The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread

[McGovernForPrez]

Warren continues crapping on Obama.

Trying to ingratiate herself with the Sanders wing that she """""betrayed""""" by endorsing the party's nominee in 2016.

Also bringing up legitimate grievances with President Obama's legitimate lack of leadership on these issues but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Huh? Obama has already hinted that he wants to get rid of gerrymandering, improve civic participation, and to get money out of politics.

He's already made great strides.

But he took Cantor Fitzgerald's money which means he is evil and part of the cabal that is ruining our democracy despite his actions that prove otherwise

Seriously, I maintain that Cantor Fitzgerald wanted to talk to the guy who killed Bin Laden considering the entire firm was nearly taken out on 9/11 and that Obama should get paid for spending his valuable time speaking with them.

Is that gonna be the go to excuse now every time one of these politicians cozies up to Wall Street? Hillary Clinton made the 9/11 argument last year to justify taking money from Wall Street as well. This is getting absurd.

We're gonna get our asses handed to us again in 2018 and 2020 until Democrats stop being the soft Party of the rich.

For Christ's sake.

Immediately following 9/11, corporate firms were exploring moving their headquarters to rural areas so that they wouldn't get decimated in a terrorist attack. Who's gonna attack East Bumblefuck Montana?

So employees of these firms wanted to continue living in New York City and did not want to move to East Bumblefuck. So when Hillary fought against these companies moving to East Bumblefuck (because if they left the economy of the city, already in bad condition following the attacks, would've collapsed), the employees of those firms appreciated it.

She laid an egg in the debate by not explaining it. But that is what happened. Do I know why Obama's speaking at Cantor Fitzgerald? No. But I do know 9/11 impacted these firms*. And politicians' reactions and actions in the aftermath impacted the people who work for them. To act like they didn't isn't telling the whole story.

*Especially Cantor Fitzgerald. They lost 68% of the workforce on 9/11, including the CEO's brother. Almost 700 employees in all. You don't have to like their business, but they were impacted by 9/11, and do have an interest in Barack Obama other than his fiscal policies.

Warren continues crapping on Obama.

Trying to ingratiate herself with the Sanders wing that she """""betrayed""""" by endorsing the party's nominee in 2016.

I'll never forget the "we trusted you" chants.

Disgusting. Sanders was not owed her support. Apparently the two don't even get along very well, and Warren strikes me as a much more pragmatic politician.

Well, no, she didn't "owe" Sanders her support, or anything like that. Endorsing Hillary Clinton in the primary is still a huge indictment on her character, though.

Stop revising history. She endorsed after Hillary had already won the nomination. She said throughout the primary she was going to endorse her party's nominee. She did. To hold that against her is ridiculously asinine.

It's just a terrible move optically for Obama to do. The fact that any politician gets speech money after being in office is horrible. The revolving door is a real issue in our democracy. Obviously Obama isn't solely responsible for all of this, and his speech was probably harmless, but does it make him look a little hypocritical? Yes. If he wanted to do the speech it would've been wiser to do it for free. He has a giant book deal that'll make him millions of dollars anyway.

[McGovernForPrez]

http://freebeacon.com/politics/report-de-blasio-potentially-running-2020-presidential-election/

Apparently Bill De Blasio is considering a presidential run if he wins by a big margin in the NYC mayor race.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I could see myself voting for De Blasio in a primary. He's a cool dude.

[McGovernForPrez]

Boston Globe story on Warren's religious life is stirring significant talk of her presidential ambitions. https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/09/02/religion-constant-part-warren-life/ndGztmfK5veAGMI6A4OKEI/story.html

Wow. This really paints Warren in a new light for me. If she were to use that side of her more I think she'd be more relate-able to the broader electorate. If Trump remains unpopular with the Evangelical community I could see her peeling off some voters from him there.

[McGovernForPrez]

I'm kind of interested in Warren as the nominee now. I don't know. I think she's a good match to take on the President one on one. She won't have to tip toe nearly as much as the 2016 nominee because all he can do is call her Pocahontas.

I think it helps to make her angry rhetoric more pallatable. Her allows her to tap into a softer warmer side that she'll desperately need to win. I think it'll help combat the sexism she'll be facing. I wasn't a big fan of her running despite liking her positions, but I might've changed my mind.

[McGovernForPrez]

I'm kind of interested in Warren as the nominee now. I don't know. I think she's a good match to take on the President one on one. She won't have to tip toe nearly as much as the 2016 nominee because all he can do is call her Pocahontas.

I think it helps to make her angry rhetoric more pallatable. Her allows her to tap into a softer warmer side that she'll desperately need to win. I think it'll help combat the sexism she'll be facing. I wasn't a big fan of her running despite liking her positions, but I might've changed my mind.

Oh yeah. She'll lose because the whole country is sexist

Not saying it'll be her only problem but it could easily knock off a few points from her.

[McGovernForPrez]

Middle America is sexist. A plurality of America did vote for the most qualified candidate, regardless of genitals.

They're not sexist. They just don't like Hillary Rotten Clinton.

When I referred to sexism I really wasn't trying to say Hillary lost solely because of it. My real point is that it subconsciously contributed to her image problems. Warren would probably have the sexism worse because she can often come across as very "preachy".

[McGovernForPrez]

If California moves their primary up to be fifth in line (as is expected) Kamala Harris' chances of running are at least 85% and her chances of winning the nomination are going to be pretty damn high.

They're moving their primary up to Super Tuesday which won't help Kamala survive the early primaries. California also loses 20% of its delegates at the cost of moving ahead so it isn't like she'll gain that many more delegates by winning it on Super Tuesday. Primaries aren't winner take all for Dems so as long as her opponent can put up semi competitive numbers there then they're fine. My problem with seeing Kamala win the primary is that I don't see her winning one of Iowa or New Hampshire. If you don't win at least one of those I don't think you can be the nominee.

[McGovernForPrez]

If California moves their primary up to be fifth in line (as is expected) Kamala Harris' chances of running are at least 85% and her chances of winning the nomination are going to be pretty damn high.

They're moving their primary up to Super Tuesday which won't help Kamala survive the early primaries. California also loses 20% of its delegates at the cost of moving ahead so it isn't like she'll gain that many more delegates by winning it on Super Tuesday. Primaries aren't winner take all for Dems so as long as her opponent can put up semi competitive numbers there then they're fine. My problem with seeing Kamala win the primary is that I don't see her winning one of Iowa or New Hampshire. If you don't win at least one of those I don't think you can be the nominee.

Nope. California only loses its delegates if it moves up its primary before iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. And I'm pretty sure it said it will stand alone, not on Super Tuesday.

According to Morden's thread on the subject, California would be voting on Super Tuesday.

[McGovernForPrez]

Cory Booker has terrible political instincts

This is probably the reason I don't want him to be our nominee the most. His ability to navigate politics are abysmal. He constantly grandstands on politically controversial issues. He's ruined his chances with most of the strong progressive base and it isn't like he's gonna pick up swing white voters after being ardently outspoken on liberal social issues.

[McGovernForPrez]

Jeff Merkley seems to be leaning towards a run:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/19/meet-the-leader-of-the-vast-left-wing-conspiracy-215622

His main challenge now is to boost name recognition.

Wow, he's surprisingly open about wanting to run.