233 replies to this topic

[LFC]

Yeah, I think it sounds ridiculously early but potential Democratic candidates are already jockeying for position. Heaven help us but we've got two years of this until the election. Two ... f***ing years.

Quote

In the days after the midterm election, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker worked the phones with Democratic luminaries in Iowa. Montana Gov. Steve Bullock courted high-dollar donors in New York. Other Democrats openly mused about their White House ambitions on live television.

Motivated by an urgency to unseat President Donald Trump and the prospect of a historically large primary field, Democrats see little incentive to delay or downplay their 2020 presidential hopes. Their more transparent approach is upending one of Washington’s favorite “will they or won’t they” parlor games and pushed the campaign calendar up earlier than ever before.

“No one is waiting for anyone in the race to run for president,” said Jim Messina, who managed President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign. “Those days are long, long over.”

Running for president used to involve a familiar routine, with potential candidates spending months publicly demurring about their ambitions and professing to be content in their current roles. Advisers labored to keep meetings with donors and potential staff under wraps ahead of formal, carefully choreographed campaign announcements.

This time around, many Democrats believe it would be too risky to wait much longer before making their intentions known, particularly those with lower national profiles who could quickly be overshadowed by a field that could have more than two dozen candidates.

There are practicalities to consider, given the limited supply of money and top-flight staff available to run a campaign. But another driving factor is more visceral: Democrats are simply eager to take on the president.

“This is starting very fast,” said former Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue Dvorsky. She said that given the imperative to beat Trump, “it kind of needs to.”

Two long-shot Democrats have already declared their candidacy.

[pnwguy]

 LFC, on 13 November 2018 - 12:03 PM, said:

Yeah, I think it sounds ridiculously early but potential Democratic candidates are already jockeying for position. Heaven help us but we've got two years of this until the election. Two ... f***ing years.

American elections are full time employment now, both for campaign aides and political talking heads.

This is where parliamentary countries have it all over us. There is a call for elections, and something like a maximum of 90 days of campaigning allowed, with strict limitations. And it might be 4 or 5 years before that has to happen if there are no confidence challenges, based on their constitutions.

Here in the US, the media companies make OBSCENE amounts of money running political ads, so there is no reason for their owners to want to throttle the all-campaign-mode-all-the-time situation. For all of the talk about the corrupting influence of money, media companies secretly LOVE it. They are the ones who get the lions share of the moolah.

[golden_valley]

 pnwguy, on 13 November 2018 - 12:16 PM, said:

American elections are full time employment now, both for campaign aides and political talking heads.

Some day I want to see a political scientist write a paper on how professional campaign staff drives the "need" for mega money to run campaigns.

And it's far past time to create legislation limiting campaign time at the federal and state levels. Don't need all that money for a 6-8 week campaign.

[JackD]

Unfortunately for those wishing to limit campaign time, there is that pesky 1st Amendment which the Supreme Court uses to appease moneyed interests (Citizens United).

[Bact PhD]

 pnwguy, on 13 November 2018 - 12:16 PM, said:

American elections are full time employment now, both for campaign aides and political talking heads.

This is where parliamentary countries have it all over us. There is a call for elections, and something like a maximum of 90 days of campaigning allowed, with strict limitations. And it might be 4 or 5 years before that has to happen if there are no confidence challenges, based on their constitutions.

Here in the US, the media companies make OBSCENE amounts of money running political ads, so there is no reason for their owners to want to throttle the all-campaign-mode-all-the-time situation. For all of the talk about the corrupting influence of money, media companies secretly LOVE it. They are the ones who get the lions share of the moolah.

I'm not even sure the desire among Big Media is all that "secret" -- Wasn't it Moonves (when he was still at CBS) who commented that all the "Trump Says the Darndest Things" may not be "PC", but it was sure good for CBS?

