The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread, Part 3

[gottsu]

Booker is my Harris support backup.

[gottsu]

If you're interested I got some new information about Democratic primaries like I was posting them before:

- There was videoconference between Booker, Perez (DNC boss) and Brown, Brown still "tests the waters" about his possible run and he currently is doing some exploring in Iowa;

- That "Rust Belt Act" I was mentioning few times earlier, is currently finished in a draft version;

- Brown would choose within next few weeks who to side with to brand "Rust Belt Act" (that decision would be very important on the future of his possible campaign, the person he chooses to brand "Rust Belt Act" will be most likely his running mate or he will be that person's running mate);

- That person (my source of information) would be preferring Booker to Harris (that person calls Booker and Harris "most serious" primary candidates) because Booker is "more keen on Washington" to Kamala and he's also more consistent in his words.

[gottsu]

If you're interested I got some new information about Democratic primaries like I was posting them before:

- There was videoconference between Booker, Perez (DNC boss) and Brown, Brown still "tests the waters" about his possible run and he currently is doing some exploring in Iowa;

- That "Rust Belt Act" I was mentioning few times earlier, is currently finished in a draft version;

- Brown would choose within next few weeks who to side with to brand "Rust Belt Act" (that decision would be very important on the future of his possible campaign, the person he chooses to brand "Rust Belt Act" will be most likely his running mate or he will be that person's running mate);

- That person (my source of information) would be preferring Booker to Harris (that person calls Booker and Harris "most serious" primary candidates) because Booker is "more keen on Washington" to Kamala and he's also more consistent in his words.

Is Rust Belt Act a... bill? program? labor thing? strategy? What is the deal with it?

"Rust Belt Act" is a bill (but also a program) concerned to redevelop Rust Belt. I don't know the details, but it seems to have the same role as Harris's middle class tax breaks.

[gottsu]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/howard-schultz-internal-polling-a-bad-omen-for-democrats-worried-he-could-play-spoiler

Let they stop holding their (right-wing) breath: if Schultz will run (of course as indy, progressives wouldn't let him into Democrats) he'll be another Ross Perot. Why it's so simple to me?

[gottsu]

I meant Ross Perot as some independent candidate who doesn't have much to virtually any chances in the presidential race, and that is why I wrote above "why it is so simple to me". I am assuming that due to the leftward shift in Democratic Party as of 2019 Schultz can end like John Anderson, even worse than Perot.

[gottsu]

The Atlantic: Biden's simultaneously telling people that he's 70% likely to run, and that he's "close to saying yes".  (I don't know.  70% sounds like there's still a way to go.):

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/02/joe-biden-close-running-president-despite-doubts/581956/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's apparently told people that he's "70% there":

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't worry, the next day he'll change his mind.

[gottsu]

Biden's back and forth starts getting pathetic at this point. I know this is not an easy decision, but why not giving yourself a defnite deadline and then enforce it? Can this be so hard? Presidents have to make lots of decisions and then live with it. Come on.

Politics is also an art of procrastination, but that Biden soap opera about his run is just too much. 

[gottsu]

According to my source (I wrote a few posts like this in this thread with informations about Democratic primaries) there is some kind of infighting between Sanders and Warren about staffers, donors, money,  or simply who is better candidate of progressive wing in these primaries and whole elections and stuff.

That is not good news for progressives.

Infighting between two candidates in a primary? Well I never!

That is not good news for progressives, because they are already being fractured and their position in the whole Democratic Party had weakened a bit since 2016 in the context of presidential primaries. You see, Bernie's "five minutes of fame" have irrecoverable gone, Tulsi's campaign is in disarray, and we'll see what happens with Warren (although I am assuming that Warren will be pumped no matter what by her minions), and with knowing what I wrote above, Bernie's run will be terrible in consequences for progressives in 2020.

There is so much wrong with this.

First, I should establish the fact that Warren, Tulsi and Sanders are not the only "Progressives" in this race. In fact, the field has more Progressives than anything else. In fact, you have one of the Progressive faction's candidates in your sig.

Second of all, we already know what Sanders, Warren, and Tulsi running would look like, because we have polling of that exact subject. Sanders gets around 15%, Warren 5%, and Tulsi 1-2%. Even if Warren were to drop out and her voters were to go towards Sanders(or vice versa), the candidate would only have 22%, which puts them in second place. Biden has the race unless he screws up/doesnt run, which are very high possibilities.

Last up, its a primary. Candidates drop out. If Warren is only getting 3%, she isnt going to stay in for the whole race, same with Gillibrand, whos getting 0%, and same with Booker if he doesnt get the votes. I mean, if you want a good example, you could say that Obama entering into the 2008 primary guaranteed the win to Hillary because Obama and Edwards were splitting the vote. Well, we all know what happened.

But peoples like Warren, Gabbard or Sanders are expressly called as "progressives" and they in fact, are progressives, case with Kamala is a little bit complicated, I mean, I see her as something like a bridge between more mainstream and progressive positions within Democrats, using the European manners - Kamala is something close to being a social democrat (so do ex. Booker), while ex. Warren is a pure socialist to me.

