Oh it's already considerably worse than that. This is, basically, the '16 Trump coalition: White Nationalists (a small group when carved out from any overlapping group) Christian Nationalist/Dominionists (in terms of who actually votes, about a third of active voters, though not but 15% or so of all eligible voters - some overlap with the first group) SUPER-loyal Republicans - "yellow dog" or whatever. Would vote for a Republican if God himself were the Democrat nominee. Habitual Republicans and Republican leaners who couldn't conceive of voting for, of all people, Hilary Clinton A bunch of unaffiliated folks who cast a "what the hell" vote - which is to say that they said to themselves "we've been voting all our lives and our shit ain't getting better so, what the hell, lets try something completely different" And all that still added up to a minority of votes, a significant minority of all votes cast. That last group is probably already gone completely - because this shit surely isn't working (Trump crowing about the stock market or unemployment doesn't move you when you're still stuck in a job with no wage growth in decades) The next-to-last group has to be smaller and Clinton isn't there to motivate them to overlook his flaws anymore. Both these could essentially evaporate altogether in terms of any significant impact on the totals. What that leaves him with is AT BEST 40% of the vote, possibly less. That's now, before the recession hits. Those other groups will never vote Dem but who knows how many of them stay home?
So, Warren's exploratory committee site is thoroughly devoid of details (or even broad strokes of solutions - it's very Sanders in that way, a laundry list of complaints rather than ideas), but reading through her various Wikipedia pages, notably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Elizabeth_Warren , I'm struck at how not-progressive she appears to be compared to her typical portrayals. I don't think she's even so far left as FDR, except for her gradually-increasing support for single-payer healthcare, and certainly not much more so. I don't like her stances on trade. They're quite Trumpian, if Trump had a modicum of self-restraint. She's a perfectionist, and not shy about using tariffs. I really don't like her stance on guns. Social issues she's okay. She's against gambling, has a B from NORML. She's fairly open-borders, which is good. She has the most market-based approach to climate change of any expected candidate who isn't suggesting "do nothing". Indeed, it's almost naïve, and frankly, I have doubts that it would do enough to curb GHG emissions. I expect her to get attacked from the left here, like a lot. She's got the old progressive anti-science bugbear with strong support for GMO labeling. At least she's not an antivaxxer though.
in some respects she seems to be trying to balance her interest in reforms with an obsessive effort to say "no but I'm truly a capitalist" in order to - I guess? - disarm charges of being a secret socialist. No candidate is going to be exactly where I want them on every single point, but I'm pretty satisfied with my choice for now.
The Bernie wing will reject any candidate who's willing to do what it takes to win. They'd rather go down in a blaze of ideologically pure glory.
I've heard some credible speculation that Bernie support has cratered and he MIGHT be mulling a face-saving way to not run rather than to run and be irrelevant. Nothing would change the dynamic of the race early on more than one or both of the OWGs to bow out.
The reason Bernie ran last time was that the Occupy Wallstreet movement told him that they'd back him if he ran. If they indicate that they're not going to be offering him their support this time (yes, they're still around), then he might not make a second go of it.
Kirsten Gillibrand is going to Iowa next weekend. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/10/gillibrand-iowa-2020-1096639
Tulsi Gabbard is running. The Bernie Bots love her. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/11/tulsi-gabbard-2020-president-run-1098629
How can she claim to be part Indian and be against gambling.? On the upside she published a cookbook- Pow Wow Chow Seriously. Though I must say I still have reservations...
You're either joking, or you're an idiot who believes there's some inherited trait...like Southerners marrying their cousins. With you, it's hard to tell.
Really? There are snarky comments made by members here about the residents of my state all the time in this forum. Have you been one of those to make such comments? And any reasonable person could see that my comment linking Indians and gambling was meant to be sarcastic.
No. Next time put a or j/k after it so we know you're kidding. Or just let it alone. We've already got @oldfella1962 to make the dumb jokes.
I think this well and truly takes up Sanders' lane. Plus, he owes her for 2016 and he needs a face-saving exit. This is the opportunity and only arrogance would prevent him from taking it. Gabbard, though she has apparently reversed course, was awfully strident against gays 15-20 years ago and she'll get a lot of pressure to prove she's sincere now. It complicates her path some.
Julian Castro made his expected announcement today - I don't see his lane. Kamala Harris is supposedly announcing on MLK Day Gillibrand is getting into the field and should be close. She'll need things to break just right too.
Same. As one of my coworkers and I were discussing today, if O'Rourke gets into the race he and Castro would kind of cancel each other out. I think it was someone here who suggested it, but Castro would've been better off challenging Cornyn's senate seat than running for president IMHO. I'm not convinced he could win it, but I think he could certainly give him a scare.
There's some talk that the Democrats' chances of retaking the Senate could be hampered by people would would be extremely strong Senate candidates launching quixotic long-shot bids for the presidential nomination instead. For instance, no one but John Hickenlooper thinks John Hickenlooper might become president. But he seems more interested in chasing that idea than in challenging Cory Gardner, a bid that would have a pretty good chance of success. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/10/2020-elections-senate-presidential-1093341
I believe it was Nate Silver who said that there's an obvious path for long shots to toy with a presidential run for most of 2019 then, if not confident, shift those resources to a Senate or Governor run in the fall. I had thought specifically about Hickenlooper but Gardner is, IMO, in serious danger so that makes a great example. (as an earl guess, I figure in the Senate that Collins and Jones are both obvious loses unless something weird happens so they wash out. That leaves Dems needing 3, with Gardner the most vulnerable. I like Stacy Abrams if she takes a shot at Purdue in GA as having a reasonable chance, and after that there's could-be toss-ups Tillis in NC, McSally in AZ, and Ernst in IA....and long shot chances at replacing retiring Roberts in KS (if some fool like Kobach set it up), and beating Cornyn in TX (if Castro diverts) I can see them reaching a tie in a good year and if the momentum remains strongly away from Trump (which I think it will) wining a majority.
