Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 27, 2017, 06:57:43 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 1278
101  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: May 16, 2017, 02:02:06 pm

Some good reporting there, with some real behind-the-scenes news on Sanders-world.  They say that some of the other potential 2020 candidates are already talking with their aides about what a presidential campaign would look like (despite publicly claiming that they’re only thinking about their current jobs), while Sanders is not having those conversations as of yet:

Quote
But at a time other — and far less famous — potential 2020 contenders are speaking with operatives about what their campaigns might look like and gathering allies by raising money for colleagues, Sanders' push is far more oriented toward defining Democrats' message in public.

Also:

Quote
He’s frustrating alumni of his 2016 campaign, some of whom would like him to run again, by showing no interest in raising early money or locking down lower level staff — moves they say would indicate he recognizes the need for a different kind of campaign operation in 2020. Outside of his tighter-than-ever inner circle, friends and staffers who’d be happy to back him again say they rarely, if ever, speak to Sanders these days.

Sanders hasn’t made any decision, and he tends to dismiss the discussion about 2020 as dumb. He hasn't even fully committed to running for re-election to the Senate next year.
.
.
.
Staffers and aides are willing to give him time, for now. But they worry that Sanders won’t decide until too late for many of them to be able to go to other campaigns if he sits 2020 out, and that frustrates them. They worry that he hasn’t processed what really running again would entail, and is convinced it would be lightning in a bottle again.

I realize all of this must sound strange to people who take at face value politicians’ words about “It’s too early to think about the next presidential election”, but this is the sort of thing that is actually happening behind closed doors: 2020 presidential candidates are already talking to people in their political orbit about how to run their presidential campaigns, and political operatives are already looking for landing spots with one of the candidates.  And more than that, people close to some of the potential candidates are already annoyed that their potential boss in the 2020 campaign hasn’t already made up his mind to run….even though we’re (likely) a good ~18 months away from anyone even setting up an exploratory committee.
102  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Center for American Progress Ideas Conference 9am-4pm **live commentary thread** on: May 16, 2017, 01:32:36 pm
OK, Kamala Harris is a pretty good speaker.  Her speech was more substantive than partisan (focusing on drug sentencing), but I think she could pull off putting up partisan red meat when appropriate.

Warren's speech had more partisan red meat than all of the others combined, with Gillibrand in second place on that front.  (No surprise in either case there.)  Have only listened to the very beginning of Bullock's speech, and I don't think McAuliffe or Booker have spoken yet.
103  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: PPP-National: Trump getting Blanched on: May 16, 2017, 01:06:32 pm
10% of Trump voters would now prefer Hillary Clinton as president:


104  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Center for American Progress Ideas Conference 9am-4pm **live commentary thread** on: May 16, 2017, 12:47:07 pm
OK, lunchtime for me, so I'm catching up on some of these speeches.  Just started Warren's speech, and she's looking down at her notes quite a bit, which I guess means that there's no teleprompter in the room.  I should go back to some of the other speeches to see if anyone else was relying on their notes very much.  I think Harris did to an extent as well, but with Warren it's more obvious because her head goes up and down with much greater frequency.
105  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Center for American Progress Ideas Conference 9am-4pm **live commentary thread** on: May 16, 2017, 11:35:56 am
Oh, and Klobuchar had what she herself jokingly referred to as a "Marco Rubio moment", in that she had to stop mid-sentence to get a drink of water.   Tongue
106  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Center for American Progress Ideas Conference 9am-4pm **live commentary thread** on: May 16, 2017, 11:31:23 am
I watched Garcetti’s speech this morning, and it seemed mostly apolitical, barely mentioning Trump or the Republican Party.  Like the sort of speech you would expect from a tech company executive about how automation and globalization are creating new challenges, and we have to rise to the occasion to meet them.  Direct quote: “[People] want to hear less about winning arguments, and more about getting results.”  He did mention fighting Trumpcare though.

