to determining whether they can "trust" the candidate or not. Trust no one, is what I say! What you want is someone who responds to pressure, the results are what matters.

I mean I get that a sizable majority of people vote based on their feewings and personal impressions of a candidate but fuck that, policy is what counts, and what I want is a candidate that will deliver that policy - whether because of deeply held principles or craven political calculation, I don't care. Why LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act is way less important than the fact that we got the Civil Rights Act.

that's a fair point

that ol' devil intentionality

a scourge of record listening and primary season

yeah, vote trust no one in 2020. I am less interested in how someone voted 5 or 10 years ago and more interested in what they will or won't sign as president. Fuck John Kasich, as far as I am concerned, but if I heard correctly he just shot down a stand your ground law in Ohio. That's cool with me.

there will be 12 debates

i hate myself for the little thrill i just experienced upon reading that

12 debates with 24 candidates, everybody gets 2 seconds to speak

Democrats will hold at least a dozen presidential primary debates starting in June 2019 and running through April 2020, with party Chairman Tom Perez promising rules that will give everyone in a potentially large field a fair shot at voters’ attention.

Making public his first in a series of decisions over the 2020 debate calendar, Perez said Thursday that the national party will sponsor six debates in 2019 and six more in 2020. That could be extended if the nomination process drags deep into the spring.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-20/urgent-democrats-to-start-presidential-primary-debates-in-june-2019

oh,joy

the real question is what is the threshold for participation

breathing, unsatisfied with Yam

supports medicare for all is increasingly looking like the threshold tbh

Except Bernie Fucking Sanders, the only old white male who will primarily alienate old white males.

Speaking of, https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/yes-bernie-should-run-771260/

He should run and lose imo lol

And aren't all of the candidates faux progressives? Harris, Gillibrand ...they've definitely been drawn left, which means they used to vote more ... centrist.

So they're learning that they have to be responsive to the majority of the party that is well to the left of Congressional Democrats and donors? I don't see that as a negative, if they're pushed left and held there.

They'll be held there right until the end of the primary.

Perhaps, unless the realpolitik of the situation favors them staying left - which includes maybe getting primaried in 2024 if they don't (as unlikely as that is). Unless you're going full Bernie-or-bust, you have to start thinking about which possible candidates can be made better with the right pressure.

beto being a bland can-win-in-texas centrist was fine when he was running to replace ted fucking cruz. it would also be tolerable if he wins the primaries and is then running to replace donald fucking trump. but until then he'd be running to secure the nomination against other people who might be much more progressive than he is, so his track record (and anything else abt him really) wd be fair game. and anyway if "how not-trump they are" is important, then surely "they voted for trump's initiatives a lot" is relevant.

yeah he'll get pilloried for it. voting in the House is p different than it is in the Senate, and compounds the difficulty of leap-frogging from the House to the Presidency (which is exceedingly rare)

They should do that with literally everyone potentially running for president, and then the left will be left with nobody.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:00 AM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Except Bernie Fucking Sanders, the only old white male who will primarily alienate old white males.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:01 AM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

iirc "the left" has never "had" basically anyone, and has held their noses in voting booths since time immemorial, no idea why this cycle should be any different. doesn't make the way candidates actually vote irrelevant

― resident hack (Simon H.), Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:05 AM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Nitpicking about past voting records in an upcoming race where the number one bona fide will be how much not like Trump you can be seems to be self-defeating, which for sure is something "the left" knows all about.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:12 AM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

another way of looking at this is we should look at everyone’s past votes and actually see whose record is most in line with progressive priorities!

also, lol at the idea of all those GOP-killing candidates the left have torpedoed over the years, which would be....who, exactly?

this is true of both, but I don't care what the motivation is tbh, and it bothers me when leftists bring up the motivation as something critical to determining whether they can "trust" the candidate or not. Trust no one, is what I say! What you want is someone who responds to pressure, the results are what matters.

― Οὖτις, Thursday, December 20, 2018 4:59 PM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Agreed totally, and maybe I spoke poorly if I gave you the wrong idea -- the point of parsing cynical ploy vs submission to pressure is not "are they sufficiently pure" but "are they moving because *responding to pressure is something they do* or because *they want to win this specific contest and won't respond in this way again*.

Hillary Rodham of course

Bernie mortally wounded her

xp

Morbz.... otm?

