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

[Mr. Morden]

Tim Ryan says he plans to visit both Iowa and New Hampshire again "in the coming weeks":

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/rep-tim-ryan-is-heading-to-iowa-and-new-hampshire-as-he

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

O’Rourke to headline a rally at the border on Monday:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/429232-orourke-to-headline-counter-trump-rally-at-border

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More on this here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/beto-orourke-speech-trump-rally-texas-2020-campaign-announcement-a8771746.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Zaybay]

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.

[Alabama_Indy10]

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.

I could have told you that.

[Skye]

https://twitter.com/chelsea_janes/status/1094652609036718080

Well, at least we know she's not gonna have the problems Martha Coakley did.

[Harlow]

https://twitter.com/chelsea_janes/status/1094652609036718080

Well, at least we know she's not gonna have the problems Martha Coakley did.

Such a boring logo compared to the mock-up found in a DC cafe.

[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.

[Heebie Jeebie]

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.

Obama won because he opposed the invasion of Iraq from the start, while HRC and Edwards initially supported the invasion.  It's remarkable how this pivotal detail has gone down the memory hole.  Obama was right on the central issue of the 2008 primaries, and the others were wrong.  There's no similar dividing line in the 2020 primaries.

[Zaybay]

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?".

[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.

[Big Boy Beto]

Beto's rally is today. I think this is a trial run for a presidential campaign, I doubt he'd announce it before the Oprah interview airs.

[gottsu]

He's a little late.

[bilaps]

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

[Mr. Morden]

Moulton confirms that he's still thinking about a presidential run, says he'll be considering it over the "next couple of months":

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/lissandravilla/seth-moulton-considering-2020-presidential-campaign

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Spiffy]

https://twitter.com/shanegoldmacher/status/1094811332438908928?s=21

Good, it’s definitely one of the dumbest attacks out there.

[136or142]

1.Hasn't Jay Inslee already announced that he's running for President?

2.These people expressed an interest at some points, but haven't said anything since:  Bill De Blasio, Bob Casey and John Kerry.  Are they still interested?

3.Others seemed very interested at one point, but seemed to have gone off the radar:  John Hickenlooper, Jeff Merkley and Eric Holder.  Are they still interested?

[Torrain]

https://twitter.com/shanegoldmacher/status/1094811332438908928?s=21

Good, it’s definitely one of the dumbest attacks out there.

Yeah, just from a tactical perspective it makes sense to address it, and take control of the narrative. If Gillibrand can convince caucus/primary voters that it reflects her commitment to women's issues, and her work on stamping out sexual misconduct, then it dovetails perfectly with her overall message.

[Roll Roons]

1.Hasn't Jay Inslee already announced that he's running for President?

2.These people expressed an interest at some points, but haven't said anything since:  Bill De Blasio, Bob Casey and John Kerry.  Are they still interested?

3.Others seemed very interested at one point, but seemed to have gone off the radar:  John Hickenlooper, Jeff Merkley and Eric Holder.  Are they still interested?

1. Not officially yet, but he's visiting IA and NH a ton. This report says he's going to jump in sometime in the next few weeks: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/06/washington-gov-jay-inslee-nears-decision-on-2020-presidential-run.html

2. Casey ruled himself out. I don't think the other two are likely to run. Kerry had his chance in 2004, and Bloomberg is acting more like a candidate than De Blasio at this point.

3. Hick is definitely still interested. He's been traveling a bunch to the early states, and will reportedly decide soon. Not sure about Merkley, but his lane is already occupied by Warren and potentially Bernie. Holder is a joke and would get absolutely nowhere.

[136or142]

1.Hasn't Jay Inslee already announced that he's running for President?

2.These people expressed an interest at some points, but haven't said anything since:  Bill De Blasio, Bob Casey and John Kerry.  Are they still interested?

3.Others seemed very interested at one point, but seemed to have gone off the radar:  John Hickenlooper, Jeff Merkley and Eric Holder.  Are they still interested?

1. Not officially yet, but he's visiting IA and NH a ton. This report says he's going to jump in sometime in the next few weeks: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/06/washington-gov-jay-inslee-nears-decision-on-2020-presidential-run.html

2. Casey ruled himself out. I don't think the other two are likely to run. Kerry had his chance in 2004, and Bloomberg is acting more like a candidate than De Blasio at this point.

3. Hick is definitely still interested. He's been traveling a bunch to the early states, and will reportedly decide soon. Not sure about Merkley, but his lane is already occupied by Warren and potentially Bernie. Holder is a joke and would get absolutely nowhere.

Thanks for the information!

[Mr. Morden]

1.Hasn't Jay Inslee already announced that he's running for President?

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Casey already said he’s not running.  Kerry gave a “I’m not planning on it, but I never take anything off the table” type answer a few weeks ago.  de Blasio stopped talking about a run at some point in 2018, but he just started talking about it again a few weeks ago.  He says he’s thinking about it, but has no decision timeline at the moment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hickenlooper is super active, and has already done multiple early primary state visits this month.  He says he’ll decide by the end of this month.

Merkley has been less active recently, and hasn’t given any substantive updates on his plans since about four weeks ago, when he was sounding pessimistic about being able to raise enough $ to launch a national campaign, so I doubt he’ll run.  But he hasn’t closed the door yet, and says he’ll decide in March.

Holder dropped off the radar completely after the midterms, but he’s giving a speech in Iowa tomorrow, so maybe he’ll give us more info then.

[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.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

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.

Note the momentum boosts that Harris got after her announcement. Current poll numbers didn’t dissuade Klobuchar.

[136or142]

1.Hasn't Jay Inslee already announced that he's running for President?

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Casey already said he’s not running.  Kerry gave a “I’m not planning on it, but I never take anything off the table” type answer a few weeks ago.  de Blasio stopped talking about a run at some point in 2018, but he just started talking about it again a few weeks ago.  He says he’s thinking about it, but has no decision timeline at the moment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hickenlooper is super active, and has already done multiple early primary state visits this month.  He says he’ll decide by the end of this month.

Merkley has been less active recently, and hasn’t given any substantive updates on his plans since about four weeks ago, when he was sounding pessimistic about being able to raise enough $ to launch a national campaign, so I doubt he’ll run.  But he hasn’t closed the door yet, and says he’ll decide in March.

Holder dropped off the radar completely after the midterms, but he’s giving a speech in Iowa tomorrow, so maybe he’ll give us more info then.

Thanks for the information!

[History505]

https://nypost.com/2019/02/11/de-blasio-heading-to-new-hampshire-amid-rumblings-of-2020-run/
De Blasio is going to New Hampshire on Friday.

[Mr. Morden]

Holder planning to make a decision on 2020 within the next two weeks:

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/12/677956774/former-attorney-general-eric-holder-close-to-2020-decision-as-he-heads-to-iowa

NH Democrats say that Swalwell has been in the hunt for a state director in that state:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/12/eric-swalwell-iowa-2020-presidential-bid-1164559

He now gives a “before April” decision timeline:

You must be logged in to read this quote.