Not sure if all of the speeches are like that.  Is anyone serving up red meat, like a Ted Cruz CPAC speech?  I watched part of Klobuchar’s interview thing, and it was similarly not very partisan, but in that case she was being interviewed, so at the mercy of what the interviewer wanted to talk about.
107  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: PPP-National: Trump getting Blanched on: May 16, 2017, 10:25:37 am
Here’s a fun crosstab…

fav/unfav % of James Comey, by 2016 presidential vote:

Gary Johnson voters: 27/15% for +12%
Hillary Clinton voters: 35/30% for +5%
Jill Stein voters: 20/34% for -14%
Donald Trump voters: 14/55% for -41%

I wonder what that crosstab would have looked like if the poll had been taken a week earlier.
108  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: PPP-National: Trump getting Blanched on: May 16, 2017, 10:20:36 am
fav/unfav %:
The Rock 36/13% for +23%
Trump 40/54% for -14%
Comey 24/40% for -16%
Russia 10/68% for -58%
Putin 8/73% for -65%

Crosstabs on the GE matchups…

Biden vs. Trump:
men: Biden +4
women: Biden +22
white: Biden +1
black: Biden +72
Hispanic: Biden +22
age 18-29: Biden +23
age 30-45: Biden +10
age 46-65: Biden +19
age 65+: Biden +4

Booker vs. Trump:
men: Booker +1
women: Booker +12
white: Trump +5
black: Booker +54
Hispanic: Booker +30
age 18-29: Booker +29
age 30-45: Booker +4
age 46-65: Booker +7
age 65+: Trump +4

Franken vs. Trump:
men: Franken +2
women: Franken +11
white: Trump +8
black: Franken +58
Hispanic: Franken +49
age 18-29: Franken +39
age 30-45: Franken +4
age 46-65: Franken +10
age 65+: Trump +8

Sanders vs. Trump:
men: Sanders +3
women: Sanders +23
white: tie
black: Sanders +68
Hispanic: Sanders +42
age 18-29: Sanders +32
age 30-45: Sanders +9
age 46-65: Sanders +16
age 65+: Sanders +3

Warren vs. Trump:
men: Warren +1
women: Warren +16
white: Trump +4
black: Warren +55
Hispanic: Warren +38
age 18-29: Warren +38
age 30-45: Warren +2
age 46-65: Warren +11
age 65+: Trump +1

Johnson vs. Trump:
men: Trump +3
women: Johnson +13
white: Trump +4
black: Johnson +58
Hispanic: Johnson +9
age 18-29: Johnson +25
age 30-45: Johnson +8
age 46-65: Johnson +7
age 65+: Trump +7

Interesting that Biden is strongest among both whites and blacks, but weaker than the other Dems among Hispanics.  Though that’s a small sample size, so might just be MoE.
109  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: PPP-National: Trump getting Blanched on: May 16, 2017, 09:55:24 am
Also...

Who would you rather have as president right now?

Hillary Clinton 49%
Donald Trump 41%

Barack Obama 55%
Donald Trump 39%
110  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Center for American Progress Ideas Conference 9am-4pm **live commentary thread** on: May 16, 2017, 09:31:49 am
Btw, looks like this is airing on C-Span 3.
111  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Will the Democratic ticket ever be two white men again? on: May 16, 2017, 08:04:35 am
It *probably* won't happen again for a while.  I do see one plausible scenario for an all-white male ticket in 2020 though: If Bernie Sanders runs and wins the nomination, he's probably less likely than most of the others to weigh identity politics as a consideration in his veep pick, and (because he's old and has to consider the possibility that he won't make it through his full term) would most likely pick someone who's ideologically aligned with him and has ample experience to take over as president, if necessary.  Not sure who that would be, but Sherrod Brown is one possibility.
112  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Center for American Progress Ideas Conference 9am-4pm **live commentary thread** on: May 16, 2017, 07:28:46 am
Apparently, this is what the room looks like:


113  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Center for American Progress Ideas Conference 9am-4pm **live commentary thread** on: May 16, 2017, 05:55:51 am
Also, not surprised that there is only one Pro-Israel (by my definition) speaker at a CAP event, and that's Elizabeth Warren.