From a practical standpoint, it is much easier to move a politician to a position they already occupy or are only a step or two away from.

i was parodying idiot Clintonites, Shakey

you don't think his candidacy damaged her? seems like a fairly non-controversial take to me

Less than Hillary's run damaged Obama, if the numbers are to be believed.

or remember PUMA

yer right, she should've been anointed

let's have this argument again, I'm sure everyone's dying to see how it turns out this time

the question is who is the frontrunner who should be chosen unanimously for '20

hopefully the debate 6 months from now will settle this

and who is in which lane

I hate when drivers go 20 mph in the left lane!

old guys like Bernie

or ppl from Florida

This is revisionist. One of the notable things about the race was that Beto was running as unapologetically progressive in a Texas Senate race.

“beto being a bland can-win-in-texas centrist was fine when he was running to replace ted fucking cruz.“

this is true of both, but I don't care what the motivation is tbh, and it bothers me when leftists bring up the motivation as something critical to determining whether they can "trust" the candidate or not. Trust no one, is what I say! What you want is someone who responds to pressure, the results are what matters.

― Οὖτις, Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:59 AM (five hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the more pessimistic way to look at this would be to say that people whose votes or priorities can be so easily swayed could also respond to pressure from those hostile to our interests. whereas someone with genuine progressive beliefs (for which voting record seems to be the best proxy, unless someone can suggest something better) would not be as vulnerable to this

weird to assume that a voting record is a reflection of beliefs (and not, say, a reflection of kowtowing to constituent priorities and following orders from party leaders)

It's not weird, it's so normal that political scientists writing on the subject generally have to devote a significant portion of their publications to countering this view because it's such a norm

huh, I’d love to read a review article by a political scientist explaining why past voting record is not predictive of future voting record, and what a better alternative is, if such a thing exists

I mean I also don’t care about “beliefs” — they are unknowable. I care about what someone is likely to support

goalposts moved

like I could very easily explain to you why a House voting record is not predictive of a Senate voting record or actions in the White House without reference to "beliefs". And not to harp on my favorite example for the millionth time but exhibit A: LBJ.

data, please

every vote taken is the result of very specific contexts - who is pressuring the elected official, what leverage or political capital is being exercised or expended, when is it taking place (just prior to an election? just after?), the constituency involved (national vs. state vs. district), etc etc. Publicly professed "beliefs" become very malleable in these contexts.

LBJ voted against *every single* civil rights bill that ever came up in the House while he was there. Every one. Then he became Majority Leader of the Senate and managed to pass, for the first time ever, a compromise civil rights bill over the objections of his southern colleagues. Then he became VP and didn't give a shit/was powerless re: civil rights. Then JFK died, he took the measure of his power and the political winds in the party, and did what JFK - an avowed pro-civil rights liberal - could not, and passed the Civil Rights Act.

There are tons of less dramatic and historically significant examples of this, but it happens all the time on various scales.

for another, perhaps more recent example, you can take all the incoming House Dems that said they would vote against Pelosi as leader and are now keeping their heads down and putting their hands up.

Joe Manchin loves coal miners and the coal industry and has voted in their interests more times than I can count, but on the other hand he does things like this: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-05/manchin-changes-mind-on-trump-s-pro-coal-nominee-amid-pressure Is this because he no longer loves coal? Or never actually loved coal? Or is it because Trump pissed him off? Or because his party is swinging left? Or because he suddenly believes climate science?

or is it because he wanted that committee chair and this vote (which affected nothing, really) was the price for that?

ok, and that context and the forces upon a politician in a primary are different than those in a general election or when they actually have to govern

again, as I said in my original post, I care about a person’s voting record insofar as, taken over a large sample, it seems likely to me to predict their progressive resoluteness when those forces pull from either side. you seem confident that that is not the case, so I assume there are data...

xp

I mean is the argument seriously that, given a choice between two democrats, the one with the more progressive voting record would be no more likely to be more progressive in the future? that is a fascinating, counter-intuitive claim that I would need to see substantiated by something other than cherry-picked anecdotes to believe

I don't think you can reliably predict "progressive resoluteness" at all tbh, esp when you're talking about a President, who is subject to a unique set of political pressures unlike any other office

You should base it on the policy promises they make for the office they are currently running for. The “politicians always break promises when in office” cliche is historically the opposite of true.

