I'd like to see Duckworth (or Warren if she doesn't get the nomination) replace Schumer as majority leader in '21
I think that might've been true of older generations when both sides more or less agreed that they didn't care about anyone besides white dudes, but nowadays? Naw. Despite Breitbart's continued existance, it's a whole lot harder to live in a narrow bubble with social media.
Really? People of all political stripes seem to manage doing exactly that. Dems in 2020? Beto, obviously. Warren, probably. Biden, until he realizes how tired he is. Beyond that, still too early to prognosticate.
This is the complete list, literally from their own e-mail, for that MoveOn poll FF was on about in his unnecessary thread: (keep in mind that Bernie was the big winner with this group in '16) Someone Else / Don’t Know 17.89% -as I said over there, this is obviously MUCH more heavily "don't know" rather than someone else, given the comprehensive nature of the list Beto O’Rourke 15.60% Joe Biden 14.95% Bernie Sanders 13.15% Kamala Harris 10.02% Elizabeth Warren 6.42% - this is your "top tier" Sherrod Brown 2.92% Amy Klobuchar 2.75% Michael Bloomberg 2.71% Cory Booker 2.63% Joseph Kennedy III 1.90% Stacey Abrams 1.16% Kirsten Gillibrand 1.09% - these are your second tier Tulsi Gabbard 0.78% John Hickenlooper 0.71% Eric Holder 0.59% Eric Swalwell 0.54% Julián Castro 0.48% Jeff Merkley 0.42% Jay Inslee 0.38% Andrew Gillum 0.36% Mitch Landrieu 0.35% Chris Murphy 0.33% Tom Steyer 0.28% Marianne Williamson 0.26% Deval Patrick 0.24% Eric Garcetti 0.20% Richard Ojeda 0.18% Steve Bullock 0.17% Pete Buttigieg 0.12% John Delaney 0.11% Bill de Blasio 0.10% Howard Schultz 0.10% Terry McAuliffe 0.10% - not just based on MoveOn which represents only a limited segment of the Dems, but with a couple of exceptions this lot ought just stay home. I think Steve Bullock has a path as the "most moderate" if he chooses to take it. It's obvious that path won't endear you to MoveOn. That's Hickenlooper's path too but I'm sorry I can't accepted the possibility of a "Hickenlooper for President" campaign being taken seriously just on the name alone. Steyer maybe? Just by throwing tons of money at it? But him and Bloomberg ought to sort out who's going to be the billionaire in the race. Out of that Top 12, I don't think JK3 is running this time (I love him and want him to run someday but if Beto is sucking up all the "young and exciting" oxygen, wait until another day). If Abrams is smart she will pick off Sen. Perdue, IMO. Not sure if Brown is going to run and not sure Bloomberg has a real path. I think the other 8 are candidates to reckon with.
Bernie/Beto 2020 That would be a winning combination IMO Anyone concerned about Bernie’s age would at least know that Beto is there as backup. And Bernie can give Beto the political/governing experience he lacks. I also think Tulsi Gabbard should have a go at it. I don’t know about Biden. He doesn’t strike me as the guy who should be in charge. He’s a good wingman. Booker and Harris are just more corporatists like the Obamas and the Clintons. I don’t think that’s going to fly with a lot of progressives anymore.
^If the Dem ticket is two white men I'll concede and be pleased that the Dem party is not solely dependent on identity politics and "intersectionality." And that would be a good thing in the face of Dem's "women are the future" tweetsense, and the 'walk away' activity, which looks like a real thing with potential.
Says the fellow who insists Trump is a white supremacist. Heh, good one. Although you could be right about the Russia trolls, I have no reason to doubt that. Although I have heard plenty of anecdotes of anti-juice drinkers; while I've also seen Trump policies help blacks while watching Dems call themselves 'party of women.' Good luck keeping black men blinded and deaf to RL.
