until later. First ones out of the gate are targets.

For now, we have to deal with the midterms-- it won't be the cakewalk we would like it to be.

And it is not just policy-- it's also who can actually win.

They clearly fit into the starting lineup. I’ve also been hearing a lot of names more often than Biden and Warren.

Warren would get my vote out of the three you mention if the primaries were to be held today. I would vote for the other two in the general but hope I never have to. Still, there will be others to look at when the time comes.

Maybe most potential Presidential prospects are keeping their powder dry until after the midterms.

However, historically some laid the groundwork for their campaigns very early on.

I just wanted to know if anyone else had popped up on other people's radar.

and E Swalwell VP.

as both Schiff and Swalwell are from California. (It would be my dream team also, or perhaps Kamela Harris for the VP spot, but that doesn't solve the issue.) Historically, running mates are pulled from different states which would prove to be more diverse, rather than two from the same state where their backgrounds might be too concentrated and similar. East coast, South and Midwest would be looking for their share of representation.

Scare the racists back to their hatey holes.

This conversation cannot be had until after the midterms.

It will all depends on who is seated next January, the actions against the American people 45/140's administration will take next year, and what our beautiful blue Congress does to TRY to counter 45's sick nature.


One more thing - the National Popular Vote pact. CT just signed on. I think it's 94 more electoral votes needed . . . If a few more high electoral votes sign on -

Everything we've known about the electoral map is changed dramatically. Too many variables at play for anyone to commit AND we've GOT to stick together until AFTER the midterms.

It is really too early and from what I have read, the early front runners rarely end up as the nominee.

She's fearless, and so smart and is a real person, and not a fraud, and honest. Kate Brown is also a rising star and also like Senator Warren. I would rather see someone who hasn't run before. Sorry Biden and Bernie fans. No matter who is chosen for the Democrats is who gets my vote and support. They need to not divide the party up or they will lose.

The Party would do well to listen to her.

She's so informed. Love that she can cleave through the craziness and keep her focus.

Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!!

I just don't see Bernie joining the party.

and I'm guessing a lot of other's too.

Bernie isn't even a Democrat!!!

I don't look forward to seeing 20+ people on a primary debate stage with those who really have no chance of winning attacking those who do, so as to stand out and up their chances. Having a dozen top-tier candidates in a debate preceded by a debate of second-tier candidates isn't much better.

I certainly wouldn't liken it to a clown car like I did when that many were on the Republican primary debate stage, but it will still seem chaotic.

Harris with Sherrod Brown (or maybe Julián Castro) as VP sounds pretty good to me.

The ones I mentioned would win.

Especially at this time in history. This is no time to placate those who want Democrats to shy away from "identity politics."

Let's have more brown faces, cut all the racists loose, and move forward. I feel the right strategy is to stress the distinction between us and them. It worked for Obama.

Last edited Sat Jun 9, 2018, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)

I think 20 people will run. They will all be in the race by April and none will drop out until October. There will then be 5 withdrawals during the final quarter of the year, in October, November and December. That will leave 15 people in the race by the time the voting and caucusing starts.

So 15 people will enter the Iowa Caucuses. 3 will drop out after it is over. That means 12 people will contest the New Hampshire primary. And I think that 3 will drop out after it is over. That will leave 9 people in for the Nevada Caucuses, and, again, I think 3 will leave when it is over. 6 candidates will still be in for the South Carolina primary. And 3-4 will drop out when it is over.

I think we will be down to 2 or 3 candidates by the time Super Tuesday arrives. And so there will be 2 or 3 people in the debate (or debates, if there is more than one) between the early four contests and Super Tuesday. I hope my candidate, Tom Steyer, is one of them.

The early debates will probably be divided into two groups of candidates. The early show and the main stage, like with the GOP in 2016. Hopefully some of the debates will be on the weekends, so that the early candidates can get some coverage. But Bernie is probably going to insist on all weekday debates, since he claimed in 2016 that the weekend debates wouldn't be watched (which wasn't true). The debates will probably continue to be divided into two groups at least through New Hampshire, probably through Nevada. By South Carolina, assuming we are down to 6 candidates, everyone will be on one stage. If one or two lower tier candidates is still hanging on at that point, in spite of get 0.25 percent of the previous vote, than they might just get excluded.