Nixon wasn't progressive by any measure and was a total asshole, yet he championed the EPA and the Clean Air Act. Reagan was a super-belligerent sabre-rattling anti-communist who managed to negotiate the end of the Cold War, (as opposed to ushering in the nuclear oblivion many of us on the left were expecting at the time). We all figured Obama to be pretty anti-war and anti-middle east adventurism, and then he was the first president to order the extra-judicial murder of an American citizen. The presidency is rife with contradictions like this, that could not have been predicted based on voting records. I dunno if all this anecdotal evidence adds up to anything convincing, I don't have an academic study to hand, this is just off the top of my head.

Nerdstrom hits closer to the truth I think - voting record is part of it and does tell you *something* about the candidate, but what they are promising to get elected, how they are running their operation, who their allies are (in the party and without), those things all add up to give you a more complete picture.
xp

Yeah I’m curious to see who they align w and who they talk about appointing as a indicative. Beto would have to talk a good game to overcome the experience deficit that someone like Bernie has for example if they were both running on Single Payer

I agree that there are other factors than voting record to be taken into consideration. when it comes to primary elections, when campaign promises are necessarily similar, and voters have to choose among candidates, I am wondering whether past voting record, relative to party, is predictive of future voting record (or presidential priorities, or results), relative to party line. this is something that I imagine has been studied empirically and I'll try to look into it myself

watching Bernie play against a whole bunch more moderate Dems with less name recognition will be interesting, in terms of how far left the others will be willing to bend at least in terms of messaging in order to not seem like sellouts by comparison

Potentially he has the move where he can say “I was the only one the stage saying this four years ago and now look”

Who knows where we’ll be but I agree w whoever said the one who is most anti-Trump will get the most momentum.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/21/18150359/beto-orourke-voting-record

kind of a weird piece insofar as it feels like Yglesias can't decide whether he wants to emphasize the fact that Beto's voting record is comparatively conservative or that duh, of course it's comparatively conservative because Texas. the two perspectives end up undercutting each other and the whole thing essentially resolves into a shrug emoji.

It is mostly just shrug emoji. Beto O'Rourke has about the voting record you would expect. That's kinda what the conclusion is. I think this part is the most important part: In the grand scheme of things, the differences between these voting records are not enormous, and if you’re thinking about policy outcomes, the limiting factor is going to be what the most conservative Democratic Party senators can swallow, not whether the president is a bit more liberal than those senators (or a lot more liberal).

Conservative Democratic Senators gain or lose influence in a Democratically controlled Senate in direct proportion to the extent they constitute the votes necessary to pass legislation. If there are five of them and you only need, say, one or two of them to vote in favor, it's much easier to peel off those votes and get your bill passed. It's all a numbers game.

the odds that the Dems will have a comfortable margin for passing legislation in the Senate are very long

You are right about the odds. But two years can bring incalculable changes, especially under the present regime.

that's true. obviously my fear is that significant progressive legislation will be at the mercy of the likes of Joe Manchin (just as Obamacare was at the mercy of Lieberman and Nelson)

The bigger the wave, the more that gets swept aside or carried in. If the country swings in a definite direction, the politicians all see that trend and tend to swing along with the voters. And 2020 will have a more favorable map for dems in the senate. Good luck, USA.

it's more favorable, but it isn't 60-gettable seats favorable

A (mostly) earnest question for those who like Beto for 2020: Is there a policy you like that he supports and other likely candidates do not support? An idea he talks about that other likely candidates don't?

— Osita Nwanevu (@OsitaNwanevu) December 23, 2018

Threads of Sanders supporters going on about how supporters of other candidates don’t know/care about issues and are mere fans. Never gets old.

Interesting that he thinks this

It's interesting to me that centrist Dems haven't been buzzy about any candidate in particular until Beto. There's been no comparable push for, say, Booker or Harris. https://t.co/aVMwi6AcL1

— Osita Nwanevu (@OsitaNwanevu) December 24, 2018

Hm yes what is the difference between those candidates, let me think on it for a sec

There was some mild talk about Harris last year that resulted in a similar freak out

Lol yes, every bit of criticism and scrutiny amounts to a freak out w you ppl.

The Sirota stuff can’t be called honest vetting. That kind of got exposed. It’s particularly transparent when he was saying Beto should be speaker two weeks earlier and then suddenly starts w an oppo blitz

All of these people have problems. I’m voting Trump.