[D. C. Sessions]

 LFC, on 13 November 2018 - 12:03 PM, said:

Yeah, I think it sounds ridiculously early but potential Democratic candidates are already jockeying for position. Heaven help us but we've got two years of this until the election. Two ... f***ing years.

The Trump Re-Election Campaign [1] started in January of 2017. All of those rallies since have been taxpayer-supported campaign rallies [2].

[1] Need some more letters for the backronym.
[2] Who do you think pays to have Air Force One hopping from one venue to the next?

[gmat]

I would like to see the House of Representatives campaign for the 2020 elections by sending a ton of legislation to the Senate that benefits younger, poorer, and/or not-white potential voters.

McConnel (spit) asked yesterday, Is the House going to just do investigations or does it want to work with the Senate to do policy? (I know, sin verguenza, que no?) I say they should do both.

[D. C. Sessions]

gmat, on 14 November 2018 - 08:20 AM, said:

I would like to see the House of Representatives campaign for the 2020 elections by sending a ton of legislation to the Senate that benefits younger, poorer, and/or not-white potential voters.

McConnel (spit) asked yesterday, Is the House going to just do investigations or does it want to work with the Senate to do policy? (I know, sin verguenza, que no?) I say they should do both.

What McConnell very obviously meant was that now that Democrats have won control of the House they should get busy enacting the Republican agenda.

I am reminded of one tiny detail, though. One of the first things that the Republicans did on taking control was change the House rules to essentially shut the minority out of everything. That's why the Democrats couldn't even get subpoenas or flipping access to committee materials. I'm sure that the Republicans are expecting Democrats, like the good little go-along-to-get-along doormats that Republicans want them to be, will immediately revise House rules back to how they were in 2009.

I'm dreaming of the day come January when the Speaker brings a motion to accept the current rules without change. The screaming like a gelded hog of how UNFAIR that is will be music to my ears.

[AnBr]

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s War on Gerrymandering Is Just Beginning

[LFC]

AnBr, on 14 November 2018 - 09:36 AM, said:

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s War on Gerrymandering Is Just Beginning

This SHOULD be a non-partisan issue, i.e. people who aren't completely partisan should back it to the hilt. And the more gerrymandered a state is, regardless of party in control, the higher up the attack priority they should be.

[LFC]

Things are really starting to percolate up in New England already.

Quote

Even before they announce their White House intentions, New Hampshire’s ambitious neighbors are in the midst of a shadow campaign to shape the nation’s first presidential primary election of the 2020 season.

Democrats on the ground expect a rush of presidential announcements soon after New Year’s. That could include as many as five high-profile candidates from neighboring states, a historically large contingent of New Englanders led by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Both have quietly begun courting potential staff, top activists and elected officials.

At the same time, outsiders like New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker are fighting for a foothold in the state, which will hold tremendous power in the selection of the next Democratic presidential nominee.

He has not publicly declared his intention to run, but Booker already has the backing of former President Barack Obama’s New Hampshire co-chairman Jim Demers, who raised concerns about the home-turf advantage for several prospective Democratic contenders already jockeying for position from neighboring states.

“I do think that it is an obstacle for other candidates,” Demers said. “History is on the side of the neighbors.”

Leading New Hampshire Democrats have already raised the possibility of dual winners emerging in the all-important expectations game over the coming year — one for the New Englanders and another for the many outsiders in what is expected to be a massive group of Democrats running for the chance to deny President Donald Trump a second term.

Historically, no state has played a more important role in culling the presidential field than New Hampshire, which traditionally holds the nation’s first primary contest following the Iowa caucuses. Typically, a candidate must win — or, just as important, exceed expectations — to earn the necessary political support and fundraising to sustain the grueling state-by-state primary trek ahead.

[LFC]

Looks like a number of top players in the election market are waiting to see what Beto O'Rourke does.

Quote

As Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) contemplates translating his wild midterm popularity into a presidential bid, the usual machinery of 2020 primary prep has ground to a halt as top party players wait to see what the charismatic Texan will do.