I'm fairly confident we'll be down to 5 or fewer candidates before too terribly long, but I think we may start out with more than 20.

My cousin-in-law said that he thinks 40 people will enter the race. I told him that I thought it would be more like 20. I actually don't think Elizabeth Warren will run, nor do I think Terry McCauliffe will run. But we should hit 20. I can't see us dropping to 5 before we get to South Carolina, and even then I think it will be 6. But if 4 contests leaves us with 2-3 candidates then I think that is reasonable.

I am almost positive that Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are both running. And I cannot see Bernie dropping out before Super Tuesday. Biden will certainly be in through South Carolina, maybe beyond. I just hope the candidate I plan on supporting, Tom Steyer, goes the distance and wins the nomination.

You want precise? Here is my prediction as to who will run:

Bernie Sanders
Joe Biden
Tom Steyer
Kamala Harris
Cory Booker
Martin O'Malley
Kirsten Gillibrand
Amy Klobuchar
John Hickenlooper
Chris Murphy
Kathleen Sebelius
Eric Holder
Luis Gutierrez
Julian Castro
Eric Garcetti
Mitch Landrieu
John Delaney
Tim Ryan
Jason Kander
Steve Bullock

I can't see 40 people running. Maybe 25, which is absurd enough. A lot of folks are going to run who will very quickly discover they have no chance whatsoever. I just hope that they don't overshadow some of those who need to be taken more seriously.

I also worry about the likes of Tim Ryan running, as he'll promote the narrative that "identity politics" is the problem.

Like you, I don't expect Warren to run. And I don't expect the field to be down to 5 before South Carolina either.

It continues to bug me that Iowa and New Hampshire start things off, as neither state is remotely representative of our base.

They should not bet the first states to vote in the Democratic primary.

1) They are small enough that a relative unknown can meet enough citizens, and if he/she impresses enough of them do well or even win Iowa. If you feel that the powers that be, the media etc have too much power -- Iowa and NH are won by retail politics. (that does not insure a good person - Trump won the Republican NH primary)

2) I would suggest that the elections are won in the purple states. You would need a very bad nominee for VT, MA or CA to go Republican or ID, WY and Utah to go Democratic. NH makes more sense than having very blue VT replace NH - even though it is smaller. (I would argue that - if we are going to change anything - I would move totally red states back -- unless there is a landslide, they are never going to be part of our victory. )

Illinois, for instance.

is picked as the candidate.

And I hope the VP is someone who brings in lots of voters.

Tom Hanks for Vice President

Next president please!!!

He sucks media oxygen and fights. I would like a POC but we need a bulldog to beat a certain independant that runs as a democrat.

He's a lawyer who has worked on both Biden and Obama campaigns. He is a former political operative. He is a strong DEM and has proven that with his activism. He captures the media and is a bull dog. He can win.

And has never held any elected office in his life.

and have not accomplished much

She doesn't hafta resign, so, if she loses, though highly doubtful, she would simply stay in place. If she wins, she could simply appoint herself back to Supreme Court and do both jobs as a Justice and the President. So what's the problem?

As to the last point, she could not do both jobs - any more than Senator Obama, possibly immediately becoming the majority leader, could have stayed in the Senate and been President.

...the experiment of putting a totally unqualified celeb in the most important job in the world has proven to be a totally disaster. EXPERIENCE COUNTS!!!

Hell, my cat Skittles could do a better job!!

and anyone is smarter than Dotard.

Someone intelligent, articulate, quick witted, and a fighter.

So what's the problem?

He doesn’t contribute to the resources and infrastructure of the party, but he will use those resources and infrastructure to run his campaign.

for Biden but possible due to being VP during the Obama administration.

A relatively unknown (to the rest of the country) Governor often works, see Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. I'm from PA and have heard nothing but good things about him. Running mate: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (sp?), Sen. Bob Casey, Joe Kennedy III.
Our opposition will be 74 years old. PLEASE someone at least under 65!

