Updated 5 - 14 - 19 Let's not waste any time, it's only 454 days until the Iowa Caucus Here's every name I have found so far that's been mentioned as a potential contender for the Democrats. Not REMOTELY all of these will run, some of them are nonsense but the field will surely be large. The following are broken town by the category they most readily fit into. I will refrain from comment except where it's necessary to explain something - I'll save my opinion about odds for later, but within each set they are in rough order of whom I think has the most buzz or best path Senators (current or ex) Elizabeth Warren - In. Bernie Sanders - In. Corey Booker - In. Kamala Harris - In. Kirsten Gillibrand - In. And Out. Amy Klobuchar - In. Michael Bennet - In. Governors (current or ex) Steve Bullock - In Jay Inslee - In. And Out. John Hickenlooper - In. And Out. House (or ex) Beto O'Rourke - In Tulsi Gabbard - In Eric Swalewell - In. And Out. John Delaney - In Seth Moulton - In. And Out. Tim Ryan - In. Other office holders (or ex) Julian Castro - In. Peter Buttigieg - In. Bill de Blasio - reportedly about to announce Wayne Messum - In. well known for some other reason (wealth, celebrity, etc) Marianne Williamson - In. Andrew Yang - In. Old horses that ought to stay home Joe Biden - In. ------------------------------------------------ Latest update - removed Schultz, added note re Bullock. Field seems likely to be 22, or 23 if De Blasio indulges his ego.
I was predicting that the GOP would primary Trump but that doesn't seem likely now.... Maybe after the Mueller investigation wraps, if his findings are made public? Maybe after Pelosi serves up her subpoenas?
Howard? Though a single felony conviction shouldn't be a obstacle in this day and age. As I posted elsewhere, it is my intention to support a candidate who has never run for president before.
My early choice is Warren/O'Rourke or Warren/Booker but there are 10 on my predicted list i could get some enthusiasm for, eight that i actually like. I just think Warren has laid the groundwork better than anyone but Biden. She's actually proposing some bold stuff in submitted bills, not just talk - specifics, and I think that too gives her a lot of leverage.
Warrens name is the one that pops up the most among progressive circles. That could be fun for the overt Indian racism we'll see out the Republicans as a result. Since they're operating on the one drop rule for minorities. Let's say the Democrats learned nothing from the last election. Who would be the favourite pick among party leadership?
it's preliminary but here's something Nate Silver posted 3 days ago... As a “fun,” day-after-the-election experiment, I decided to add up the total popular vote for the U.S. House in each state, based on ABC News’s tally of votes as of Wednesday afternoon. This isn’t a perfect exercise, by any means. The vote is still being counted in many states; there are a few dozen congressional districts where one of the parties (usually Republicans) didn’t nominate a candidate. I did make one adjustment for a slightly different problem, which is that Florida doesn’t bother to count votes in uncontested races, something that cost Democrats in the neighborhood of 720,000 votes off their popular-vote tally in that state.2 With those caveats aside, here’s the map you come up with if you count up the popular vote. It ought to look familiar. In fact, it’s the same exact map by which Obama defeated Mitt Romney in 2012, except with Ohio going to Republicans. It would have equated to 314 electoral votes for Democrats and 224 for the GOP. And this was 15 hours ago So here's an updated map showing House popular vote winners, mapped onto the Electoral College. Dark blue/dark red means the party won by >= 5 points, light blue/pink means it was close. Nate won't say it of course but I will - you're looking at the 2020 map here, and Georgia and NC are within reach with Texas very close - and unless the Democrats just completely fuck up, like worse that Hillary fuck up. there's not a promising path for Trump to close the gap. On the other hand, with the right revelations one could dream on flipping Texas - particularly if Beto is on the ticket somewhere (and I'll be stunned if he's not the VP choice for anyone else who wins the nomination)
This feels a lot like fantasizing. These maps look like the maps Hillary was supposed to win with. The Democrats need a convincing strategy to get back PA, MI, and WI first, and to keep MN. MN was the only state with flipped districts that gained no seats for the Dems, and WI flipped no seats (though it did not reelect Walker).
West Virginia Democrat Richard Ojeda will announce his candidacy today. Best known for breaking party ranks to vote for Trump, which he now says was a mistake. If he builds any momentum at all it will be among those convinced that the key to victory is winning back the white working class. I myself am skeptical of that approach. While there's no question Democratic policies are better for working class Americans, too many people don't vote on the basis of policy. They are voting on culture war and identity politics. You're not going to out-Trump Trump in that arena, so don't even try.
Not only that, but I don't want people out-Trumping Trump anyway. Proving you can stick a sword through your hand because your opponent pricked his with a knife is no way to run a country.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/11/12/politics/2020-rankings-democrats/index.html Pretty good assessment. Harris is at the top of my list too at this point. No nonsense, won't back down, not afraid to call BS on people who deserve it. Just not sure how well she'll play in the heartland but we shall find out.
You forgot Duwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson. I’m not kidding. People have actually been talking about this.
There's ample reason to question the authors' motives. One of them, Mark Penn, was described as a "longtime advisor" but was forced to quit her 2008 campaign under suspicion of crooked dealings. The other is a former NYC pol convicted in 2010 for his role in a Ponzi scheme. Hard to see how either one would have inside knowledge of Clinton's plans.