I wouldn't be so sure if Warren would be quitting her campaign because getting low polling numbers or low primaries results - her electorate will start making another conspiracy theories like they did in 2016 with Bernie - "Bernie would have won", "Rigged primaries" and so on. You, progressives have such high presumption of yourself, that you think that whole Democratic Party have the high honor and privilege to have peoples like Bernie running in primaries within Democrats. I saw one Atlas's progressive writing such stuff not a long time ago here. That is completely absurd!

I think that the example with Obama isn't a good example. Obama was just some kind of mainstream outsider with no powerful backing like HRC or Edwards who simply won primaries and elections by posing as someone outside DC or Democratic establishment, and Warren or Bernie or Tulsi isn't going to be a "second Obama", but Kamala is going to be, because she's also black, have immigrant parents (both father and mother), and is a woman (electorate would be closer to accept woman, especially woman of color than men) and she may run a campaign similar to Obama in 2008.

I am aware that this is primary, and there is some saying that goes "don't count your chickens until they hatched", but I can also draw some conclusions from what I see now.

[gottsu]

According to my source (I wrote a few posts like this in this thread with informations about Democratic primaries) there is some kind of infighting between Sanders and Warren about staffers, donors, money,  or simply who is better candidate of progressive wing in these primaries and whole elections and stuff.

That is not good news for progressives.

Infighting between two candidates in a primary? Well I never!

That is not good news for progressives, because they are already being fractured and their position in the whole Democratic Party had weakened a bit since 2016 in the context of presidential primaries. You see, Bernie's "five minutes of fame" have irrecoverable gone, Tulsi's campaign is in disarray, and we'll see what happens with Warren (although I am assuming that Warren will be pumped no matter what by her minions), and with knowing what I wrote above, Bernie's run will be terrible in consequences for progressives in 2020.

There is so much wrong with this.

First, I should establish the fact that Warren, Tulsi and Sanders are not the only "Progressives" in this race. In fact, the field has more Progressives than anything else. In fact, you have one of the Progressive faction's candidates in your sig.

Second of all, we already know what Sanders, Warren, and Tulsi running would look like, because we have polling of that exact subject. Sanders gets around 15%, Warren 5%, and Tulsi 1-2%. Even if Warren were to drop out and her voters were to go towards Sanders(or vice versa), the candidate would only have 22%, which puts them in second place. Biden has the race unless he screws up/doesnt run, which are very high possibilities.

Last up, its a primary. Candidates drop out. If Warren is only getting 3%, she isnt going to stay in for the whole race, same with Gillibrand, whos getting 0%, and same with Booker if he doesnt get the votes. I mean, if you want a good example, you could say that Obama entering into the 2008 primary guaranteed the win to Hillary because Obama and Edwards were splitting the vote. Well, we all know what happened.

snip

I know this thread isnt meant for this kinda stuff, but.....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Almost every candidate in the race has called themselves Progressives, including Kamala, who has endorsed almost every single position that every Warren and Sanders have. To say that Kamala is a SocDem, while Warren is just a Socialist is ridiculous, especially when using the European model. Both would be considered variants of Social Democrats, as would Sanders.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These are pointless assumptions with no evidence to back it up. If Warren doesnt see a path to win, she will drop out, end of story. Even if 6 Warren fans on the internet start claiming fraud, it still doesnt matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are applying 2016 dynamics to a time when this wasnt an issue.(Jeb_Arlo nailed what was a big issue at the time) And if you want evidence of the situation that I described, just look at the primary polling.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Its pretty clear that Edwards and Obama split the vote, and when looking at 2008, it makes sense. Both Obama and Edwards were running much more populist campaigns, with Edwards focusing on Economic issues and Obama on Race issues. The two shared many campaign promises and were good friends to each other, with both of them notably going after Clinton in the debates, while leaving the other alone. When Edwards dropped out, his voters went to Obama, and, in the end, gave him the nomination.

I should also mention the fact that just because Kamala is Black doesnt mean she will be the next Obama, nor does that mean she will win the AA vote. In a way, thats pretty racist to assume. Castro is probably not going to win the Hispanic vote either.

Anyway, the Progressives arent in trouble because of a 5% voter split from Sanders, who may not run anyway. I mean, Progressives have a pretty large field to choose from. In a way, a better question is to ask "How can a moderate Democrat win?".

Everyone agrees that Democrats moved leftward in these primaries, and there is not enough room for a moderate or centrist Dem to sucessfully run in 2020, but this can change in 2024 or 2028 as well, if you know that American politics is kinda cyclical.

[gottsu]

He's a little late.

[gottsu]

It would be late if election is next month and maybe even in that case it wouldn't be.

O'Rourke slept his hype and momentum away after his Texas senate loss. Look at the polls.

[gottsu]

As much as I love Steve Bullock and I'd love for him to run, I think he'd be best suited hoping for a cabinet position in the next administration. Maybe he could do Energy or Interior.

Yeah, the next Democratic cabinet must be composed of the whole spectrum of Democrats - there must be a place also for red state Dems (like Bullock or Heitkamp), progressives, Clinton's centrists and coastal elitists.