Our Latino brothers and sisters have been left out of the spotlight for too long.

The right has overplayed its hand, a Latina/o would strike the right note. I'm just feeling it's a good time for Latinos to provide a clear and direct voice of opposition to this ridiculous regime.

And I don't care for Klobuchar. She is sponsoring legislation that puts pressure on foreign countries to open up to American adoptions, with aid cut off if they don't.

There are a lot of problems with fraud in international adoption. Guatemala was especially fraught with abuse for quite awhile.

I don't think U.S. aid should be based on a country's willingness to let us adopt from their countries.

So while moralists sit comfortably behind their keyboards in the U.S. these children live miserable lives waiting to be kicked out and thrown on the street when they are 16-18. You can find "abuse" and "fraud" everywhere if you look for it in ALL things. That is just an excuse to do nothing. Aid should be cut off and this bill should be supported.

I am not making excuses. Quite to the contrary, I am 100 percent dedicated to adoption reform, both at home and abroad. I have even deeper concerned about domestic adoption here in the United States.

When Guatemala closed off foreign adoption in their country those orphanages suddenly got less full, not more full.

He'll turn 70 soon after inauguration day.

Can you imagine a cabinet full of volatile binary-thinking ideologues like that? Unfortunately I can. Poor judgement, not Presidential.

- Gets very defensive when asked to explain how to achieve policy goals. Not Presidential.

- Does not articulate well, makes constant gaffes, which is why we waste so much time saying “What Bernie really meant to say.” Not Presidential.

- When interviewers ask tough legit questions, he walks out. Not Presidential.

- Not financially transparent. Tendency to pay his family members with the money we donated to his campaign.

- Decries dark money PACs, yet set up a dark money PAC called Our Revolution.

- Many questionable votes on gun control and other issues that are important to the Democratic base.

Sorry, he is a great Senator for Vermont. He is not presidential material.

are following Bernie's lead on many progressive issues he touted in 2016 and has continued pushing to this very day.

Bernie falls apart or gets angry and defensive when he is asked for policy specifics.

It takes more that catch phrases, substance-free press releases, and sloganeering to accomplish goals.

The other candidates are capable of delivering concrete plans. They will deliver.

I supported him in Primary 2016. However I cannot support him in 2020 for the reasons I listed in my post above.

There will be no Sanders coronation. He will be asked tough questions this time.

Bernie is a good senator for the state of Vermont. He lacks the temperament to be President.

Press won’t treat him with kid gloves like they did in 2016.. Nor will his challengers. He’ll be held accountable for his questionable votes and his lack of specific policy proposals.

“It is ok when Bernie makes a shitty vote because reasons” ain’t gonna cut it this time.

He’s going to need explain why he has accomplished very little in his long long political career.

He’s going to have to spell out exactly how he is going to acheive his policy goals, and I do not believe he is capable of doing so. He hasn’t so far, and his latest interview on CNN suggests to me he lacks understanding of the basics of healthcare policy.

Time for you to get to work explaining things away, I guess.

We’ll see a lot more of these kinds of gaffes and defensiveness ahead.

As I noted earlier, explanations like “Its ok when Bernie does it because reasons” or “What Bernie Really Meant To Say” ain’t gonna cut it in 2020.

—————————————————-

Bernie Goes Full…Trump? Blames Hillary For Russian Interference
FEB 22, 2018
https://thedailybanter.com/issues/2018/02/22/bernie-goes-full-trump-blames-hillary-for-russian-interference/

Last night, I saw this tweet, and variations of it, explode across my social media feeds:

"I did not know Russian bots were promoting my campaign."
"The real question to be asked is" why the Clinton campaign didn't do something.
— @SenSanders
Listen live
➡ https://t.co/lK28FIrEZ9
— Vermont Public Radio (@vprnet) February 21, 2018

<snip>

Bernie Sanders on Wednesday blamed Hillary Clinton for not doing more to stop the Russian attack on the last presidential election. Then his 2016 campaign manager, in an interview with POLITICO, said he’s seen no evidence to support special counsel Robert Mueller’s assertion in an indictment last week that the Russian operation had backed Sanders’ campaign.