Huh?  How is Warren as far to the right on Israel as Booker, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar?  Warren said nothing on UN Security Council Resolution 2334, while both Booker and Gillibrand were quite critical.  Booker, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar are all among the 78 Senators co-sponsoring Rubio’s resolution that condemns the UN action, while Warren is not:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-resolution/6/cosponsors

Booker, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar were all among the Senators who signed on to a letter urging Kerry to use US aid to the Palestinian Authority as a lever to block them from joining the International Criminal Court, while Warren did not.  Booker, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar also signed on to a resolution in support of Israel’s actions in Operation Protective Edge, which Warren also did not do:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/1/30/1361281/-75-Senators-Sign-Letter-to-Kerry-Defending-Israeli-War-Crimes-Demanding-More-Palestinian-Suffering

Finally, Warren was one of only 8 Senators to boycott Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, which Booker, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar all attended.

Warren took the more “dovish” line on all of the above, and the only other Senators to agree with her in in every single one of those cases were Leahy and Sanders.  She seems to be one of the least hawkish Senators on Israel.


In my opinion, Warren was, and personally still is, quite hawkish on Israel, but turned dovish to pander to the far left base.

I agree that she shifted to the left on Israel over time, but I don’t think she’s “hawkish in her heart”, or anything like that.  I think she just doesn’t care about foreign policy at all, and gives boilerplate responses on foreign policy questions, Israel included.  Her past “hawkish” comments on Israel are the same things that virtually every other Democratic Senator says on the subject: She supports a 2-state solution, opposes unilateral moves by the Palestinians to join the UN, and defends “Israel’s right to defend itself”, etc.  Does that count as being “quite hawkish” on Israel?  Maybe, but that’s where virtually every other Democratic Senator is too.  By that standard, more than 95% of the Senate is “quite hawkish” on Israel.

What’s happened over time is that, because the people she’s aligned with on domestic policy are largely to the left of every Democratic Senator on Israel, she’s shifted to a new set of boilerplate responses on the issue.  But I wouldn’t assume that she actually has any deeply felt sentiments on it one way or the other.  By all indications, foreign policy ranks at the bottom of issues that she spends time thinking about.
114  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Center for American Progress Ideas Conference 9am-4pm **live commentary thread** on: May 16, 2017, 05:23:09 am
Weigel has a short preview of the event here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/05/15/possible-2020-democratic-presidential-hopefuls-gather-for-progressive-ideas-conference/?utm_term=.e8ff4eea3abb
115  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Center for American Progress Ideas Conference 9am-4pm **live commentary thread** on: May 16, 2017, 04:46:53 am
Also, not surprised that there is only one Pro-Israel (by my definition) speaker at a CAP event, and that's Elizabeth Warren.

Huh?  How is Warren as far to the right on Israel as Booker, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar?  Warren said nothing on UN Security Council Resolution 2334, while both Booker and Gillibrand were quite critical.  Booker, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar are all among the 78 Senators co-sponsoring Rubio’s resolution that condemns the UN action, while Warren is not:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-resolution/6/cosponsors

Booker, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar were all among the Senators who signed on to a letter urging Kerry to use US aid to the Palestinian Authority as a lever to block them from joining the International Criminal Court, while Warren did not.  Booker, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar also signed on to a resolution in support of Israel’s actions in Operation Protective Edge, which Warren also did not do:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/1/30/1361281/-75-Senators-Sign-Letter-to-Kerry-Defending-Israeli-War-Crimes-Demanding-More-Palestinian-Suffering

Finally, Warren was one of only 8 Senators to boycott Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, which Booker, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar all attended.

Warren took the more “dovish” line on all of the above, and the only other Senators to agree with her in in every single one of those cases were Leahy and Sanders.  She seems to be one of the least hawkish Senators on Israel.
116  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Center for American Progress Ideas Conference **live commentary thread** on: May 15, 2017, 10:05:07 pm
I am not going to make a habit of doing this, but since Dave ignores all of my pleas for him to take away my mod powers, I'm going to use them to sticky this thread for the next ~24 hours or so.  If any of the actual 2020 board mods object, feel free to un-sticky it, and I won't complain.