[gottsu]

https://twitter.com/jdistaso/status/1095790544670871553?s=21

This is going to be interesting.

Don't hold your breath. He'll close his shop early. If someone from GOP wants to primary Trump it's got to be someone bigger than Weld.

[gottsu]

OK, guys, get ready for a huge update on Democratic primaries news.

As far as I know:

- At present, only Kamala, Gillibrand and Booker candidatures matter. Bernie and Warren doesn't count as they are both being engaged in a brawl (of their own fault) with DNC;

- Although doesn't leading in the polls, Booker seems to be running the most measured and deliberative campaign (electability will be the major issue in 2020, no matter what progressives would say), he's currently doing some intensive lobbying in East Coast big capital areas (Boston, NYC, Philly, DC);

- Kamala is in cahoots with Kirsten. They both formed loose-fitting campaign alliance as they are both women, both in similar age, both from coasts (Kamala from West, Gillibrand from East), but Gillibrand's campaign have no real strategy or something in a long run, she's said be to going around Harris political influence anyway;

- Bernie and Warren are publicly seen as a fellow partisan compatriots, but behind the scenes they are harshly chasing each other, and it seems that Bernie winning this race as of now;

- Biden still and still and still and still and still procrastinates. The thing is that he receives different feedback when talking to grassroots and to Democratic strategists and staffers;

- Kirmala (portmanteau of Kamala and Kirsten) openly attacked Bernie and Warren and their progressive minions for doing what they are doing within the frames of DNC, they both even wanted to bring this case to FBI or to block DNC's support for these two, but DNC boss, Perez ruled out these decisions, because these problems within Democrats could as well get to the circles close to GOP

[gottsu]

OK, guys, get ready for a huge update on Democratic primaries news:

- At present, only Kamala, Gillibrand and Booker candidatures matter. Bernie and Warren doesn't count as they are both being engaged in a brawl (of their own fault) with DNC;

- Although doesn't leading in the polls, Booker seems to be running the most measured and deliberative campaign (electability will be the major issue in 2020, no matter what progressives would say), he's currently doing some intensive lobbying in East Coast big capital areas (Boston, NYC, Philly, DC);

- Kamala is in cahoots with Kirsten. They both formed loose-fitting campaign alliance as they are both women, both in similar age, both from coasts (Kamala from West, Gillibrand from East), but Gillibrand's campaign have no real strategy or something in a long run, she's said be to going around Harris political influence anyway;

- Bernie and Warren are publicly seen as a fellow partisan compatriots, but behind the scenes they are harshly chasing each other, and it seems that Bernie winning this race as of now;

- Biden still and still and still and still and still procrastinates. The thing is that he receives different feedback when talking to grassroots and to Democratic strategists and staffers;

- Kirmala (portmanteau of Kamala and Kirsten) openly attacked Bernie and Warren and their progressive minions for doing what they are doing within the frames of DNC, they both even wanted to bring this case to FBI or to block DNC's support for these two, but DNC boss, Perez ruled out these decisions, because these problems within Democrats could as well get to the circles close to GOP

Do your sources still say that Sherrod Brown has a lock on the VP slot?

Yes, Midwestern running mate is inevitable, as DNC wants to focus especially on Ohio and Pennsylvania, I mean electorally. Please wait until May 1 when Sherrod may announce, or (that's for sure) unveil his "Rust Belt Act" redevelopment program.

What exactly are Bernie and Warren doing that is pissing off the DNC so much?

For instance, their staffs make sugarcoated reports and analyzes they are sending to DNC, to pump (falsely) the grassroots support in Sanders or Warren campaigns, and there was some kind of edit war about it in DNC internal system, that's why Kirmala was so mad about it. They must admit that they have gone too far with that.

[gottsu]

Surely there is something in this forum's TOS to justify action against posters who blatantly and repeatedly present invented rumors from their personal "sources" as facts, particularly in a more serious thread like this one?

It should also be something in this forum TOS to justify hurling such trumped-up accusations. If that is such a big burden for you, I will simply stop posting the news I have.

[gottsu]

Some of this seems off. Don’t buy the whole kirmala stuff at all with regards to warren. Warren and Harris are closer than Gillibrand and Harris and has been for years. At Trumps state of the union, they were hugging and chatting with Sherrod. Warren has endorsed Harris and they campaigned for each other repeatedly. They have a long history.  

Yes. Gillibrand seems much closer to Booker. They both tweeted each other a message of good luck when the other announced, while Kirsten brought up Harris just when an interviewer asked her about Harris.

It also doesnt make sense why the two would be working together, considering Gillibrand has 0-1% in the polls, while Harris is considered one of the frontrunners.

Im also pretty sure that Sanders and Warren do count, and that the reasoning is a load of bull.

Its obviously false information guys

Guys, if you write such things - you simply doesn't know how real politics works. That's all.

Like I said earlier, I am leaving this forum, because I don't want to be lynched by the likes of yours and end like Anthony Rendon (CA assembly speaker who refused to bring a vote on universal health care bill and was receiving death threats) in 2017.