The remarks showed Sanders, running for a third term and currently considered a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, deeply defensive in response to questions posed to him about what was laid out in the indictment. He attempted to thread a response that blasts Donald Trump for refusing to acknowledge that Russians helped his campaign — but then holds himself harmless for a nearly identical denial.

<snip>

Worse, Sanders’ claims and those of Jeff Weaver, a longtime aide to the candidate, sounded exactly like Trump’s denials:

“The factual underpinning of that in the indictment is what? Zero,” Weaver said. “I have not seen any evidence of support for Bernie Sanders.”
“Two dudes sitting in a hole somewhere support Bernie Sanders — tell me what they did to support Bernie Sanders,” Weaver added later.


Yeah…when your talking points are identical to Donald Trump’s, it’s time to rethink the life choices that led you to this moment in time.

<much more at link>

———————————————————————————-

Sanders: "Aren't most of the people who sell the drugs African American?"

The experience was a new one for Sanders. On a trip to Seattle in August 2015, Black Lives Matter activists interrupted two events in one day. The next day, in a meeting with Don't Shoot PDX, a Portland group loosely affiliated with Black Lives Matter, Sanders repeatedly answered questions by referring the activists to his campaign website. (“He said: ‘I don't know you and u don't me, so you have to read my website, you can go on [there] and see my work and judge me from that,’" one attendee recalled in a Facebook post about the meeting.)

Around that time, the candidate brought on Symone Sanders to serve as his national press secretary and one of the first black faces of his campaign. During her first week on the job, she said, she told Sanders that he had to treat racial inequality and economic inequality as “parallel issues” — a suggestion she said he ran with. “I [told him], you know, economic equality is an issue. It’s something we need to address. But for some people it doesn’t matter how much money you make, it doesn’t matter where you went to school, it doesn’t matter what your parents do. It doesn’t matter that Sandra Bland had a job and was on her way to teach for her alma mater. It doesn’t matter. None of that matters.”

By the time his campaign aides scrambled to release a detailed criminal justice platform on Aug. 9, Sanders was still struggling. In a September meeting with Campaign Zero, a movement formed out of the Ferguson protests, activists asked Sanders why, in his opinion, there were a disproportionate amount of people of color in jail for nonviolent drug offenses. Sanders, seated across the table, a yellow legal pad at hand, responded with a question of his own, according to two people present: “Aren’t most of the people who sell the drugs African American?” The candidate, whose aides froze in the moment, was quickly rebuffed: The answer, the activists told him, was no. Even confronted with figures and data to the contrary, Sanders appeared to have still struggled to grasp that he had made an error, the two people present said.



https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/bernie-sanders-revolution-needs-black-voters-to-win-but-can?utm_term=.xhp4gKb0yx#.sfdvgAbDLn

To pour out your divisive attacks on progressive leaders and Democrats, before the candidates start to announce and the DU rules tighten back up again.

Good thing we don’t have anything important coming up in the next five months eh, it’s not like uniting before the most important midterms in living memory might matter more than this playground shit that pisses off half the party and leaves us at each other’s throats while Trump and the deplorables laugh themselves silly.

Oh and spare me another novel on why your feelings are hurt because horrible Bernie said something mean one time. I care about the party winning in November and nothing else, if you’re not going to bite your tongue and contribute to that outcome then you’re as much an enemy to me as the Republicans are.

Last edited Tue Jun 12, 2018, 07:55 PM - Edit history (3)

Despite the fact we have the midterms in just a few months. You’re also doing so fully aware of the results of your actions. You know perfectly well that nothing you write is going to swing any minds, you’re just going to piss off large numbers of other Democrats and distract the narrative away from Trump and the GOP and on to internal division.

Does that make you feel proud? That you come here and drive wedges between factions of the party at a point where we need everyone laser focused on the midterms? Do you feel like your opinions are so critically important, that the fate of the party in November is less important than you being able to say exactly what you think at any given time?

This bullshit has been going on for 3 fucking years now. During the primaries it was ok, that’s the time when we’re supposed to have these conversations. But it never stopped there. We had it all through the general, with people attacking Bernie supporters at the time we needed their votes the most, and we’ve had it ever since. Every fucking day another attack thread, with 100+ replies as the same people indulge in the same boring repetitions of how terrible they think Bernie is.

It’s time to grow the fuck up. If you want to tell everyone your deep insightful thoughts about Sanders, do it the day he announces he’s running again. You won’t have long to wait, the candidates will probably announce in the first half of next year, and then you can throw all the shade you want at him. But until then, we have a fucking election to win.

I will do GOTV 2018 for the Democratic candidates in my state as I always do.

I will do enthusiastic GOTV for the Democratic nominee in 2020, no matter whether my primary choice wins or not, as I always do.

You can make up as much bullshit about me as you like. You can smear me as anti-Democratic. None of the things you are saying about me are true.

There are legit questions about Sander’s voting record, lack of financial transparency, and lack of concrete proposals. Those questions are going to be asked by the press and other candidates.

He will be vetted thoroughly this time whether you like it or not.

The sooner you grow up and face that fact, the better you’ll be able to support Bernie by responding with substance rather than baseless smears of those who have legitimate issues.

The thread was full of the normal anti-Bernie attacks, and he/she said just quietly said that they were a Democrat but that they didn’t think this was a place they could fit in because they liked the Senator.

Now think about that for a moment. A Democrat comes to the largest Democratic forum on the web and doesn’t feel like they belong here. A place where political activists are posting vital information about their local programs, and movements and GOTV efforts, and where we’re supposed to all be committed to fighting for the party.

I’m not attacking you now, I’m just asking you to think about that for a moment, and seriously question whether all this in-fighting is honestly helping the cause that you believe in.

I also believe most people here do like Bernie.

I just no longer believe he has the temperament or judgement to be President.

He is an excellent Senator for Vermont.

I really don’t know what to say about the person who felt like they didn’t belong here. I’ll note Bernie is not the only Democratic/Democratic-leaning politician who is criticized here. Everyone seems to get their time in the barrel.

Take Pelosi for example - does a hell of a job holding the Democratic caucus together, advocates for liberal/progressive ideas, speaks out strongly against Trump. She’s criticized a lot on DU.

The cause I believe in right now is electing effective leaders with proven track records who can fix this mess and advance the progressive values we all share.

All I ask is that we leave the nominee stuff until after the midterms. We have too much to lose in the run up to November.

...but we got serious work to do in 2018 first.

again and he'll know how to do it quickly. He'll repair our relationships immediately...they all know him.

No Bullshit Biden for the win.

We know that the electorate won't accept a woman (even though Hillary won the popular vote) -- especially a strong woman -- so that leaves Warren out.

We know that the electorate feels they have filled their "person of color" quota with Obama, so that leaves Kamala Harris out on two counts.

After Trump, I think the voters have soured on the "crazy haired man waving his arms in the air and shouting extreme points of view," which eliminates Sanders.

As much as I admire Schiff, I don't think he has sufficient name recognition to win. Maybe he'd make a good vice president nominee.

Avenatti is a one trick pony, and as much as I admire his legal talents, I don't think having a porn star's lawyer at the top of the ticket is the road to the White House. I'd love to see him as Secretary of State, however. I think he'd be a strong advocate for U.S. interests overseas, and would stand up to Putin, and relish the chance to do so.

Remember, voters don't like people they see as "elitists," which they define as people they perceive as smarter than they are. That's why Dubya succeeded -- despite growing up in a wealthy family and going to Ivy League schools, he was the guy you could see yourself having a beer with. It didn't help that Al Gore was tainted by the Clinton scandal, and actually won the popular vote. (What is it about Dems winning the popular vote and losing the election?)

IMHO, Biden has the best chance of winning the general election, and in the end that's what it's about. It doesn't matter if you are ideologically pure if you can't get elected.