The Speaker is not the President IIRC

Yeah no the tenor of the criticism isn’t “we’ll still like him but he’s not ready” it’s “we decided he’s an evil centrist overnight”

What is the center point between the moderate social democracy of the democrat’s “progressive wing” and the extremist death cult of the modern GOP? Does it make any sense at all to be wary of universal healthcare, say, or taking bold action to save the planet from climate change and renew our infrastructure in the process? Why give that hp to be closer the the death cult?

The whole conversation is weird to me because the “left wing” solutions to our serious problems seem like the obvious ones. There’s no moderate line on addressing police brutality—there needs to be accountability and reform. Same with every other makor issue. The form of politics we were practicing—which led to things like the absurd bank bailout—has reached its endpoint. It’s not a sustainable game.

I’m supporting the primary candidate who has shown that they grasp this.

The thing is centrism IS effectively evil at this point for those reasons and that's why I don't mind people being vigilant in opposition to it

It’s a meme-y buzzword for attacking democrats.

Are Democrats your dad

Haha that’s really cool.

Are Democrats your daddy?

I’ve gotten multiple direct mailings from John Delaney, the most recent indicating he for sure is targeting the primary

I am not even completely sure what his deal is, but the material is very wtf

like the first one is “if you want a guy to take on Trump..” and is a partial reprint of a friggin George Will column

that is who he is targeting I guess, very early primary voters registered Democrats who don’t know what George Will is

treesh and simon otm

I am not voting for another hetero white man for office for the rest of my life.

I'm voting for the Democrat literally no matter how bad they are for the rest of my life, and urging others to do the same, and repenting daily of my once-deeply-held "it has to be a candidate I'm excited about" position

^^this is also the position held by...let's say at least 90% of those who are brutally critical of establishment Dems. (barring of course the formation of an actually viable third party, which really would not be the wildest thing to ever happen)

yeah, r&f Dems can be taken for granted

that's why we get such a bounty from the Dems

hoping yerac and joanie keep getting variations of Dianne Feinstein

Happy Holidays to you too!

xp joan rivers, i will vote for the democrat enthusiastically no matter who it was, as i did for hillary. but in the primaries i want someone who isn't afraid to say what needs to be done.

I can't imagine any good reason to take offence to the Osita Nwanenu thread NP linked, especially when read in full. He even rejects the "Beto couldn't even beat Cruz" low blow (which I absolutely would not) and pisses off Bernie fans by mentioning he didn't vote for him in the primary

What a novel argument we're having!

can anyone even tell me who John Delaney is, without looking it up, because his promo material is vague on this

he's the hot one from s club 7

he's a stand-up comedian; voice of Peter Porker Spider-Ham and occasionally in a double-act with Nick Kroll

wait no

i'm writing in uncle kracker

uncle kracker can connect to the white working class

I strongly suspect, though I can't prove, that this is a fair summation of what many left-leaning liberals feel re this whole mess

The Bernie people people in my cohort basically land on “I wish he wasn’t so old and crotchety but he’s the most vocal about income inequality and Medicare for all, so.” If another candidate signals a concrete commitment to those issues I feel like he/she will eat Bernie’s lunch.

— Will Isenberg (@Wiloceraptor) December 24, 2018

add in something there about climate justice of course

How have they not gone to Elisabeth Warren already, then?

The only thing she's been visible for over the last while (iirc) was that DNA fracas we'd all rather forget about, but I wouldn't rule out her eating into his base if they both run and she never ever brings it up again

I like his oldness and crochety-ness honestly.

And the new york accent. He seems more like someone I’d know irl—like a friend of my uncle’s or something.

I am disappointed he's not more religious tbh

I felt bad about how people piled on to attack her over the dna test since it was well meaning but there’s something to be said for not letting your adversary define the terms of the debate. Makes me think a lot of people question her instincts re:optics because of it.

I agree with that. Idk how she'll handle it if Trump opens up a copy of Pow Wow Chow at a rally (assuming he can read)

the DNA test thing was a misstep, but obviously not something that will prevent any reasonable person from voting for her on its own. I thought this masha gessen essay was the best thing I'd read about it at the time: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/elizabeth-warren-falls-for-trumps-trap-and-promotes-insidious-ideas-about-race-and-dna

I'll take "Whoever" plz. Not looking forward to a high-drama Dem primary because I think the policy implications aren't that different no matter who it is and I dread all my liberal/lefty friends squaring off in a purity-vs-realism contest and know I will vote for them regardless, probably even if they are revealed as an actual lizard person.