as Nate Silver has pointed out, Bernie and Beto are NOT in the same lane politically. Bernie wouldn't choose him. Bernie might choose Tulsi if he got the nomination but I'm betting he doesn't. I'm mildly surprised that Biden is running so strong in all the polling early, a combination of name recognition and Obama nostalgia I suppose, it will be interesting to see how it holds. Someone else mentioned that since they changed their date to early March, voters in California will be able to early-vote BEFORE the Iowa caucus. Someone might game the system by ignoring Iowa and working CA very hard early on. Here's the calendar by the way February Monday, February 3: Iowa caucuses Tuesday, February 4: New York [placeholder date, won't actually be this date] Tuesday, February 11: New Hampshire Saturday, February 22: Nevada Democratic caucuses Saturday, February 29: South Carolina primary March Tuesday, March 3: Alabama California Massachusetts North Carolina [Note on North Carolina position: Primary scheduled by former law for the Tuesday after the first South Carolina primary if the latter is before March 15. The 2015 law specifying a March 15 primary date for 2016 expired at the conclusion of the 2016 cycle, reverting to the above position.] Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia Saturday, March 7: Louisiana Tuesday, March 10: Hawaii Republican caucuses Michigan Mississippi Missouri Ohio Tuesday, March 17: Arizona Florida Illinois [2017 Illinois legislation: fourth Tuesday in June primary] Other states in March (but with no specified date): Colorado -- [Governor selects date. Can choose a Tuesday between the earliest allowed date -- March, 3, 2020 -- and the third Tuesday in March -- March 17, 2020.] Maine -- [Secretary of state selects a Tuesday in March for likely primary] [2016 Maine legislation: caucus to primary shift -- signed into law April 15, 2016] Minnesota -- [State parties agree to an alternate primary date or it is set for the first Tuesday in March] [2016 Minnesota legislation: caucus to primary shift -- signed into law May 22, 2016] April Tuesday, April 7: Wisconsin Tuesday, April 28: Connecticut Delaware Maryland Pennsylvania Rhode Island May Tuesday, May 5: Indiana Tuesday, May 12: West Virginia Tuesday, May 19: Arkansas Kentucky Oregon June Tuesday, June 2: Montana New Jersey New Mexico South Dakota Sunday, June 7: Puerto Rico (Democratic) Tuesday, June 16: Washington, DC(Democrats) -- States with no 2020 date (with 2016 date): Alaska Democratic caucuses -- March 26, 2016 Alaska Republican caucuses -- March 1, 2016 American Samoa Democratic caucuses -- March 1, 2016 Colorado caucuses (both parties) [state party can opt for first Tuesday in February date] -- March 1, 2016 [2016 Colorado legislation: caucus to primary shift -- died in committee May 10, 2016] Democrats Abroad party-run primary -- March 1, 2016 Georgia -- March 1, 2016 [Secretary of state sets primary for any date before the second Tuesday in June] Guam Democratic caucuses -- May 7, 2016 Hawaii Democratic caucuses -- March 26, 2016 [2018 Hawaii legislation: establish a second Saturday in May primary, create study committee to examine adding a presidential primary] Idaho Democratic caucuses -- March 22, 2016 [2018 Idaho Democratic State Central Committee vote: opt into state-funded primary -- June 30, 2018] Kansas Democratic caucuses -- March 5, 2016 Maine -- Democratic caucuses -- March 6, 2016 [Secretary of state selects a Tuesday in March for likely primary] [2016 Maine legislation: caucus to primary shift -- signed into law April 15, 2016] Minnesota -- both parties caucuses -- March 1, 2016 [State parties agree to a primary date or it is set for the first Tuesday in March] [2016 Minnesota legislation: caucus to primary shift -- signed into law May 22, 2016] Nebraska Democratic caucuses -- March 5, 2016 Nevada Democratic caucuses -- February 20, 2016 So if this is your more-or-less serious field: Joe Biden Bernie Sanders Beto O’Rourke Elizabeth Warren Kamala Harris Cory Booker Kirsten Gillibrand Amy Klobuchar Michael Bloomberg Sherrod Brown John Hickenlooper Tom Steyer Jeff Merkley With a few other delusional pretenders... ***Biden will have the most money and the most organization if he doesn't dither too long. Makes him strong in Iowa and NH and he does well in SC ***Bernie virtually tied HC in Iowa last time so he'll try to nail that down this time, and he did well in NH but that stands to be more competitive. He sucks in the south. ***Warren I think will largely ignore Iowa and try hard to win NH (or finish in the top 2 anyway) and will be smart enough to put a lot of her considerable resources into California (so will Biden, Bernie will count on his natural appeal). Not sure how she will run in the south but I'm skeptical. Someone needs to work the Nevada caucuses. ***O'Rourke is the wild card. He could break out anywhere but I think he'll be content to finish in the top 5 or so in Iowa and try to shock in NH. Has a chance to blow a lot of people out of the race if he has big success in CA ***Harris can only survive if she wins or nearly wins CA ***Booker would have to shock in one of Iowa/NH or log an impressive win in SC and try to leverage appeal to black voters to seep through the south on Super Tuesday. **Klobachar will try to hang around and hope for Warren and Harris to fade and try to be the woman in the room in April (kind of a Kasich plan) I don't see a path for the others. So, spitballing: Iowa- Biden, Sanders, Klobachar, O'Rourke, Warren, Booker, Harris NH- Biden, O'Rourke, Warren, Sanders, Booker, Klobachar, Harris NV- Sanders, Biden, Warren, O'Rourke, Harris, Booker, Klobachar (I would have said the caucuses would punish an outsider like Sanders but he was very strong in them in '16) SC- Booker, Biden, O'Rourke, Warren, Harris, Sanders, Klobachar (pretty much all the others have dropped by now, Harris and Klobachar are on life support) MA- Warren (big), Sanders, Biden, O'Rourke, Booker CA- O'Rourke, Biden, Harris, Warren, Sanders, Booker, Klobachar NC - Booker, Biden, O'Rourke, Warren, Sanders, Klobachar, Harris VA - Biden, O'Rourke, Warren, Sanders, Booker, Klobachar, Harris TX - O'Rourke, Biden, Warren, Booker, Sanders,Klobachar, Harris VT - Sanders, Warren, Biden TN - Biden, O'Rourke, Booker, Sanders, Warren AL - Booker, Biden, O'Rourke, Sanders OK - O'Rourke, Sanders, Biden, Warren, Booker (Harris and Klobachar run out of gas, Warren is in deep trouble, O'Rourke is building momentum. But the five person field holds for at least 2 more weeks. By March 18 you'll be down to no more than 3, and one of those 3 will be Sanders running third. Now that I parse it out, it sure looks like the Dems will play it safe with Biden or go for recreating Obama with O'Rourke - and I'f I'm right that Booker does better in the south than Harris, he'll position himself for strong consideration for VP. I still am on board with Warren but she needs to surprise somewhere before Super Tuesday and then run strong in CA or i don't see where she gains momentum. (yes I know, 10 million things can change in a year)
We all know they are in no way connected, but you know everyone involved in the whole Bay of Pigs debacle would spin in their graves if someone with the surname Castro won the White House.