Biden is white, male, perceived as middle class (he rides the train to work), liberal but not extremely so, experienced in both the Senate and as an active vice president. Biden can use the language of the people ("This is a big fucking deal," he told Obama when the ACA passed), people are sympathetic to a man who has lost his young son (I know, that shouldn't be a factor, but voters make decisions based on all sorts of unexplainable factors, such as Beau Biden's military service), he has a good sense of humor and doesn't take himself too seriously, and most important, he's familiar--people already know his name, his face, his voice (which is pleasant to listen to) and his generally "good guy" persona.

While my personal favorite is Elizabeth Warren, in the end it's about winning. And despite every dirty trick the GOP and Trump will throw at him, I think Biden is strong enough to win the presidency, and begin undoing all the damage that Trump will have done to the country and world by the time he leaves office.

That is, providing Obama and Holder have success undoing GOP (and Dem) gerrymandering before 2020.

with everything you mentioned except arriving at Biden as the candidate. I worry about his age and how it will affect electability. I can't believe Biden is the only white male Democrat out there who is plausibly middle-class. I'm not too worried about name recognition right now, nobody except politics geeks had heard of Clinton, Bill at this point before he got elected. The way the media works these days, two weeks after someone bursts on the scene most people can't remember a time when they didn't know that person.

I don't have a suggestion for candidate, but there's got to be more than a few out there. Of course, we may be reaching the point when, truly, no sane person would want it. For starters and just at a glance, what happened to that guy who ran against Hilary in the early primary - Martin O'Malley? He struck me as extremely viable if he could become a household name.

Look at the 24/7 coverage he got during the first campaign. This past year he has dominated every single news cycle with his outrageous antics. All it takes is an incoherent tweet and the pundits spend the whole day analyzing it.

While I agree Biden's age is a huge factor, the only Democrat I think has the name recognition to break through the Trump noise is Senator Warren. Maybe because she doesn't carry Hillary's extraordinary baggage -- the Repugs attacked her even before Bill became president -- she can overcome the unwarranted resistance the populace has toward having a woman president in the U.S. It doesn't seem to be a problem in nearly every other country in the developed world.

EW would come in for the schoolmarm thing, though that is not really bad qualification for POTUS (running a classroom might be akin to running the executive branch) the media will beat it to death and Dotard already won over an older white woman.

bully the Orange Idiot - his equal in white, male oldness and the personality and humor - I think he is the one who can go toe to toe with the Orange One and can fix the foreign relations disasters - experience on that can sell it.

he is right on this one.

...he doesn't want trump to win again any more than we do.

Adam Schiff or Eric Swallwell

But frankly, I'm just worried about reaching tomorrow with this nutcase.

...not starry eyes and lofty promises. He can pick one of those for veep...

It's downright embarrassing that we have never had a woman president...

and that is not going to happen. Unlike Republicans we actually take rules seriously and we have shame if they are violated.

It is, however, "geographically undesirable" to have such a scenario, and historically has not happened. There are Electoral College voting requirements that also hamper the likelihood of same state nominees.

[link:https://www.history.com/news/can-the-president-and-vice-president-be-from-the-same-state|

That is why the Texan Cheney said he was from Wyoming.

12th Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves

So if you can win without California, then go for it. I don't see any scenario where that would happen.

and I wouldn't advocate it. There is sound reason for candidates to be from differing sectors of the country as it appeases more of those who want their region represented.

At present, tho, California has several strong potential candidates. Of those, I like Schiff for the top spot; or, if someone else takes that nom, Schiff or Kamala Harris would do well in the VP slot. I like Swalwell for the future, maybe 2028 for him.

Elizabeth Warren would be low on my list; however, if she were to be the nominee, I would support her.

Young, energetic, experienced, charismatic, and would get the Obama coalition out.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cory-booker-real-090003827.html

When he got done speaking at the convention I said to my wife "I'm going to vote for this guy for President some day."

It is either that or rebuild the firewall of WI, MI, and PA; and it is obvious those states are not going to be fairly counted.

I wait until we have a slate of primary candidates before I answer that question. Until then, I will do as I do with every other thread like this, and send it to the trash.