According to a Monday Politico report, O’Rourke’s historical fundraising prowess and electric popularity has fundraisers and operatives holding back from other probable candidates in the hopes of signing on with the “new Barack Obama.”

“They’re not wanting to sign on to other presidential campaigns until they know whether Beto is going,” Mikal Watts, Democratic money bundler, told Politico. “And if Beto is running, what good progressive Democrat wouldn’t want to work for Beto O’Rourke? I can tell you that there has not been this kind of level of electric excitement about a candidate since [Obama].”

Young, popular, charismatic, and potentially the kind of candidate that could cause an even further shift of younger voters to the Dems? The Republicans must be crapping themselves over the possibility that Trump might decide to run in 2020.

[D. C. Sessions]

LFC, on 14 November 2018 - 01:31 PM, said:

This SHOULD be a non-partisan issue

You're so cute!

[D. C. Sessions]

I know who I don't want to be nominated:

• Bernie Sanders. Too many reasons to count.
  
• Elizabeth Warren. She's far to valuable in the Senate. Also, the governor of Massachusetts is a Republican.
  
• Beto O'Rourke. He might actually turn Texas purple, which is not something I can see anyone else doing (since the Castro brothers don't seem inclined.)
  
• Any Senator from a red State or in general where they might be replaced by a Republican.
  
• Carry-on baggage only.

[AnBr]

Not Brown for reasons 2 and 4. The sleezebag DeWine got the gov's house would most certainly replace him with a knuckle dragger.

[LFC]

Looks like Sanders wants to run again. God help us. He is NOT helpful to increasing the appeal of the Democratic Party to a majority of Americans.

Quote

An insurgent underdog no more, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is laying the groundwork to launch a bigger presidential campaign than his first, as advisers predict he would open the 2020 Democratic presidential primary season as a political powerhouse.

A final decision has not been made, but those closest to the 77-year-old self-described democratic socialist suggest that neither age nor interest from a glut of progressive presidential prospects would dissuade him from undertaking a second shot at the presidency. And as Sanders’ brain trust gathered for a retreat in Vermont over the weekend, some spoke openly about a 2020 White House bid as if it was almost a foregone conclusion.

“This time, he starts off as a front-runner, or one of the front-runners,” Sanders’ 2016 campaign manager Jeff Weaver told The Associated Press, highlighting the senator’s proven ability to generate massive fundraising through small-dollar donations and his ready-made network of staff and volunteers.

Weaver added: “It’ll be a much bigger campaign if he runs again, in terms of the size of the operation.”

Meanwhile Beto O'Rourke is looking like he's either lining up a run or increasing his profile for a future run.

Quote

The New Hampshire Young Democrats are clamoring for Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) to travel to the Granite State to take a tour and meet voters — just two weeks after the Des Moines Democrats also extended the invitation.

This second invite from a crucial state for presidential contenders has not yet been answered by the young rising star, according to a Thursday CNBC report.

Top Democratic donors and operatives, many of whom have put their 2020 plans on hold while O’Rourke decides whether or not to challenge President Donald Trump, have reportedly been probing the Texan’s associates to suss out which way he’s leaning.

Some have speculated that if O’Rourke decides to sit out the presidential race, he could instead challenge Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) when his seat is up in 2020.

[AnBr]

https://www.nbcnews....esident-n943411

[JackD]

If Joe Biden is the most qualified candidate for the presidency, the Democrats are in serious trouble.

[golden_valley]

Did Trump's Wine Mean Anybody Can Be President?

[LFC]

golden_valley, on 05 December 2018 - 11:14 AM, said:

Did Trump's Wine Mean Anybody Can Be President?

Well, if you're running as a Republican.

EDIT: I should note that "Trump's Wine" sounds like another failed venture. I can hear him pitching it at a MAGA rally now; "Trump wine, white and tasteless just like us!"