I'm not sure how well that would work. Iowa and New Hampshire are all about perception of strength and momentum rather than actual votes or delegates, so a candidate who doesn't perform well there or in South Carolina will have to stage a major comeback on Super Tuesday, not just do well in California.
I would have said that at one point, but then we elected somebody with the middle name Hussein and a last name one letter removed from Osama, and those names were both a lot closer to the public consciousness than Castro's is anywhere outside of Miami ...
oh you can't ignore ALL of the first three. But Iowa - if it's obvious you aren't really trying - I think you can afford to not worry about.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, screw any official that says we shouldn't change the order of the primaries. Iowa and New Hampshire are not even close to being actual representations of the country and its ridiculous that the bigger or more diverse states have to wait so long.
O'Rourke, if he's not the nominee, is the obvious choice for VP for nearly anyone (albeit, his politics are much closer to Biden's than Bernie's) and the only real reason not to is if you feel like you need a woman or a person of color to balance your ticket. More surveys: FIRST IOWA POLL by SELZER: BIDEN 32% SANDERS 19% BETO 11% WARREN 8% HARRIS 5% BOOKER 4% BLOOMBERG 3% KLOBUCHAR 3% DELANEY 1% SHERROD 1% CASTRO 1% pretty conventional outcome... also from that one IOWA POLL: ***76%*** say MICHELLE OBAMA would add to the race for president if she ran. ***72%*** say HILLARY CLINTON would "detract" from the race if she ran. 40% say Oprah would add to the race. 17% say Howard Schultz would add to the race. Favorables in the new IOWA POLL: BIDEN 82(!)/15 BERNIE 72/22 WARREN 64/20 BETO 53/11 HARRIS 49/10 BOOKER 49/12 HRC 47/49(!) HOLDER 42/16 BLOOMBERG 40/31 KLOBUCHAR 38/8 We might be underestimating Biden.
which is probably why he's up there, far more name recognition than anyone else I could live with Uncle Joe with the right VP but I don't think it's anything like a good idea. I'd vote for Bernie if he were nominated but I'd vote for almost anyone else in the primaries to try and avoid that outcome.
As for the GOP, some of the states might not even hold primaries, so loyal are they to Der TrumpenFuhrer:
Here's a hypothetical for you: The Dems put up a Bernie/Beto ticket in '20. Nikki Haley beats out Trump in the Republican primary. So, you'd have two white dudes on the left VS an Indian-American woman on the right. How do y'all see that one shaking out in the general election?
She chose to say she wouldn't primary him - I agree it's conceivable she runs, imo would not win party nominee, good chance of beating Dems if she did. But see her as likely 2024 star.
That hypothetical will never happen, .Dems arent going to nominate a failed white male candidate and no Republican will beat Trump in the primary. But even in that crazy scenario I still say the Dems win.
Well you'd have a better scenario with Biden/Beto Bernie would more likely go with Tulsi Gabbard (whom he is tight with) Given Biden/Beto - I would argue that A. Redhats would stay home in rage if their Golden Calf wasn't the nominee B. the idea of forcing themselves to vote for a brown woman would also drive away voters (I promise you there's a strong segment of fundie religionists who will never vote for a woman for president and others, with some overlap, who'd never vote for a POC) C. she would bear the stench of having been party to the GOP scrapping and bowing to Trump which would alienate a certain portion of independents that she would need to offset the aforementioned losses. In the abstract she should make a strong candidate someday, but this time the circumstances would cut against her and I think she's politically smart enough to not try to primary PUS.
I mentioned this in a tweet to Tom Perez so if it happens I'm claiming credit. I think their first event on the calendar shouldn't be a single debate. Rather, I suggest a sport of c-pac type convention over a long weekend where the declared candidates (or those committed enough to be involved) can appear on multiple panels with the chance to present longer, more thoughtful, visions and policy positions in groups of 4-6 at a time. Moving away from the sound-bite debate format to a discussion format would make all credible candidates look better and establish the terms, as it were, of future debates. It would be a good way for the lesser known candidates to introduce themselves to interested voters.
