2020 Elections

[GoCubsGo]

Democrats uneasy about potential Howard Schultz bid

Democrats should be uneasy about this and any other potential independent run. Why would anyone want to do anything to jeopardize getting Dufus out of the Whitehouse??!!

[Vrede too]

... Why would anyone want to do anything to jeopardize getting Dufus out of the Whitehouse??!!

Devil's advocate: Because the Democratic Party has failed us, too. If enough people shun the Dems to hand the election to POSPOTUS or another Repug, that's the Democratic Party's failing.

Not Devil's advocate, just me: For now, the Dems need to worry more about how to run an already crowded primary field without damaging the brand.

[O Really]

I wouldn't mind a system where more than two parties have a chance, but that's not what we've got. Statisticians have argued on both sides as to whether Nader gave the election to Bush, and (with less disagreement) whether Perot helped Clinton's chances, but the fact is, a third-party or independent candidate nogonnaever win the Presidency with or without the Electoral College. They're going to suck votes from somebody and have a high risk of a minority-choice candidate win (again).

We could have a system where, if there are more than two candidates, everybody gets to vote for first and second choice, like the plan that Maine put in last election. Under such a scenario, a person who votes for Shultz as a first choice is likely to vote for the Dem as a second choice. Then, if nobody gets a majority and they have to count second choices, it's likely the Dem would still win. (Or whoever the majority picks combo 1st and 2nd)

[Vrede too]

Howard Schultz is on 60 Minutes announcing his independent run right this minute.

I will vote for any Dem vs POSPOTUS.
There have been and possibly could be some Dems that I would not vote for vs different Repugs. That's when I go 3rd party. This has become less likely the more wingnutty the Repugs have become.
I have no interest in yet another politically inexperienced billionaire.

[O Really]

He didn't actually announce. He discussed the possibility, but didn't commit. Did sound a lot like candidate-talk, though. He distorted the majority-Dem position on health care, though. He said he thought that everybody had a right to access to quality care, but disagrees with Dems who want everyone to get free healthcare. Healthcare paid through taxes is not free. Healthcare paid mostly through taxes but with additional contribution (like Medicare) is not free. Maybe he mis-spoke, in a rookie error. But if he really thinks that what "single-payer" or "Medicare for All" means, then he lost some major points from me.

[Vrede too]

He didn't actually announce. He discussed the possibility, but didn't commit. Did sound a lot like candidate-talk, though. He distorted the majority-Dem position on health care, though. He said he thought that everybody had a right to access to quality care, but disagrees with Dems who want everyone to get free healthcare. Healthcare paid through taxes is not free. Healthcare paid mostly through taxes but with additional contribution (like Medicare) is not free. Maybe he mis-spoke, in a rookie error. But if he really thinks that what "single-payer" or "Medicare for All" means, then he lost some major points from me.

I noticed that and disapproved, too.

[Vrede too]

Castro will benefit from early access to Latino support.
(Kirsten Gillibrand will) benefit from early access to NY media and money.
Warren's got the national name recognition and many of the progressives.
Harris has early access to CA media and money, blacks and, for whatever it's worth, Asian Indians and maybe Canadians.
Unless she's very dynamic, I think Gabbard is already SOoL. Maybe she's just hoping to enhance her standing.

Niche appeal may not win the nomination, but it will help winnow the field.

Cory Booker launches his presidential campaign with a call for America to 'rise'

He's got some national name recognition, will take blacks from Harris, and will take some NY media and money from Gillibrand. Lotta lib/progs, could open the door for a moderate.

[Vrede too]

Bet on Beto? Bongs for Beto?

Idk. He seems great, but I get a little nervous when someone appears out of nowhere and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. I'll sure give him a look, though. Coming as close as he did, IN TEXAS, sure speaks to his potential electability nationwide....

Beto O’Rourke sees stock fall

[Vrede too]

Amy Klobuchar Announces 2020 Presidential Run

She's got the Midwest niche at present, for whatever that's worth. Not sure what else. She's got feminist cred, but that means little with so many women already running. I heard on a different forum from a former supporter that she's rated as being rotten to staff, but don't know if it's true.

2016 was easy for me, Bernie! all the way. This time I may go deep into the attrition to see which progressive has the best shot.

[O Really]

We'll see who's still around when primaries actually start, and who makes it through the first round or so. Since there are 7 primaries before they get around to Florida, I don't see much point in getting excited over somebody that won't make the cut anyway. Besides, we'll be back in BC for much of the actual campaign season. I can say nobody on the list so far is very exciting, except that none of them are Trump.

[GoCubsGo]

Waaay to soon for me, I'll start paying a little attention during debate season in the fall but it'll be behind leaf peeping and NFL football .

[O Really]

Experience of Presidents:
Trump: nothing relevent
Obama: legal, political activitism, state house, one-term Senate
Little Bush: Governor of Texas, son of Bush the Elder
Clinton: legal, Governor of Arkansas, political career
Bush the Elder: military pilot, lifelong career government, CIA head, VP
Reagan: Governor of California, head of Screen Actors Guild, actor
Carter: USNA, Engineer, family business, Governor of Georgia
Nixon: legal, USNavy, federal service, House, Senate, VP

Depending on your criteria, you could rank these guys in more than one way best-worst. And some of them were affected as much by circumstances as by their own efforts, but in general, you'd have to say that the ones who worked hard at political careers and prepared for higher office did a better job with what they had than the others. That would include Nixon (absent Watergate), Clinton, Bush the Elder, and Obama. And then you look at Reagan, who really didn't do a very good job, but was well-liked because of his ability to play the role of President, and Carter, who actually did do pretty well with what he had to work with, but was run out unceremoniously after one term. And Little Bush, who let the Cheney's of his world run the place into the ground.

So it seems a good candidate would have to be attractive/charismatic and likable, and it would be good to have had some relevant experience with good results, and they need to be a fresh face, but someone who has the credibility to pick up name recognition quickly. If Beto had won his Senate race, he'd be a fairly decent fit, but he didn't. We don't need another white geezer, no matter how likable Bernie or Joe might be, and blatantly sexist as it sounds, we don't need another unlikable female, no matter how qualified.

There's got to be better candidates willing to run.

[Vrede too]

Beto might be great, but looking at your objective criteria he has no mgmt. experience, political or otherwise.

... There's got to be better candidates willing to run.

I know it's too early to pick, but you can't imagine getting enthusiatic about one or more of the Dem candidates? I'm hopeful about several.

[O Really]

Yeah, Beto is a lightweight with only his couple of terms in the House to really count. That's why IMNVHO he had to win his sharply uphill Senate race to get into the field. But he can draw and fire up a crowd, get enthusiasm from youngish people, Hispanics, and those who don't want "more of the same." Too bad about the otherwise lack of cred.

[O Really]

Beto might be great, but looking at your objective criteria he has no mgmt. experience, political or otherwise.

... There's got to be better candidates willing to run.

I know it's too early to pick, but you can't imagine getting enthusiatic about one or more of the Dem candidates? I'm hopeful about several.

If I had to pick out of the current bunch, I guess I'd take Harris.

[Vrede too]

If I had to pick out of the current bunch, I guess I'd take Harris.

Representing 40 million people is a powerful starting point, and CA just moved its presidential primary election up to March 3, 2020.

[Vrede too]

Amy Klobuchar Announces 2020 Presidential Run

She's got the Midwest niche at present, for whatever that's worth. Not sure what else. She's got feminist cred, but that means little with so many women already running. I heard on a different forum from a former supporter that she's rated as being rotten to staff, but don't know if it's true....

Apparently at least some truth.

Amy Klobuchar, latest presidential candidate, faces questions about temperament, treatment of staff

On the day she announced her intention to run for the presidency of the United States at a rally in Minneapolis, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., faced intense headwinds in the form of reports that she has been routinely demeaning to employees in her Washington office....

While some of those who worked for her remain ferociously supportive of the senior senator from Minnesota, others allege that her record of mistreating and even abusing staff makes her as unfit for office as the man she is trying to replace.

A number of former staffers — both male and female — describe a workplace environment governed by fear and dread, one in which Klobuchar treated her Capitol Hill staffers with cruelty and humiliation, while fixating on seemingly minor issues. A minor mistake in an internal document, for example, could lead to a “multi-day affair,” one former staffer said. Like other Klobuchar alumni, she described haranguing late-night phone calls and critical emails written in all caps, sometimes sent in quick succession....

Klobuchar has one of the highest rates of staff turnover in Congress, according to congressional research site LegiStorm. Last year, that led to Politico calling her one of “the worst bosses” in Congress. And though Klobuchar’s alleged mistreatment has been an open secret in Washington for years, it had also gone largely unmentioned in press reports. That changed last week, when HuffPost — which, like Yahoo News, is part of Verizon Media —published a report that said that Klobuchar’s reputation had hindered her in hiring a campaign manager.

A subsequent HuffPost report said that Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., then the chamber’s minority leader, rebuked Klobuchar for her behavior in 2015. This appears to not have been the first effort by Klobuchar’s colleagues to change her behavior, though details of an earlier such intervention were not available....

BuzzFeed has also reported in recent days on what the news site described as “a workplace controlled by fear, anger, and shame.” ...

Lots more, including some positive reviews, but you get the picture.

[Vrede too]

The Latest: Warren says Trump may not be 'free' in 2020

Could certainly be, but what I really want to know is the story behind this pic:

[O Really]

Re: Klobuchar - yes, exactly what we need is another my-way-or-highway, I-know-everything-you-know-nothing, blame-shifting, asshole for President. Of all the skills necessary for the job, "managing other people" is high on the list.

[Vrede too]

If you were running for federal office in 2020 -
1. What issue would be most important to you?
2. What issue do you think would give you the best odds of winning?

'Beating Trump/Repubs' doesn't count since we can't know who will be running and it's boring.

Mine, but try to come up with your own first:

Spoiler:

1. A restoring democracy package - ending Citizens United, corporate personhood, partisan gerrymandering and voter suppression.
2. Healthcare/Medicare for all.