fwiw I have voted for the likes of Bill Bradley and Barack Obama in presidential primaries

any reasonable person

Insert quote from Adlai Stevenson about needing a majority here

fwiw I have voted for the likes of Bill Bradley and Barack Obama in presidential primaries

Me too. I voted for Dean in '04. I voted for Nader in '00. I can be swayed by appeals to socialism, populism, protest, and just plain competence, depending on the circumstances. I have no idea who I might vote for in the 2020 primary, but I mostly fear self-defeating rhetoric about how this or that candidate is too much this or not enough that. The bottom line is you get at best to choose between D and R -- disappointment and revulsion -- and I will vote for disappointment no matter who's carrying that banner.

the primaries are all about choosing the best disappointment to vote for tho, a separate conversation than the general

I suspect that the wag who thinks the DNA affair matters is also a person who wishes Tim Russert still lived.

DNA affair was really egregious, stupid, and offensive imo

and could have been avoided if Warren had talked to some Native Americans? or been even minimally au fait with the discourse around identity and tribal citizenship

As NP said, only "important" for what it says about her judgment

She shouldn’t have risen to trump’s bait, or played into the noxious idea that affirmative action is something people are exploiting. She was one of the most highly regarded law professors in america—the idea she was ever a “diversity hire” was just gross and nonsense. As always the appropriate response to trump on this matter would have been to say “fuck off.”

I’d still vote for her in a primary though

Everybody in my Texas Latino holiday households is asking the political relative what he thinks of Beto

I think I accidentally talked myself into being fine with Harris while explaining her to my Stepmom

I'm leaning Harris as well

oh HELL yeah

CNBC reports Mike Bloomberg is willing to spend 00 million+ if he runs for president: https://t.co/OuSa9Wbl6I

— andrew kaczynski (@KFILE) December 27, 2018

that's 100 million, thx weird ILX formatting

Michael Bloomberg can go take a flying leap.

was gonna say, it's a real coincidence because i, also am prepared to spend 00 million on my candidacy

I will spend one dollar and win

double oh million *sips martini*

he's gonna do great:
https://gawker.com/5979679/id-do-her-a-brief-history-of-michael-bloombergs-public-sexism

chait on sanders/beto

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/bernie-sanders-beto-orourke-feud-2020-campaign-democratic.html

it's gonna get ugly

still baffled by the Beto buzz just don't see it even remotely likely that he could win the nomination

chait on sanders/beto

pass

People think likability will be the most determinant factor in the sense that it will be the thing that makes someone impervious to the smears any candidate who faces the GOP is going to have to deal with. He had some viral moments in his Senate race, did way better than people expected so there’s some optimism there. There’s truth to that but he’s not Obama.

Would be funny if neither Biden, Bernie or Beto end up actually running.

I don't want a goddamn viral moment for president, I want someone who makes good policy!

I am not the majority of voters, of course

the Beto buzz came from his fundraising power. the buzzers aren't factoring in the power of cruz-hatred in that equation.

xp
i can understand the buzz: he's handsome, young, has an at the drive in connection, is good at fundraising, and showed that he could do well in purple/red states. ideologically sits in the center of the democratic party (near pelosi). obama likes him.

I don't want a goddamn viral moment for president, I want someone who makes good policy!

I am not the majority of voters, of course

basically this

haha fair enough

pelosi is not at the center of the democratic party tbh xp

lol are you going to argue that she's to the right

no she's definitely towards the left!

https://voteview.com/person/15448/nancy-pelosi
https://voteview.com/person/21361/beto-o-rourke

He’ll obviously be running on good policy in the primary. Whether he runs well on it is another story

i am struggling to find the primary sources for this beto buzz. the only stuff i've seen is people meta-arguing about the possibility, and how he compares to bernie from the point of view of the extremely online. there doesn't seem to be a big constituency for him.

this is good though. he should run again for tx senate.

pic.twitter.com/XONeh8HUf1

— Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) December 28, 2018

he should run again for tx senate.

otm. he has a decent chance in TX and otherwise it's a gimme for the republicans. at worst he makes them spend a hundred million defeating him.

Fun to watch (not here) obvious concern trolls poison the well for Beto, Harris, and Warren among the "far left" and everybody just swallows it like a bunch of chumps

By this time next year they're going to have my propaganda-vulnerable friend talking about how the democratic front-runner--whoever it ends up being--is just as bad as Trump, like he did in 2016

Beto O'Woke

This article makes me think Warren has lost already: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-sen-elizabeth-warren-is-courting-black-voters-and-their-leaders-as-her-expected-2020-presidential-announcement-nears/

And I like Warren a lot. Policy wise by far my favorite candidate. But yeah. She'll make a good cabinet member?

She should stay in the Senate, get in line for a leadership position imo

^^^

she could be maj leader imo

Isn't she too new in the senate to get that far in the line for any kind of leadership position?

p sure she could stab schumer

Bring back vicious beatings on the senate floor

Isn't she too new in the senate to get that far in the line for any kind of leadership position?

Senate committees are run purely on the basis of seniority. Party leadership positions in the Senate, e.g. majority whip, are elected within the party caucus. Any senator capable of attracting wide support may occupy those positions.

Yeah relationships and events and the makeup of the caucus are significant factors, in addition to seniority

see how easy that was, Richard?

Even with the Affordable Care Act, our health care system still needs fixing. There are nearly 30 million Americans who still don’t have health insurance and plenty more who have insurance but can’t actually afford the rising cost of health care. We need #MedicareForAll.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) December 30, 2018

Richard?

Richard Harris obv, a better actor sometimes than a legislator

bernie needs to drop out to save the discourse

(richard = beto btw)

that's...beto is short for roberto

Huh, I thought it was short for Francis.

I believe I have noted in several places that I am a dumbass.

Even if you got the name right, probably better to avoid the “it’s not his government name!” Cruz campaign line entirely.

Not to say that overall the point you were making wasn’t valid

beto pronounced as heyo

beto pronounced as heyo and always accompanied by a blast of an air horn

Warren announced this morning. Well, announced that she's formed a committee, but that's just a formality.

I can't remember where, but I said months ago she'd be the only candidate to announce before January 1st, so where do I collect my winnings?

wherever you read Trump's tax returns

Rachel Maddow’s show, iirc

elizabeth warren would be an excellent president. i'm not sure how strong of a candidate she will be. i'll support either her or bernie.

she's a great Senator and a bad general election candidate imo, Hillary 2.0 persona-wise. By which I mean America isn't gonna go en masse for the angry schoolmarm schtick, even if her policy stances are generally leagues better than Hillary's.

My worry about Warren is that a lot of her positions require explanations that won't neatly fit into soundbytes and when you have the nightly news trying to cut them down, on top of Trump interrupting her every five seconds with something insane, the message won't be accurately delivered.

yeah well that is a problem with all the candidates

i'm not supporting a candidate on the basis of what i think the american voter would like. mostly because i don't understand anything about how they think about anything. i don't find warren to be an "angry schoolmarm," she strikes me as an accomplished law professor and a strong advocate for economic justice in the senate.

Yeah, me reading "angry schoolmarm" here or anywhere else gets a huge eyeroll. People who take issue with her tone were never going to vote for her anyway.

my point exactly

to be clear I'm just evaluating her electoral prospects to the best of my ability, not making a judgment about whether or not she would be a good president. (I'm sure she would and of course I would vote for her)

i don't have a perception of what would play with the electorate. to me, trump seems like a clown from the circus but he had mass appeal

maybe people actually do desire a strict "schoolmarm" subconsciously but hillary wasn't the right one

who can say?

i don't have a perception of what would play with the electorate. to me, trump seems like a clown from the circus but he had mass appeal

Trump had appeal to just enough bitter, rage-addicted assholes in three normally-otherwise-inconsequential states to squeak into the White House. He has never, ever had majority public support, and he never will. People keep confusing the fact that he's president due to Electoral College fuckery with the totally fictional idea that "Americans like Donald Trump and anyone who wants to unseat him must appeal to and win over his voters." Trump supporters are not average Americans and should not be taken as any kind of electoral baseline. They are a weird, creepy cult that miraculously (for them)/horrifyingly (for everyone else) scored one big victory, and have notched L after L on the local and state levels ever since. Will Elizabeth Warren appeal to average Americans? Who can say? I think maybe, yeah. The real question - the only question that matters - is, will enough average normal Americans turn up in November 2020 to overpower the Trump death cultists at the polls.

yeah i agree with that

i still think 40% of america is mass appeal. i doubt i'd pull in those kinds of approval numbers if i polled everyone who had ever met me

will enough average normal Americans turn up in November 2020 to overpower the Trump death cultists at the polls

I would guess no, she is not going to drive the necessary record turnout from African Americans, latinos, and young people that will be necessary to overcome the deathcult's electoral advantages