The first "cattle call" of the 2020 race is tomorrow starting at 9am ET, so feel free to discuss it here.  Live video stream is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_oSwXIufMA
117  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Sasse on Late Night with Seth Meyers on: May 15, 2017, 09:05:19 pm
After having made a couple of non-denials of interest in running for president in 2020:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=233345.msg5637819#msg5637819
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=233345.msg5651026#msg5651026

Ben Sasse will appear tonight on “Late Night with Seth Meyers”:

http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/Scoop-LATE-NIGHT-WITH-SETH-MEYERS-on-NBC-20170515
118  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which currently unknown candidates will be known in two years, and how? on: May 15, 2017, 04:41:44 pm
OK, I re-wrote the subject line of this thread, because I think this question of how candidates break through in media coverage is more interesting than the initial question I posed.
119  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which Dem. candidates are most likely to end up in the undercard debates? on: May 15, 2017, 04:09:12 pm

The 2020 Democratic field doesn’t really look like that, at least going by the people who are 1) younger than 75 years old, and 2) dropping the most hints of interest.  Assume for a minute that Biden’s and Sanders’s ages prevent them from running, and that Al Franken sticks by his Shermanesque denial and also doesn’t run.  Who else is out there who would have >50% name recognition right now?  Warren and maybe Booker?  The average voter has no idea who Kirsten Gillibrand is, let alone Julian Castro, Amy Klobuchar, or Seth Moulton.  So if you were to take a national poll right now, and weren’t including Biden, Sanders, Clinton, or Oprah Winfrey, then what is the order of the remaining candidates?  Warren in front for sure, and then maybe Booker a distant second, and beyond that a crapshoot, because most people don’t know who these candidates are.  (O’Malley might actually not do that bad if most of the other names are unknowns.  At least a few folks will remember O’Malley from his campaign last year.)  So if you were to do this national polling to determine debate qualification right now, the results would seem pretty random, based in no small part on whose name sounds nice.


This is what's gonna make 2020 a tough race for Democrats. Their bench, as it stands, is severely lacking. A lot of people will point to Clinton in 92', Obama in 2008, etc. but the Democrats had 12 and 8 years of a GOP Presidency to field strong candidates in midterm years that swung against the GOP during their WH durations and created strong fields in 1992 and 2008.

Right now there isn't a strong field, and 2018 might see a strong backlash to the GOP but many candidates don't run after only two years in office.

I don't actually agree with your framing of it though.  I don't consider it a "weak bench" in the sense that it's filled with candidates who would struggle in a general election.  Many of these folks would do fine in a general election if they were actually nominated.  Name recognition is irrelevant in the general election, because if you actually manage to win a major party nomination, then everyone will know who you are.


This is contingent on many factors that we can't necessarily predict now. But the far reaching negative effects of a Trump or Pence administration will take years to be felt. Barack Obama left a fairly strong country in place when he left office, and the positive effects of his administration is what will be felt for the next few years.

OK?  I'm not sure what that has to do with what I was talking about.  If you're saying that we don't know exactly who is going to be a good candidate and who isn't, then I agree.  The solution to that is to have a primary race, and let them fight it out.  But what I'm saying is that otherwise good candidates might be winnowed out of the process too early because of the arbitrary whims of media oxygen, and arbitrary cutoffs in the number of candidates allowed at a debate.  At a certain level, that's true in every primary race, but it seems like things might go awry and otherwise "good" candidates might get left out if you have an enormous field of candidates and insist on winnowing people out just a month or two after the race gets started.


I don't necessarily agree with this. If you're unable set up a campaign operation that can draw media attention and work the Democratic Party nominating process to your advantage then your campaign is ultimately going to struggle in the general election. Media attention and working with people within the Party are both crucially important in setting your campaign up for success against your general election opponent and a candidate that cannot do at least one or both is dead on arrival in November.

Well, OK, I disagree with that.  I think much of what goes into determining who gets national media coverage (especially in the very early stages of a campaign, more than six months before anyone is voting in the primaries) is beyond the control of the candidates themselves.  Or to the extent that they do control it, it’s done in large part by saying or doing outrageous things.  Which certainly *could* be a skill that’s useful in a general election campaign, but it’s hardly the only thing that matters.

But what is your (or anyone else who wants to comment) take on how politicians manage to break through on the national stage and become well known well *before* they run for president?  E.g., how did Christie, Cruz, and Rubio do it last time around, and what does that say about which of the currently anonymous 2020 Dems is going to be able to break through and achieve respectable levels of name recognition within the next two years?