Going back 40 years, almost every time a party nominated an "it's their turn" candidate -- that is, somebody who lost either the primary or the general last time around, or was perceived as a "party elder" who had paid their dues -- that candidate has not been elected. Here are the "it's their turn" candidates for my entire lifetime: 1984 - Mondale 1988 - Bush 1996 - Dole 2000 - Gore 2004 - Kerry 2008 - McCain 2012 - Romney 2016 - Clinton Bush in 1988 is the only exception. Every other successful candidate was either the fresh, exciting newcomer or the incumbent. Which is a long way of saying that history does not favor a Clinton, Biden or Sanders candidacy.
the top map, save one state, IS the map from 2012 so there's every reason that it would have been the expected Clinton map. Total vote wise, the Northern Reach tier already came home and it's not hard to see it staying there. If those folks already figured out Trump wasn't what they thought they were getting in these two years - what's going to happen in the next two to bring them back to him? Witness...
here's another "this is the one" opinion piece: http://www2.philly.com/philly/colum...OEAcrdpFaX1SjPzHAYadoT11juwnsBHUa7Fucggd4c4J4 Can ‘Minnesota Nice’ trump Manhattan mean? The case for Sen. Amy Klobuchar in 2020 What happened on Tuesday across America was historic in its own right, not just because of the awesome power of women and the gains for a diverse Congress that will look more like America than ever before, but because Democratic control of the House provides a glimmer of hope that the decline of democracy under Trump can be checked. But — like it or not — the sun also rose Wednesday on the start of the 2020 presidential race. The midterm election was a learning lab for what works in today's U.S. politics — and we learned quite a bit. The opposition party showed on Tuesday that Democrats can win in the upper Rust Belt, starting at Philadelphia's City Line Avenue and spreading west all the way to Iowa and Minnesota, but it takes the right kind of candidate: Office-seekers whose belief that the goodness of a diverse and open society trumps non-stop blather about "American carnage," and a reform-minded approach to schools, health care and climate, And being a woman is a huge motivator. In so-called "flyover country," voters seem to be clamoring to replace the crudest and meanest president in American history with "Midwestern nice." If you went into the lab and ran Tuesday's algorithms to design the perfect Democrat for 2020, she would look almost exactly like Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who won a landslide re-election in her purple (in more ways than one) state on Tuesday. And guess what? Klobuchar is available. Klobuchar feels like the fulfillment of what many of us have been saying since November 9, 2016 — that the Democrat who can beat Trump in 2020 was out there hiding in plain sight amid the baggage-carrying, way-too-familiar front-runners like Joe Biden (age in January 2021: 78), Sen. Bernie Sanders (who'll be 79), and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (71 in 1/21). Just re-elected to her third term carrying all but two of Minnesota's counties, including rural ground that was won by Trump in 2016, Klobuchar is a former county prosecutor who'll be hitting the sweet spot of age 60 when the next president is sworn in. Much of what has enabled Klobuchar to fly under the radar screen for the last 12 years — a decent low-key approach, and a belief in bipartisanship that may sound naive but has helped her get more bills passed than any other current senator — is suddenly what makes her a strong foil to the orange menace at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And Klobuchar got something of a political break — even if America didn't — when she found herself facing off in the Senate Judiciary Committee with embattled jurist Brett Kavanaugh, who tried to bully the Minnesotan. When Klobuchar mentioned her father's struggles with alcohol and pressed the nominee on his own alleged drinking problem, Kavanaugh bizarrely tried to throw shade back on her, saying "I think you've probably had beers, senator," and asking her if she'd blacked out. Klobuchar responded with dignity and grace ("I have no drinking problem, Judge") while staying on course with tough questioning. The moment made Klobuchar a star, if not yet a superstar. It also raised Klobuchar’s media profile, and Tuesday she found herself on MBNBC just as millions were tuning in for the vote count. “Well, we don`t want to take anything for granted,” Klobuchar but I am wearing my purple dress for a reason besides Prince and the Vikings…this is the moment [for] the Midwest and a lot of our states that as you recognized either voted for Trump — or in Minnesota barely did Hillary win.”
Your claim requires backing before your question can be answered, and neither the Twitter thread nor the article provide it. On what basis do you say that people’s votes changed, as opposed to party-in-power-in-a-midterm-year apathy? Indeed, MN had 64% turnout (preliminary number but including absentee ballots received by Election Day), relative to 75% in 2016. Low information voters are both more likely to vote for Trump and more likely to only vote in Presidential election years. So gonna need some backing of your premise, or the answer to your question is “Mu.” It being a presidential election will bring them back.
She's also my favorite. Highly competent, a fighter, relatively fresh blood, and progressive. But let's be honest, a sassy, brown woman from California? The heartland will hate her. Perhaps adding O'Rourke to her ticket could balance that out.
Agreed.Midterms are in no way predictive of how the next general election will go. Obama and Clinton suffered far greater losses in their first midterms and still won re-election.
But there's also a partisan divide in turnout between presidential years and mid-terms that usually favors the Dems for presidential elections.
None of these people will beat Trump. You're not gonna beat Trump by running a nice guy, a wimpy soyboy. The Dems are gonna have to find someone who is willing to get down & dirty, an attack dog, someone who will punch Trump in the mouth and keep punching him. Beto couldn't even beat Cruz despite being the newly anointed liberal "rock star."
Here's a better question - other than a lust for power, why do any of these people want to be President? Do any of them possess a singular vision of what they'd want accomplish with the office of the Presidency?
I guarantee you the Democrats will take the wrong lesson from this and double down on running SJW Democratic socialist candidates and they will fail because of it.