Is it by leading some big, controversial initiative in Congress (like forcing a government shutdown)?  Is it by being demographically interesting (Kamala Harris, while not well known nationally right now, could become more well known in two years if the media is fascinated by a female presidential candidate with her ethnic background)?  Is it by attracting enough donors to put up strong fundraising numbers in the first quarter of your campaign, so that the media takes you seriously?  Or something else entirely?
120  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: May 15, 2017, 02:39:53 pm


They are starting the clock too late.  Smiley  Since the 2016 election?  Pffft.  We’ve been tracking these things in this thread since March 2016.  I would not ignore activity from before the ’16 election.  The fact that, for example, Booker, Castro, and Klobuchar (among others) were meeting with early primary state delegations at last year’s DNC is certainly relevant to assessing their presidential ambitions.  There’s also the question of who you bother to include in such lists.  E.g., Russ Feingold also did an event in Iowa this year, so maybe he should be included.  I mean, if you’re counting Van Jones, then why not Feingold?

Also, “included in polls” is rather different from an early primary state visit, as the latter is something that the candidate does on his/her own initiative, while the latter is just a reflection of media consensus on who is going to run.  And the media doesn’t really pay enough attention to the race to be trusted to come up with a smart consensus.
121  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: May 15, 2017, 02:30:11 pm
Sasse gives a 2020 denial that’s far short of being Shermanesque:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/15/james-comey-fired-ben-sasse-reacts-238391

Quote
Asked at the end of the interview if he would consider mounting a primary challenge against the president in 2020, Sasse, who has been one of the GOP’s more willing critics of Trump, replied that “I’ve got the only two jobs I want: Raising three little kids and serving Nebraskans” but stopped short of outright denying a run.
122  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Center for American Progress Ideas Conference on May 16 on: May 15, 2017, 02:12:11 pm
OK, here’s the final agenda, which I think is identical to the tentative agenda that I already posted:

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2017/03/09082832/2017-CAP-Ideas-Conference-agenda1.pdf

9am hour: opening keynote by Eric Garcetti, followed by Economic Policy panel which includes Jeff Merkley

10am hour: Roy Cooper, Susan Rice, Amy Klobuchar, Nancy Pelosi

11am hour: Kirsten Gillibrand, National Security and Russia panel which includes Chris Murphy and Adam Schiff

12pm hour: lunch keynote by Elizabeth Warren

1pm hour: Steve Bullock, Tom Steyer, “The Resistance” panel

2:20pm: Khizr Khan, followed by Terry McAuliffe

3pm hour: Civil Rights and Democracy panel which includes Keith Ellison and Jason Kander, followed by closing keynote by Cory Booker

Conference closes at 4pm.

I don’t know if any of this will be covered by C-Span, but it’ll at least stream on Youtube here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_oSwXIufMA
123  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which Dem. candidates are most likely to end up in the undercard debates? on: May 14, 2017, 10:47:54 pm

The 2020 Democratic field doesn’t really look like that, at least going by the people who are 1) younger than 75 years old, and 2) dropping the most hints of interest.  Assume for a minute that Biden’s and Sanders’s ages prevent them from running, and that Al Franken sticks by his Shermanesque denial and also doesn’t run.  Who else is out there who would have >50% name recognition right now?  Warren and maybe Booker?  The average voter has no idea who Kirsten Gillibrand is, let alone Julian Castro, Amy Klobuchar, or Seth Moulton.  So if you were to take a national poll right now, and weren’t including Biden, Sanders, Clinton, or Oprah Winfrey, then what is the order of the remaining candidates?  Warren in front for sure, and then maybe Booker a distant second, and beyond that a crapshoot, because most people don’t know who these candidates are.  (O’Malley might actually not do that bad if most of the other names are unknowns.  At least a few folks will remember O’Malley from his campaign last year.)  So if you were to do this national polling to determine debate qualification right now, the results would seem pretty random, based in no small part on whose name sounds nice.


This is what's gonna make 2020 a tough race for Democrats. Their bench, as it stands, is severely lacking. A lot of people will point to Clinton in 92', Obama in 2008, etc. but the Democrats had 12 and 8 years of a GOP Presidency to field strong candidates in midterm years that swung against the GOP during their WH durations and created strong fields in 1992 and 2008.

Right now there isn't a strong field, and 2018 might see a strong backlash to the GOP but many candidates don't run after only two years in office.

I don't actually agree with your framing of it though.  I don't consider it a "weak bench" in the sense that it's filled with candidates who would struggle in a general election.  Many of these folks would do fine in a general election if they were actually nominated.  Name recognition is irrelevant in the general election, because if you actually manage to win a major party nomination, then everyone will know who you are.


This is contingent on many factors that we can't necessarily predict now. But the far reaching negative effects of a Trump or Pence administration will take years to be felt. Barack Obama left a fairly strong country in place when he left office, and the positive effects of his administration is what will be felt for the next few years.

OK?  I'm not sure what that has to do with what I was talking about.  If you're saying that we don't know exactly who is going to be a good candidate and who isn't, then I agree.  The solution to that is to have a primary race, and let them fight it out.  But what I'm saying is that otherwise good candidates might be winnowed out of the process too early because of the arbitrary whims of media oxygen, and arbitrary cutoffs in the number of candidates allowed at a debate.  At a certain level, that's true in every primary race, but it seems like things might go awry and otherwise "good" candidates might get left out if you have an enormous field of candidates and insist on winnowing people out just a month or two after the race gets started.
124  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which Dem. candidates are most likely to end up in the undercard debates? on: May 14, 2017, 10:35:15 pm

The 2020 Democratic field doesn’t really look like that, at least going by the people who are 1) younger than 75 years old, and 2) dropping the most hints of interest.  Assume for a minute that Biden’s and Sanders’s ages prevent them from running, and that Al Franken sticks by his Shermanesque denial and also doesn’t run.  Who else is out there who would have >50% name recognition right now?  Warren and maybe Booker?  The average voter has no idea who Kirsten Gillibrand is, let alone Julian Castro, Amy Klobuchar, or Seth Moulton.  So if you were to take a national poll right now, and weren’t including Biden, Sanders, Clinton, or Oprah Winfrey, then what is the order of the remaining candidates?  Warren in front for sure, and then maybe Booker a distant second, and beyond that a crapshoot, because most people don’t know who these candidates are.  (O’Malley might actually not do that bad if most of the other names are unknowns.  At least a few folks will remember O’Malley from his campaign last year.)  So if you were to do this national polling to determine debate qualification right now, the results would seem pretty random, based in no small part on whose name sounds nice.


This is what's gonna make 2020 a tough race for Democrats. Their bench, as it stands, is severely lacking. A lot of people will point to Clinton in 92', Obama in 2008, etc. but the Democrats had 12 and 8 years of a GOP Presidency to field strong candidates in midterm years that swung against the GOP during their WH durations and created strong fields in 1992 and 2008.

Right now there isn't a strong field, and 2018 might see a strong backlash to the GOP but many candidates don't run after only two years in office.

I don't actually agree with your framing of it though.  I don't consider it a "weak bench" in the sense that it's filled with candidates who would struggle in a general election.  Many of these folks would do fine in a general election if they were actually nominated.  Name recognition is irrelevant in the general election, because if you actually manage to win a major party nomination, then everyone will know who you are.

What I'm talking about instead is the field being filled with candidates who may or may not be good (let's see them run before passing judgment), yet are starting out with very low name recognition, who thus face the prospect of being winnowed out of contention as early as August or September 2019 because they haven't (yet) managed to gain a high enough profile to qualify for the debates.  They might be perfectly capable of performing well in said debates, but if the field is huge and the networks won't allow everyone to debate (or they push the "lower tier" candidates to a secondary debate that no one watches), then candidates might be winnowed out on the basis of polls being taken just a couple of months after candidates declare their candidacy, six months before anyone actually votes.
125  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of threads that spontaneously turn into referendums on the Clintons? on: May 14, 2017, 10:16:04 pm
I would like to turn this thread into a referendum on the Clintons strictly for the sake of irony.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 1278


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines